Podcasts about south lake union

Send us a textIsaiah Ruffin and Colleen Constant began their pizza business journey in a renovated school bus in Colorado, always envisioning a brick-and-mortar restaurant. After evaluating that Fort Collins, Colorado, wasn't where they would open a brick and mortar, the couple began traveling to cities, researching areas in Chicago, Washington, D.C., Austin and others. Seattle stood out and after several visits, they took the leap. Within six months of moving to Seattle and doing popups, they found their first brick-and-mortar spot, Pizza by Ruffin “Savor the Authentic Taste of the Black Diaspora via Pizza al Taglio.” They pride themselves on being black-owned, women-owned and veteran-owned. Pizza by Ruffin opened in the Fairview Market Hall within South Lake Union. The two established the restaurant by identifying the work/life balance they wanted and built the business around their vision. Isaiah shares what they created with their pizzeria. We also talk:·         Foot traffic·         The current business environment·         Going with Roman style·         Sourcing ingredients locally·         Culinary focused on exploration·         The skill, art and science of dough making·         Transition from hand mixing dough to using a mixer·         Summer menu additions like sandwiches  Learn more about Pizza by Isaiah at https://www.pizzabyruffin.com/ and on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pizzabyruffin/  

An ex-con that received clemency from former Washington Governor Jay Inslee was arrested for possessing a massive amount of fentanyl. An activist judge attempted to stop the Trump Administration violent illegal aliens over the weekend. Trump has pulled Secret Service protection for Hunter Biden. // LongForm: GUEST: We Heart Seattle’s Andrea Suarez on the epidemic of vacant lots in King County being taken over by homeless people. // Quick Hit: A Seattle Transit Activist wants gondolas from Capitol Hill to South Lake Union. Arizona Senator Mark Kelly has new ride.

What’s Trending: Today is the first day of Amazon’s mandatory return to in person work. Local business owners are hopeful that it will promote commerce in the South Lake Union area, but officials are worried about the influx of traffic. You can’t make this up, After accidental leak of Democrat tax plans, will voters fall for their scheme? // LongForm: GUEST:  King County Assessor John Wilson is hoping to bring some moderate policies to the county. He’s running for King County Executive // Quick Hit: College-bound students fear ‘outing’ undocumented parents on FAFSA financial aid form

3pm: Boeing employees brace for impact amidst first day of layoffs // Touching on Boeing’s storied history, and future, in Washington and beyond // Boeing Hires Northrop Executive to Revamp Pentagon Projects // Is Seattle ready to put the South Lake Union streetcar on the chopping block? // The Demolition of Mama’s Mexican Kitchen // Some of Seattle’s most missed landmarks 

6pm: Boeing employees brace for impact amidst first day of layoffs // Touching on Boeing’s storied history, and future, in Washington and beyond // Boeing Hires Northrop Executive to Revamp Pentagon Projects // Is Seattle ready to put the South Lake Union streetcar on the chopping block? // The Demolition of Mama’s Mexican Kitchen // Some of Seattle’s most missed landmarks 

Two Goodwill locations in Seattle will close in late September due to "escalating theft, safety concerns" as well as rising rents, the company announced last week. The South Lake Union location on Westlake Avenue North and the University District store on University Way Northeast are the two impacted. The locations, open since 2008, will be open for donations and shopping until September 22. “The decision to close these stores was not made lightly,” said Derieontay Sparks, Sr. Vice President, Customer Experience, Retail, and Revenue Growth at Evergreen Goodwill in a release. “Both locations have experienced a troubling rise in property damage, break-ins, and safety concerns for our employees. These challenges, coupled with rising rent and operational costs, have made it unsustainable to continue operating in these areas.”

Beat Migs! And we chat about a time you had to fake it til you make it and how Sara almost got lost on South Lake Union!

What’s Trending: Jason attended the South Lake Union community meeting to discuss the low-barrier tiny house village proposed near his apartment. // Jason reviews Adrift, First Reformed and How to Talk to Girls at Parties. // GUEST: Former state Attorney General Rob McKenna weighs in on Seattle Mayor’s proposed gun law. // Snohomish County mom moves her kids into virtual school because she’s worried about school shootings.

What’s Trending: Semi Bird committed fraud against the US Army and is accused of stolen valor. // Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s NY “hush money” trial said the jury doesn’t have to be unanimous to get a conviction. Joe Biden plays the race card in a desperate attempt to gin up support. // An encampment in South Lake Union near Seattle Center has finally been cleared.

What’s Trending: Activists protest the lack of transparency in SPD chief search. // Keith Ellison is going to boycott the NFL. // The Big Local: A couple in Olympia gave their newborn an extremely long name. Monroe is the latest city in Snohomish County to allow ATVs on city streets. // An update on the impending South Lake Union encampment.

What’s Trending: Washington State has higher gas prices than it did last year. Pro-Palestine Google employees protested outside the company’s South Lake Union office to object to the country’s contract with Israel. The American Airlines pilots union said it has seen an increase in “safety-related issues.” // LongForm: GUEST: GUEST: Congressional candidate Leslie Lewallen is calling out the WA GOP for the new way they’re handling endorsements this year.  // The Quick Hit: Some House Republicans are calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to resign.

Hear from MaSanda LaRa Gadd of Parkview Seattle. "Parkview Event Space is located in the Seattle Unity building, newly constructed by world-renowned architects Olson Kundig. The building is located in South Lake Union and opens onto beautiful Denny Park.".www.bestmadevideos.com/podcasts.www.parkviewseattle.com

One year ago this week, 23-year old graduate student Jaahnvi Kandula was struck and killed by a speeding police cruiser in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood. Over that year, members of the South Asian American community have been pushing for more accountability. We can only make Soundside because listeners support us. Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW:https://www.kuow.org/donate/soundside

Please enjoy this re-air of our listeners' favorite topical show of 2023! On this topical show re-air, Crystal chats with former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his former Senior Communications Advisor Robert Cruickshank about the missed opportunity for generational impact through how decisions were made about Seattle's waterfront and the SR99 tunnel. Mike and Robert review how the vision of the scrappy People's Waterfront Coalition, centered around making a prized public space accessible for all while taking the climate crisis on by transforming our transportation system, nearly won the fight against those who prioritized maintaining highway capacity and those who prioritized increasing Downtown property values.  The conversation then highlights how those with power and money used their outsized influence to make backroom decisions - despite flawed arguments and little public enthusiasm for their proposal - leaving Seattle with an underutilized deep bore tunnel and a car-centric waterfront. Some of the decision makers are still active in local politics - including current Mayor Bruce Harrell and his current advisor Tim Burgess. With important elections ahead, Crystal, Mike and Robert discuss how political decisions tend to conflict with campaign promises rather than donor rolls, how proven action is a better indicator than value statements, and how today's dense ecosystem of progressive leaders and organizations can take inspiration and win the next fight. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii, Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, and Robert Cruickshank at @cruickshank.   Mike McGinn Mike is the Executive Director of national nonprofit America Walks.  He got his start in local politics as a neighborhood activist pushing for walkability. From there he founded a non-profit focused on sustainable and equitable growth, and then became mayor of Seattle. Just before joining America Walks, Mike worked to help Feet First, Washington State's walking advocacy organization, expand their sphere of influence across Washington state. He has worked on numerous public education, legislative, ballot measure and election campaigns – which has given him an abiding faith in the power of organizing and volunteers to create change.   Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013.   Resources “Seattle Waterfront History Interviews: Cary Moon, Waterfront Coalition” by Dominic Black from HistoryLink   “State Route 99 tunnel - Options and political debate" from Wikipedia   “Remembering broken promises about Bertha” by Josh Cohen from Curbed Seattle   “Fewer drivers in Seattle's Highway 99 tunnel could create need for bailout” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times   “Surface Highway Undermines Seattle's Waterfront Park” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle Prepares to Open Brand New Elliott Way Highway Connector” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Robert Cruickshank and former Mayor Mike McGinn to the show to talk about something that a lot of people have been thinking about, talking about recently - and that is Seattle's new waterfront. We feel like we've spent a decade under construction - from a deep bore tunnel to the tunnel machine getting stuck - that's not even covering all the debate before that, but all of the kind of follies and foibles and challenges that have beset the process of arriving at the waterfront that we have now. And now that we are getting the big reveal, a lot of people have feelings about it. So I thought we would talk about it with one of the people who was at the forefront of criticisms of the tunnel and calling out some red flags that turned out to be a very wise warning - several wise warnings that have come to pass, unfortunately - for not listening to them. But I want to start early on in the beginning, both of you - and I had a short stint in the mayor's office - worked on this, talked about this on the campaign, really got it. But when did you first hear that we needed to replace the viaduct and there were some different opinions about how to make that happen? [00:02:06] Mike McGinn: Okay, so I'm sure I can't pin down a date, but the really important date was, of course, the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. And so it gave the Alaska Way Viaduct a good shake - the decks weren't tied into the columns, the columns were on fill, which could liquefy - and everybody understood that if that quake had been a little stronger and harder, the elevated would come down. Now you might think that that would call for immediately closing the roadway for safety reasons, but what it did call for was for reconstructing it. And you have to remember that highway was really one of the very first limited access highways - it was built long ago and it was just at the end of its useful life anyway. Certainly not built to modern seismic standards or modern engineering standards. So the conversation immediately started and I don't know when everything started to settle into different roles, but the Mayor of Seattle Greg Nickels, was immediately a proponent for a tunnel - and a much larger and more expensive tunnel than what was ultimately built. And it would have been a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront that included a new seawall. So they thought they were solving two things at one time - because the seawall too was rotting away, very old, very unstable. But it would have gone all the way under South Lake Union and emerged onto Aurora Avenue further north, it would have had entrances and exits to Western and Elliott. And I seem to remember the quoted price was like $11 billion. And the state - governor at the time was Christine Gregoire - they were - No, we're replacing the highway. We don't have $11 billion for Seattle. And of course had the support of a lot of lawmakers for obvious reasons - we're not going to give Seattle all that money, we want all that highway money for our districts. And those were immediately presented as the alternatives. And so much of the credit has to go to Cary Moon, who lived on the waterfront and started something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. I think Grant Cogswell, a former City Council candidate - now runs a bookstore down in Mexico City, but wrote a book about the Monorail, worked on the different Monorail campaigns before that - they launched something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. And the basic proposition was - We don't need a highway. This is a great opportunity to get rid of the highway and have a surface street, but if you amp up the transit service - if we invest in transit instead - we can accommodate everyone. And so that was really - as it started - and actually I remember being outside City Hall one day, going to some stakeholder meeting - I went to so many different stakeholder meetings. And I remember Tim Ceis saying to me - he was the Deputy Mayor at the time - You're not supporting that Cary Moon idea - I mean, that's just crazy. I was - Well, actually, Tim. So the Sierra Club was - I was a volunteer leader in the Sierra Club - and the Sierra Club was one of the first organizations - I'm sure there were others, I shouldn't overstate it - but the Sierra Club was persuaded by the wisdom of Cary's idea and supported it in that day. And so that was really how the three different options got launched - no public process, no analysis, no description of what our needs were. The mayor went to a solution, the governor went to a solution - and it was up to members of the public to try to ask them to slow down, stop, and look at something different. [00:05:42] Crystal Fincher: And Robert, how did you first engage with this issue? [00:05:47] Robert Cruickshank: For me, I had just moved to Seattle the first time in the fall of 2001 - so it was about six months after the Nisqually quake - and I came from the Bay Area. And that was where another earthquake had damaged another waterfront highway, the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. And that was where San Francisco had voted - after that quake had damaged their viaduct beyond repair - they voted to tear it down and replace it with the Embarcadero Waterfront, which is a six-lane arterial but they built a lot more transit there. So they did the - what we might call the surface transit option - and it worked really well. It was beautiful. It still is. And so when I came up here and started to learn a little bit about the place I was living and the legacy of the Nisqually quake, I thought - Oh, why don't you just do the same thing here? It worked so well in San Francisco. Let's just tear down this unsightly monstrosity on the waterfront and replace it with a surface boulevard and put in a bunch of transit - San Francisco's made it work successfully. And the more I learned about Seattle, I realized there's a legacy of that here, too. This is a city where we had a freeway revolt, where activists came together and killed the RH Thomson freeway, which would have destroyed the Arboretum. They killed the Bay Freeway, which would have destroyed Pike Place Market. And so I naturally assumed - as being a relatively new resident - that Seattle would stay in that tradition and welcome the opportunity to tear this down and build a great waterfront for people, not cars. But as we'll talk about in a moment, we have a lot of business interests and freight interests and others who had a different vision - who didn't share that community-rooted vision. And I think at numerous points along the way, though, you see people of Seattle saying - No, this is not what we want for our waterfront. We have an opportunity now with the fact that this viaduct nearly collapsed, as Mike mentioned, in the Nisqually quake - we have an opportunity for something really wonderful here. And so I think Cary Moon and then Mike McGinn and others tapped into that - tapped into a really strong community desire to have a better waterfront. I wasn't that politically engaged at the time in the 2000s - I was just a grad student at UW - but just talking to folks who I knew, anytime this came up - God, wouldn't it be wonderful down there if this was oriented towards people and not cars, and we took that thing down? So I think one of the things you're going to see is this contest between the vision that many of us in Seattle had and still have - this beautiful location, beautiful vista on Elliott Bay, that should be for the people of the city - and those in power who have a very different vision and don't really want to share power or ultimately the right-of-way with We the People. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And I was involved in some things at the time - some curious coalitions - but definitely I was around a lot of people who favored either rebuilding the viaduct or the tunnel. Definitely not this roads and transit option - there's no way that's workable. That's pie-in-the-sky talk from those loony greenies over there. What are you talking about? But as this went on - I think no matter what camp people were in - there was always a clear vision articulated and people really focused on the opportunity that this represented, and I think correctly characterized it as - this is one of these generational decisions that we get to make that is going to impact the next generation or two and beyond. And there's an opportunity - the waterfront felt very disconnected with the way things were constructed - it was not easy just to go from downtown to the waterfront. It wasn't friendly for pedestrians. It wasn't friendly for tourists. It just did not feel like a world-class waterfront in a world-class city, and how we see that in so many other cities. You talk about the decision with the Embarcadero, Robert, and looking at - that definitely seemed like a definitive step forward. This was sold as - yeah, we can absolutely take a step forward and finally fix this waterfront and make it what it should have been the whole time. As you thought about the opportunity that this represented, what was the opportunity to you and what did you hear other people saying that they wanted this to be? [00:09:38] Mike McGinn: Yeah, so I think there are - I think that's really important, because I don't think there was a real discussion of what the vision was. People will say there was, but there really wasn't. Because what was baked in and what you're referring to is - well, of course you have to build automobile capacity to replace the existing automobile capacity, right? In fact, this state is still building more highways across the state in the misguided belief that more highway capacity will somehow or another do some good. So this idea that you have to replace and expand highway capacity is extremely powerful in Washington state and across the country. And there were very few examples of highway removal, so that was just a real challenge in the first place - that somehow or other the first priority has to be moving automobiles. For me, at that time I had become - the issue of climate had really penetrated me at that point. And in fact, when Greg Nickels took office and the Sierra Club endorsed him over Paul Schell - I was a local leader in the Sierra Club and a state leader in the Sierra Club - and my goal was that Mayor Nickels would do more than Paul Schell. And Paul Schell, the prior mayor, had done some good things. He had made Seattle City Light climate neutral - we'd gotten out of coal plants and we didn't purchase power from coal plants. He was really progressive on a number of environmental issues and we wanted Mayor Nickels to do more - and Mayor Nickels had stepped up. So we put on a campaign to urge him to do more. And he had stepped up to start something called the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative - which was the City of Seattle was going to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol, which was like the Paris Agreement of its day. And that was - it set an emissions reduction target by a date in the future. And that was really great - in fact, over a thousand cities around the country signed up to the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative. And I was appointed to a stakeholder group with other leaders - Denis Hayes from the Bullitt Foundation and others - to develop the first climate action plan for a city. Al Gore showed up at the press conference for it - it was a big - it was a BFD and a lot of excitement. And one of the things that was abundantly clear through that process of cataloging the emissions in the City of Seattle and coming up with a plan to reduce them was that our single largest source of emissions at that time was the transportation sector. We'd already gotten off of coal power under Mayor Schell - we received almost all of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. We had good conservation programs. Unlike other parts of the country, transportation was the biggest. Now what's fascinating is now - I don't know if I want to do the math - almost 20 years later, now what we see is that the whole country is in the same place. We're replacing coal and natural gas power plants. And now nationally, the single largest source of emissions is transportation. So how do you fix that? If we're serious about climate - and I thought we should be - because the scientists were telling us about heat waves. They were telling us about forest fires that would blanket the region in smoke. They were telling us about storms that would be bigger than we'd ever seen before. And flooding like we'd never seen and declining snowpack. And it was all going to happen in our futures. Honestly, I remember those predictions from the scientists because they're in the headlines today, every day. So what do we do to stop that? So I was - I had little kids, man - I had little kids, I had three kids. How are we going to stop this? Well, it's Seattle needs to lead - that's what has to happen. We're the progressive city. We're the first one out with a plan. We're going to show how we're going to do it. And if our biggest source is transportation, we should fix that. Well, it should seem obvious that the first thing you should do is stop building and expanding highways, and maybe even change some of the real estate used for cars and make it real estate for walking, biking, and transit. That's pretty straightforward. You also have to work on more housing. And this all led me to starting a nonprofit around all of these things and led to the Sierra Club - I think at a national level - our chapter was much further forward than any other chapter on upzones and backyard cottages and making the transition. So to me, this was the big - that was the vision. That was the opportunity. We're going to tear this down. We're going to make a massive investment in changing the system, and this in fact could be a really transformative piece. That's what motivated me. That climate argument wasn't landing with a whole bunch of other interests. There was certainly a vision from the Downtown and Downtown property owners and residents that - boy, wouldn't it be great to get rid of that elevated highway because that's terrible. There was also a vision from the people who still believed in highway capacity and that includes some of our major employers at the time and today - Boeing and Microsoft, they have facilities in the suburbs around Seattle - they think we need highway capacity. As well as all of the Port businesses, as well as all the maritime unions - thought that this highway connection here was somehow critical to their survival, the industrial areas. And then they wanted the capacity. So there were very strong competing visions. And I think it's fair to say that highway capacity is a vision - we've seen that one is now fulfilled. The second priority was an enhanced physical environment to enhance the property values of Downtown property owners. And they cut the deal with the highway capacity people - okay, we're here for your highway capacity, but we have to get some amenities. And the climate folks, I'm not seeing it - never a priority of any of the leaders - just wasn't a priority. [00:15:44] Crystal Fincher: How did you see those factions come into play and break down, Robert? [00:15:48] Robert Cruickshank: It was interesting. This all comes to a head in the late 2000s. And remembering back to that time, this is where Seattle is leading the fight to take on the climate and the fight against George W. Bush, who was seen as this avatar of and deeply connected to the oil industry. Someone who - one of his first things when he took office - he did was withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, which is the earlier version of what's now known as the Paris Agreement - global agreement to try to lower emissions. And so Seattle, in resisting Bush - that's where Greg Nickels became a national figure by leading the Mayors' Climate Action Group - not just say we're going to take on climate, we're going to do something about really de facto fighting back against Bush. And then Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore comes out with An Inconvenient Truth. And by 2007, people in Seattle are talking a lot about climate and how we need to do something about climate. But then what you see happening is the limits of that - what are people really actually willing to do and willing to support? The other piece that comes together, I think - in the 2000s - is a revival of the City itself. Seattle spends the late 20th century after the Boeing bust - since the 70s "Will the last person out of Seattle turn out the lights," recovering in the 80s somewhat, recovering in the 90s, and then the tech boom. And by the 2000s, Seattle is a destination city for young people coming to live here and living in apartments and working in the tech industry. I think that unsettles a lot of people. One thing that really stood out to me about the discussion about what to do on the waterfront was this vision from old school folks - like Joel Connelly and others - we've got to preserve that working waterfront. And it's very much the sense that blue collar working class labor is under threat - not from corporate power, but from a 20-something millennial with a laptop working at Amazon who comes to Seattle and thinks - Gosh, why is this ugly viaduct here? It's unsafe. Why don't we just tear it down and have a wonderful waterfront view? And those who are offended by this idea - who are so wedded to the 20th century model that we're going to drive everywhere, cars, freedom - this is where you see the limits of willingness to actually do something on climate. People don't actually want to give up their cars. They're afraid they're going to sacrifice their way of life. And you start to see this weird but powerful constellation come together where rather than having a discussion about transportation planning or even a discussion about climate action, we're having this weird discussion about culture. And it becomes a culture war. And the thing about a culture war is people pushing change are never actually trying to fight a war. They're just - This is a good idea. Why don't we do this? We all say these - we care about these values. And the people who don't want it just dig in and get really nasty and fight back. And so you start to see Cary Moon, People's Waterfront Coalition, Mike McGinn, and others get attacked as not wanting working class jobs, not wanting a working waterfront, not caring about how people are going to get to work, not caring about how the freight trucks are going to get around even though you're proposing a tunnel from the Port to Wallingford where - it's not exactly an industrial hub - there are some businesses there. But dumping all these cars out or in South Lake Union, it's like, what is going on here? It doesn't add up. But it became this powerful moment where a competing vision of the City - which those of us who saw a better future for Seattle didn't see any competition as necessary at all - those who are wedded to that model where we're going to drive everywhere, we're going to have trucks everywhere, really saw that under threat for other reasons. And they decided this is where they're going to make their stand. This is where they're going to make that fight. And that turned out to be pretty useful for the Port, the freight groups, the establishment democratic leaders who had already decided for their own reasons this is what they wanted too. [00:19:11] Mike McGinn: It's important to recognize too, in this, is to follow the money. And I think that this is true for highway construction generally. You have a big section of the economy - there's a section of the economy that believes in it, as Robert was saying, right? And I do think the culture war stuff is fully there - that somehow or another a bike lane in an industrial area will cause the failure of business. Although if you went to the bike - outside the industrial building - you'll find a bunch of the workers' bike there, right? Because it's affordable and efficient. So there's this weird belief that just isn't true - that you can't accommodate industry and transit and walking and biking. Of course you can. And in fact, adding all the cars is bad for freight movement because of all the traffic jams. So there's that belief, but there's also a whole bunch of people - I mentioned Downtown property owners - that gets you to your Downtown Seattle Association. The value of their property is going to be dramatically enhanced by burying, by eliminating the waterfront highway. But then you also have all of the people who build highways and all of the people who support the people who build highways. Who's going to float $4 billion in bonds? It's going to be a Downtown law firm. And by the way, the person who worked for that Downtown law firm and did the bond work was the head of the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time. So you have the engineering firms, you have the material providers, and then you have the union jobs that go with it. So really at this point - and this isn't just about the waterfront highway, this could be any highway expansion - you've captured the business community because a big chunk of the business community will get direct dollars from the government to them. And you've actually captured a significant chunk of the labor community as well, because labor fights for labor jobs. In the big picture, service workers are taking transit, service workers need housing in town, and you can start to see a split - like in my ultimate run for mayor, I won some service worker unions, never won any construction trades. In fact, they held a rally my first year in office to denounce me, right? Because I was standing in the way of jobs. So that's a really powerful coalition. And I think what you see today in the country as a whole - as you know, I'm the ED of America Walks, so I get to see a lot more - this is a pattern. Highways aren't really supported by the public. They don't go to the public for public votes on highways anymore - the public wouldn't support it. And in fact, the data suggests the public gets that building more highway lanes won't solve everything. But you've got a big, big chunk of the economy that's gotten extremely used to billions and billions of dollars flowing into their pockets. And they need to protect that in every year. So you get that level of intensity around - Look, we're talking about $4 billion on the waterfront and a bunch of that money's coming to us. Better believe it's a good idea, and what are you talking about, climate? [00:22:03] Robert Cruickshank: You talk about public votes, and I think there are three crucial public votes we got to talk about. One is 2007, when these advisory votes are on the ballot - and they're not binding, but they're advisory. Do you want to rebuild the viaduct or build a tunnel? They both get rejected. And then the next big vote is 2009, the mayoral election, where Mike McGinn becomes mayor - in part by channeling public frustration at this giant boondoggle. And then ultimately, the last public vote on this, 2011 - in June, I believe it was, it was in August - about whether we go forward or not and the public by this point, fatigued and beaten down by The Seattle Times, decides let's just move on from this. [00:22:43] Mike McGinn: There's no other alternative. And it is worth returning to that early vote, because it was such a fascinating moment, because - I think the mayor's office didn't want to put his expansive tunnel option in a direct vote against the new elevated, fearing it would lose. So they engineered an agreement with the governor that each one would get a separate up or down vote. And by the way, Tim Ceis, the Deputy Mayor at the time, called in the Sierra Club, briefed us on it, and one of our members said - What would happen if they both got voted down? And Deputy Mayor Ceis said - by the way, Tim Ceis has got a big contract right now from Mayor Harrell, longtime tunnel supporter. Tim Ceis is the consultant for most of the business side candidates. Tim Burgess, another big supporter of the tunnel, now works for Mayor Harrell. Oh, and Christine Gregoire has been hired by the biggest corporations in the region to do their work for them as well. So there's a pretty good payoff if you stick around and support the right side of this stuff. But anyway, Mayor Ceis, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, when said, What happens if they're both voted down? He goes - Well, that would be chaos. You don't want that, do you? And I remember all of us just kind of looked at each other - and we all went out on the sidewalk, there were like six of us. And we went - We want that, right? And so we joined in and supported the No and No campaign. And The Stranger came in really hard. And I think Erica Barnett wrote the articles. And Cary Moon was in on it. And the defeat of that, for the first time, opened up the possibility - Well, let's think about something else. And so a stakeholder group was formed. Cary Moon was appointed. Mike O'Brien was appointed. The waterfront guys were appointed. And the Downtown folks were appointed. And the labor folks were appointed. And I think a really important part of the story here is that it was advisory - they weren't making the decisions, it was advisory. But they got to a point at which the head of the State DOT, the head of the Seattle DOT, and the head of the King County DOT all expressed to their respective executives that surface transit worked and was worth it. And this was extremely distressing to the business community. So they mounted a big lobbying push and went straight to Gregoire. And Gregoire, for the first time, became a tunnel supporter. And they were promised that this new tunneling technology - the deep bore tunnel - would solve the cost issues of the deep bore tunnel. And not only that, the state's commitment, which to date was $2.4 billion - they had committed $2.4 billion to a rebuild - the state wouldn't have to pay anymore, because the Port would put in $300 million and they would raise $400 million from tolling. And coincidentally, the amount they thought they could raise from tolling was the exact amount needed to meet the projected cost of using the deep bore tunnel boring machine. So the deal was cut and announced. And the whole stakeholder group and the recommendations from the DOT heads were abandoned. And that occurred, basically, late 2008, early 2009 - the deal was made. And that was about the time that I was contemplating - well, I think I'd already decided to run, but I had not yet announced. [00:26:14] Crystal Fincher: And this was an interesting time, especially during that vote. Because at that time, I had an eye into what the business community was doing and thinking, and it was clear that their numbers didn't add up. [00:26:26] Mike McGinn: Oh my God - no. [00:26:28] Crystal Fincher: But they just did not want to face that. And what they knew is they had enough money and resources to throw at this issue and to throw at a marketing effort to obfuscate that, that they wouldn't have to worry about it. And there was this sense of offense, of indignation that - Who are these people trying to come up and tell us that we don't need freight capacity, that we don't need - that this extra highway capacity, don't they understand how important these freeways are? Who are these people who just don't understand how our economy works? [00:27:02] Mike McGinn: They were the grownups who really understood how things worked. And we were the upstarts who didn't understand anything. But there's a great line from Willie Brown talking about - I think the Transbay Bridge, and Robert can correct the name, in California, which was way over budget. And people were lamenting that the early estimates had been made up. And he goes - Look, this is how it works. You just need to dig a hole in the ground so deep that the only way to fill it up is with money. I think that's pretty much the quote. So that's the strategy. You get it started. Of course you have rosy estimates. And then you just have that commitment, and it's the job of legislators to come up with the cost overruns, dollars later. [00:27:43] Robert Cruickshank: And I think it's so key to understand this moment here in the late 2000s, where the public had already weighed in. I remember voting - it was the last thing I voted on before I moved to California for four years. I'm like no - I was No and No. And that's where the Seattle voters were. They rejected both options. And then you start to hear, coming out of the stakeholder group - Okay, we can make the surface transit option work. And I left town thinking - Alright, that's what's going to happen, just like the Embarcadero in San Francisco and done. And the next thing I hear in late 2008, early 2009, there's this deal that's been cut and all of a sudden a deep bore tunnel is on the table. And this is Seattle politics in a nutshell. I think people look back and think that because we are this smart, progressive technocratic city - those people who live here are - we think that our government works the same way. And it doesn't. This is - time and time again, the public will make its expression felt. They'll weigh in with opinion poll or protest or vote. And the powers that be will say - Well, actually, we want to do this thing instead. We'll cook it up in a backroom. We're going to jam it on all of you, and you're going to like it. And if you don't like it, then we're going to start marshaling resources. We're gonna throw a bunch of money at it. We'll get The Seattle Times to weigh in and pound away at the enemy. And that's how politics works here - that's how so much of our transportation system is built and managed. And so people today, in 2023, looking at this monstrosity on the waterfront that we have now think - How did we get here? Who planned this? It was planned in a backroom without public involvement. And I think that's a thing that has to be understood because that, as we just heard, was baked in from the very start. [00:29:11] Mike McGinn: Well, Robert, the idea of a deep bore tunnel was brought forward by a representative of the Discovery Institute, who you may know as the folks that believe in creationism. [00:29:21] Robert Cruickshank: Well, and not only that, the Discovery Institute is responsible for turning Christopher Rufo from a failed Seattle City Council candidate in 2019 into a national figure. [00:29:31] Mike McGinn: The Discovery Institute, with money from local donors - major, very wealthy local folks - they actually had a long-term plan to turn all of 99 into a limited access freeway. It's like - we need to get rid of that First Avenue South and Highway 99 and Aurora Avenue stuff - all of that should be a freeway. So they were the architects of the idea of - Hey, this deep bore tunnel is the solution. But Robert's point is just right on - transportation policy was driven by power and money, not by transportation needs, or climate needs, or equity needs, or even local economy needs really. When you get right down to it, our city runs on transit - that's what really matters. Our city runs on the fact that it's a city where people can walk from place to place. The idea that our economic future was tied to a highway that would skip Downtown - the most valuable place in the Pacific Northwest, Downtown Seattle. No, that's not really what powers our economy. But it certainly worked for the people that were going to get the dollars that flowed from folks and for the people who own Downtown property. [00:30:42] Crystal Fincher: And I want to talk about money and power with this. Who were the people in power? What was the Council at that time? Who made these decisions? [00:30:50] Mike McGinn: The Council at the time was elected citywide. And I think some people have concerns about district representation, but one of the things that citywide elections meant at the time was that you had to run a citywide campaign, and that's expensive. There's no way to knock on enough doors citywide. I did not have a lot of money when I ran for mayor, but at least I had the media attention that would go to a mayoral candidate. A City Council candidate would kind of flow under the radar. So you had people come from different places, right? They might come from the business side, they might come from the labor side. But ultimately, they would tend to make peace with the other major players - because only business and only labor could finance a campaign. They were the only ones with the resources to do that. So the other interests - the environmentalists, the social service folks, neighborhood advocates of whatever stripe - we chose from amongst the candidates that were elevated by, they would unify - in some cases, the business and labor folks would unify around a candidate. In fact, that's what we saw in the last two mayoral elections as well, where they pick a candidate. And so this doesn't leave much room. So when I was mayor, almost the entire council was aligned with the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time, either endorsed by them or had made their peace with them so the challenger was not being financed. So Robert said something about those outsiders - I went under the radar screen as a candidate at the beginning of my campaign. When I entered the race, nobody was running because everybody thought that Greg Nickels had the institutional support locked down. [00:32:33] Crystal Fincher: But then a snowstorm happened. [00:32:35] Mike McGinn: Well, it was even before that - honestly, everybody thought that he could win. And long before the snowstorm, I was like - We're getting a new mayor. And I was actually looking around to try to figure out who it was going to be - because I wanted a mayor who actually believed in climate, who had my values. But nobody - I was looking through who the people were that might run, and it dawned on me - Well, nobody's going to run. But we're going to get a new mayor and I have my values - and I've actually run ballot measure campaigns and had a very modest base of support. So I was really the first one in the race that got any attention. So I got some great media attention off that. Then my opponent in the general, Joe Mallahan - whatever else you may think about Joe Mallahan - he actually saw it too. He saw that there was an opening. And then we were joined by a long-time City Councilmember, Jan Drago. And I remember the headline from The Seattle Times or the comments at the time was - Okay, now it's a real race. But it just really wasn't. So I was really under the radar screen in that race because they were disregarding me. But there was in fact a lot of anger about the tunnel. There was a lot of just - Greg, for whatever his positives or negatives that history will deal with - and by the way, I actually think Greg did a lot of good. I just was disappointed in his highway policies and his climate policies at the end of the day - I have a lot of respect for Greg Nickels, but he wasn't going to win that race. And I came out of the primary against Joe Mallahan. And all of a sudden we had these two outsiders and the business community's freaking out. All of it - I remember watching it - all of the support, the business support shifted to Joe. It took about a month, it took a few weeks. But all of a sudden - there was actually one week where I think I raised more money than he did, that was pretty unusual - and then all of a sudden all the money was pouring in. And boy, did Joe believe in that tunnel. And did Joe believe in what the Chamber of Commerce wanted to do. In fact, he believed in it so much that he believed that Seattle should pay cost overruns if there were cost overruns on the tunnel - an admission I got from him during the televised debate, I was shocked he admitted to it. [00:34:41] Crystal Fincher: I remember that debate. [00:34:43] Mike McGinn: Yeah. So you were kind of asking about how politics worked. It was really something. Yeah - here's another memory. About two weeks before the election, the City Council took - three weeks before the, two, three weeks, four weeks - they took a vote to say that the tunnel was their choice. Even though there's a mayoral election in which the tunnel is on the ballot, so to speak - in terms of the issues of the candidates - they took a vote for no reason to say it was a done deal. And then WSDOT released a video of the elevated collapsing in a highway, which is the first time a public disclosure request from a third party was ever given straight to a TV station, I think, in my experience in Seattle. I had Gregoire and the DOT folks down there working on that campaign too - their tunnel was threatened. So it really was something how - I indeed was kind of shocked at - it was such a learning experience for me - how much the ranks closed around this. I didn't appreciate it. I had my own nonprofit, I had been on stakeholder committees, I'd worked with a lot of people that weren't just Sierra Club members and neighborhood types. I'd worked with a lot of business people, many of whom had supported my nonprofit because they liked its vision. But they were very clear with me that as long as I supported the surface transit option, there was no way they could be associated with my run for mayor in any way, shape, or form - even if they liked me. It was a complete lockdown - right after the primary where Greg lost the primary and it was me and Joe, I was - Okay, open field running. I can now reach out to these people. There's no incumbent - maybe some of them can support me now. And they were abundantly clear on all of those phone calls that - Nope, can't do it. Until you change your position on the tunnel, we just can't do it. We have business in this town, Mike. We have relationships in this town. We cannot do that. So it was a real lockdown - politically. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: That was also a big learning experience for me - watching that consolidation, watching how not only were they fighting for the tunnel against you and making the fight against you a fight about the tunnel, but the enforcement to those third parties that you were talking about that - Hey, if you play ball with him, you're cut off. And those kinds of threats and that kind of dealing - watching that happen was very formative for me. I'm like - Okay, I see how this works, and this is kind of insidious. And if you are branded as an outsider, if you don't play ball, if you don't kiss the ring of the adults in the room - which is definitely what they considered themselves - then you're on the outs and they're at war. And it was really a war footing against you and the campaign. Who was on the Council at that time? [00:37:30] Mike McGinn: Oh my God. Let me see if I can go through the list. No, and it really, it was - your point about it was a war footing was not something that I fully, that I did not appreciate until actually going through that experience - how unified that would be. Excuse me. The City Council chair was Tim Burgess at the time. Bruce Harrell was on the Council. Sally Clark, Richard Conlin, Nick Licata. Mike O'Brien was running on the same platform as me with regard to the tunnel and he'd just been elected. Jean Godden, Sally Bagshaw. I hope I'm not leaving anything out - because - [00:38:04] Robert Cruickshank: Tom Rasmussen will forgive you. [00:38:06] Mike McGinn: Tom Rasmussen. Yeah - because City Councilmembers would get really offended if you didn't thank them publicly - that was another thing I had to learn. You have to publicly thank any other politician on stage with you or they held a grudge. Yeah. So I had - I didn't know all the politicians' rules when I started. [00:38:25] Crystal Fincher: There are so many rules. [00:38:27] Mike McGinn: There are so many, there's so many rules. But really what you saw then was that the Council tended to move in lockstep on many issues - because if they all voted together and they all worked citywide, there was protection. None of them could be singled out. So it was very - and it's not to say that some of them didn't take principled votes and would find themselves on an 8-1 position sometimes, but for the most part, it was much, much safer to be - it was much, much safer to vote as a group. And they tended to do that. And they had coalesced around the tunnel, except for O'Brien. And that could not be shaken by anything we brought to bear. [00:39:04] Robert Cruickshank: And this is wrapped up in not just the electoral politics, but the power politics. Because Mike McGinn comes in - mayor leading the 7th floor of City Hall, the head of City government - and smart guy, nice guy, willing to talk to anybody. But is not from their crew, is not from that group. And as Crystal and Mike said, the ranks were closed from the start. This is - again, 2009, 2010 - when nationally Mitch McConnell is quoted as saying, It's his ambition to make Obama a one-term president. I don't know if he's ever caught on record, but I would be quite certain that Tim Burgess would have said the exact same thing - that his ambition was to make Mike McGinn a one-term mayor. As it turned out in 2013, Tim Burgess wanted his job - one of the candidates running for it. So these are all people who have a reason to close ranks against Mike McGinn and to use a tunnel as a bludgeon against him to do so. [00:39:58] Mike McGinn: There were other bludgeons. After I won the general election and before I took office, they passed their annual budget - they cut the mayor's office budget by a third before I even took office. Just boom - I know - they were determined, they were determined. And so that was when the planning - that council then and with WSDOT - that was when basically the contours of the waterfront were locked into place, including what we now see as that very wide surface road. That was that Council. So if you're wondering, if you're looking at that going - Okay, wow, who decided that and where did it come from? Again, our current mayor and his current advisor and others - they've always been for that. Building that big surface road has always been the plan to go along with the tunnel, because highway capacity was their highest priority. And the park on the waterfront, along with a lot of money into the aquarium and into these new structures - that's their signature thing for so many other people. But the idea that you should, that there was an opportunity to transform our transportation system and transform our city to make it more equitable and climate friendly was never a priority in this process. Just wasn't. [00:41:20] Crystal Fincher: It was never a priority. It was never seriously considered. And to me, through this process - lots of people know, have talked about it on the show before - I actually didn't start off Team McGinn. I wound up Team McGinn - didn't start off that way. But through that - and you won me over with logic - it was you being proven right on several things. You pointed out that their projections, their traffic projections were just so far out of left field that there was no way that they were going to come close. And they even had to come down on their projections before we even saw the traffic - the actual traffic turned out to be lower. You were right on that one - the laughable - [00:41:59] Mike McGinn: They're under 40,000 cars a day - for a highway that was carrying 110,000 cars a day beforehand. So even as a traffic solution - to put that into context, 40,000 cars a day is like the Ballard Bridge. And I can guarantee you the replacement costs of the Ballard Bridge is not $4 billion or $3.1 billion. The E Line, I think, carries 15,000 people a day. Metro carries 220,000 people a day. What you could do with that $3.1 billion or $4 billion in terms of bus lanes, bike lanes, rolling stock for Metro, maybe pay raises for bus drivers so that we could actually have service - you could do so much with those billions of dollars. And we put it all into moving 40,000 cars a day? It's just pathetic. That's three Rapid Ride lines we could have had for a 10th of the cost, or even less. I think the investments in Rapid Ride lines are about $50-100 million a line to make the capital investments to make it work. So the waste - even if you don't care about climate, the waste of dollars - and who's paying those taxes? To a great degree, we have the most regressive state and local tax system in the nation. And we'll have a ballot measure soon, and I know a lot of environmentalists will be out there if the package spends for the right thing saying - Hey, we need money for local streets. Imagine if we'd taken that gas tax money and the Legislature had allowed cities and towns to use it to improve their streets - which they can do. I know that the constitution says highway purposes, but when you read highway purposes, it says roads and bridges. It includes everything. You can use gas taxes for anything that improves the road. And they do. WSDOT has used gas taxes to pay for bike lanes and sidewalks. It's legal. That's a choice. So we're driving around potholed streets. We have - we're putting up little plastic dividers because we care more about the car getting hurt than the bicyclist on the other side of that plastic divider. We're watching our transit service melt away because we can't pay bus drivers enough. But hey, man, somebody's got a really rapid - 3,000 people a day get to skip Downtown in their private vehicles. Where are our priorities for equity? Where are the priorities for economy, or even just plain old-fashioned fiscal prudence? None of that was there - because all of those dollars were going to fund the needs of the most powerful people in the City. And they captured those dollars - and all of us will pay the taxes, all of us will breathe the smoky air, and all of us will watch our streets deteriorate and our transit service evaporate. [00:44:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And to me, it was such a foundational lesson that the people that we have making decisions really matter - and that we have to really explore their records, their donors, their histories - because over and over again, we look at the decisions that wind up being made that frequently conflict with campaign promises, but that very, very rarely conflict with their donor rolls. [00:45:16] Mike McGinn: And yes - and every one of them knows how to make the value statements. So if I had any advice for people in this year's election - everyone is going to say they care about housing, everyone's going to say they think biking safe. I don't - one of the things that I came away with - I don't care about the goals you put into some policy anymore. Show me the hard physical action you will take that might piss somebody off, but you're willing to do it because it's right. And if you can't do that, then your value statements are meaningless. So take a look - who actually, and that's the question I always ask candidates for office - Tell me about a time you did something hard that might've caused you criticism, but you did it because it was right. Or that you made somebody who was an ally or friend upset, but you did it because it was right. Tell me about that time. [00:46:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a challenge. And to your point and learning through just watching how people operated through that and some other processes - but that certainly was a big learning for me - is the role of coalitions, the role of accountability, and understanding. You have always had your finger on the pulse of Seattle, really - you're extraordinarily good at that. You're actually - both of you - are great strategists. But our political class is so detached from that sometimes - certainly I'm feeling frustration at some recent actions by our Legislature - we just had our special session day where they increased criminalization of substances, personal possession of substances - just reflecting on legislation to provide school, kids with free meals at school, things that seem like really basic and foundational that we should be able to land this. If we can call a special session to hand Boeing billions of dollars, we should be able to feed kids, right? [00:47:00] Mike McGinn: At the time we were cutting school budgets - when we found money for that. But I don't want to be too gloomy. And then I want to turn it over to Robert to get a last word in here, 'cause I just loved - his analysis is so awesome. I don't want to be too gloomy because - I look at what happened in the Legislature this year on housing, that we're finally going to allow housing, people to build more housing in places so people can actually live closer to their jobs and live more affordably. 10 years ago, we would have thought that was impossible. There's a lot of hard organizing that did it. At America Walks, we're the host of the Freeway Fighters Networks - there are people in 40 cities or more around the country that are organizing to remove highways. And while it's just a small amount of money compared to the amount going to highway expansion, there's actually federal funds to study and remove highways. So it's a long, hard slog. What felt for us - for Robert and me and Cary Moon and others fighting this - which felt like an impossible fight at the time is a fight that is now winning in places. Not winning enough - we're not winning fast enough - but it can change. And so that's - I don't want to be too negative. They got money, but organizing and people - and we actually have the public with us on this, just like we have the public with us on housing. So we just have to do more. We just got to keep at it, folks - got to keep at it. We can win this one. Don't allow this story of how hard it was to deal with the unified political class in the City of Seattle for their climate arson - should not deter you. It should inspire you, 'cause I actually won the mayor's office and we actually did do a lot of good. And the next fight is right in front of us again today, so get in it people. We need you. [00:48:46] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's spot on. And I remember coming to work in your office at the very beginning of 2011, when it seemed like the tunnel was just dominating discussion, but not in the mayor's office, right? When I joined, I fully expected to be like - roll my sleeves up to take on that tunnel. Instead, I'm working on the mayor's jobs plan, the Families and Education Levy, on transit. That's the stuff that was really getting done, and I think McGinn left a really great legacy on that. But we didn't win the tunnel fight. And I think we've diagnosed many of the reasons why, but one thing that really stands out to me as I look back from 12, 13 years distance is we didn't have the same density of genuinely progressive and social democratic organizations and people and leaders in Seattle that we have now. I think that matters because Mike's been talking about what's the next fight. I think one of the big fights coming up next year - when it comes time to renew that Move Seattle Levy - that's nearly a billion dollars that's going to be on the table. And we keep getting promised - when we are asked to approve these massive levies - that a lot of that money is going to go to safe streets, it's going to go to protect vulnerable users, we're going to do something to finally get towards Vision Zero. And instead it all gets taken away to build more car infrastructure. At what point do we finally stand - literally in the road - and say, No more. Do we look at the broken promises on the waterfront where we were promised a beautiful pedestrian-friendly waterfront and got another car sewer? We're going to have to organize and come together. We have many more groups now and many more leaders who are willing to stand up and say - We're not passing this levy unless it actually focuses on safe streets, unless it focuses on pedestrians and cyclists and transit users, and gives iron-clad promises to make sure stuff gets built so that some future mayor can't just walk in and start canceling projects left and right that we were promised. That's the lesson I take from this is - we're better organized now, we have more resources now, but it's still going to be a slog, and we're going to have to stand our ground - otherwise we get rolled. [00:50:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I thank you both for this conversation today - reflections on the tunnel fight, how it came to be, what it was like in the middle of it, and the lessons that we take moving forward in these elections that we have coming up this year, next year, and beyond. Thanks so much for the conversation. [00:50:50] Mike McGinn: Thank you, Crystal. [00:50:51] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you - it's been wonderful. [00:50:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

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

Hey Industrious family!

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! First up, for those looking to supercharge their engagement in Washington State policymaking or advocacy, Crystal gives a shout-out for the Washington State Institute for a Democratic Future program. Applications for their 2024 class are open and due by November 20th for early applicants (there is also an extended “late application period” until November 27th but with an increased application fee). Check out the program that launched Crystal's career in politics and see if it's right for you! Crystal and Erica then dive into a roundup of election news starting with how the Seattle City Council is losing institutional knowledge with its makeup shifting after last week's election results, meaning the new council will need to get up to speed on many complex upcoming issues such as the City budget, the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract, and the Comprehensive Plan. Contributing to this loss of experience is Teresa Mosqueda moving over to the King County Council and how speculation has begun over who her appointed replacement will be. The election news wraps up with two snafus - the King County website breaking on Election Night and USPS finally delivering missing ballots from an unchecked mailbox. Moving on from elections, they discuss Seattle budget news - a $20 million increase in the JumpStart Tax to fund student mental health care programs, narrow passage of controversial ShotSpotter surveillance technology, continued struggle to fund City employee pay increases, and a spotty outlook for much-needed progressive revenue solutions. Delving further into City worker wage issues, the City sent an oblivious email to workers providing financial tips whilst asking them to accept a sub-inflationary pay increase and the tentative firefighters' union contract also doesn't keep up with cost of living. Finally, Crystal and Erica revisit the saga unfolding in Burien with a looming deadline to accept $1 million to address their homelessness crisis and Sound Transit resumes fare enforcement. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources WAIDF - Washington State Institute for a Democratic Future   “Morales Surges While Other Progressives Flail in Latest Election Results; Mosqueda Explains Why She'll Stay Through the End of This Year” from PubliCola   “Who Will Replace Teresa Mosqueda?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “County Website Failed on Election Night Due to “Traffic Issue”” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “USPS failed to deliver ballots from one Seattle mail drop box” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “City Budget Will Fund Shotspotter—But Also Significant Progressive Priorities, Including $20 Million for Student Mental Health” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “A Mixed Seattle Budget, While a $221 Million Deficit Still Looms” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “City Employees Seeking Wage Increase Advised to “Avoid Impulse Buys”” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Firefighters' Tentative Contract Could be Bad News for Other City Workers Seeking Pay Increases” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “As Deadline to Use or Lose $1 Million in Shelter Funding Looms, Top Burien Official Offers New Explanation for Failing to Inform Some on Council” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “King County gives Burien deadline to take $1 million for homeless shelter” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Sound Transit to start issuing citations today to riders who don't pay” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “Seattle light rail is about to get heavy for those who don't pay the fare” by Joshua McNichols from KUOW   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical shows and our Friday week-in-reviews delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our 2023 Post-Election Roundtable on Monday night, you can catch the recording on our YouTube channel, or Facebook, or Twitter feeds. We'll also be releasing the roundtable next week as podcast episodes. Tune in for our breakdown of last week's election results with guest panelists Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve and Robert Cruikshank. Also wanna make sure if you can't listen to the Post-Election Roundtable, it will be available on the website with a full text transcript. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:38] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:01:40] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back as always. It's the time of year where I get to talk about the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future. It is that time again and seeing as how this is Hacks & Wonks and a lot of you are hacks and wonks who are listening, the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future is really ideal for people who may be interested in looking at working in policy or politics, getting more involved in their community and activism. It is a six-month fellowship that runs from January to June that has 10 intensive weekends plus an optional week in Washington, DC. And each of these weekends is in a different place geographically across the state. And it gives you the opportunity to do a deep dive on policy, how that policy is impacting people on the ground from a variety of different perspectives - so, you know, there's a huge network of legislators, policy experts, advocacy organizations, unions, business owners, different people. So you may go to Kitsap County and explore the economy in Bremerton and issues that are happening there. In Central Washington, issues that are important there and talking about legislation that impacts migrant workers and immigration - from a policy perspective - but also talking to workers and representatives for themselves, talking to farmers and business owners there to see how they're being impacted and what their feedback is and what they feel the most prevalent issues that they have. So it's getting a really comprehensive view of what people are facing on the ground throughout the state and how policy is impacting that and has a potential to impact that. So just really important - that is absolutely what I credit for me working in politics. I started my political career after doing IDF - just a really powerful network and a really powerful policy education in ways that really matter and getting to see that a lot of times the situations aren't simple, different people have different perspectives, policy impacts people in different ways. Few things are 100% good and positive and 100% bad or negative. It's really understanding how things impact people differently and trying to do the most good as possible, particularly considering sometimes what's politically possible, different types of activism - whether you're working legislatively, electorally, just more on the ground in community, mutual aid, just a lot of different things. So I recommend this. The early application deadline is Monday, November 20th - so coming up. There's an extended late application period that continues through Monday, November 27th. The website is democraticfuture.org. There's more information about it there, but definitely encourage anyone who may be considering working in politics or who's interested in that - who wants to understand how they can more deeply impact policy in their community and state - to do that. I do want to underscore that you don't have to already be an insider. You don't have to have any idea of what's going on, really. This is a Democratic organization - it is not catering to Republicans, I can tell you that - but looking at people with a variety of experience from diverse backgrounds across the state. It's just a program that I heartily recommend, and I believe most people who go through it come out on the other end more able to impact change in the world around them. So apply to the Institute for a Democratic Future. Well, we think we have a pretty good view of what actually happened with the election now. It's taken a while to count, but what are your takeaways from the general election that we just had? [00:05:39] Erica Barnett: Well, I mean - as others have said, and as I've said in other venues - obviously we are, the City we, are going in a more centrist direction with the city council. From Position 7 - electing Bob Kettle over Andrew Lewis - kicking out a couple other councilmembers. So politically, I think the direction is going to be a little less progressive generally, a little more in the sort of Sara Nelson centrist direction. And I think - big picture - the council is going to be made up primarily of new people and people without a whole lot of experience. The most experienced councilmember, I believe, will be Tammy Morales, who just narrowly got reelected - correct me if I'm wrong on that. But not a lot of institutional memory and knowledge on the council, which I think is going to be - it's always problematic when you lose the majority of an institution all at once, right? And when you're talking about staff who have been there for a long time, as well as councilmembers who maybe have a few terms under their belt - so people are going to be learning on the job and they're gonna be doing it in a year when there's a massive looming budget crisis, when there is the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract on the table, and just lots of other things that the new council is going to have to grapple with - that are really, really big problems and big questions - and they'll be doing it, sort of coming in with virtually no City experience in almost every single seat. [00:07:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is - it's a really big deal. And we talked about this kind of in the beginning when people were filing or announcing that they weren't running for re-election - kind of hitting a lot of people going - we're losing a ton of institutional knowledge. And just the work that it takes to get up to speed, it's not just what do you wanna do with issues, with - and even with that, a number of the new councilmembers on the campaign trail had a lot of questions, had a lot of things that they wanted to find out and investigate and get to the bottom of, but maybe not as many new ideas. And they're gonna have to understand just procedurally how do things work. Legislation is a weird thing - crafting legislation, working it through the process is not an intuitive endeavor. And it does take institutional knowledge. There's so many reports, committees, just things to digest when you're getting in - even if you've held office before. If you haven't, that's just a big mountain to climb to get your feet underneath you as far as how to understand what's happening from all of the different information sources, advocates, departments, but also how to then enact and respond to the challenges that are happening. I think in this situation, it actually passes a big advantage to the mayor's office. The mayor's office does have a lot of institutional knowledge. The mayor's office does have an agenda that they wanna enact. And right now the council - the new council - is not going to really be in a position to ask questions based on historical knowledge, to investigate or interrogate what expenditures may be, what proposals may be, if there is precedent for something, if there isn't, how something fared before when it was proposed or when it was enacted. There are a lot of things that we do and undo in government and understanding the history of that - how it worked out - is actually really useful so we can learn from what we did before and do better next time, particularly when implementation with a lot of programs has been a major issue. So I am concerned for what this is going to look like in practice with a council that just is really inexperienced. [00:09:41] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I mean, and I just was thinking as you're talking - just kind of going through all the different folks that have been elected and thinking about how - on the current council, I would lift up Lisa Herbold as an example of somebody who's been there 25 years in various roles. And she is the person, particularly like during budget, who brings up things that have happened in the past or says - Well, we actually discussed this six years ago and this was the discussion then, or there's a proviso on this money that says this. And you need someone who is able to do that, whether it's a staff member or a number of staff members or a councilmember, not just during budget time, but during - for example, the SPOG contract. Five members of the council sit on the Labor Relations Policy Committee and they're going to be bargaining with the police guild and Mayor Harrell's office. And if you are talking about people that don't have a lot of institutional knowledge of what came before, I mean - like you, I'm concerned that they're just going to get steamrolled by whatever the mayor's office and SPOG decide that they want or that they can agree to. And I also thought of another thing that they're going to be doing next year, which is the Comprehensive Plan. There's a major update every 10 years and that's happening next year. And that's the document that guides planning and development and zoning for the entire city. And during the campaign, this was a question that came up - which Comp Plan option do you support? And everybody said Comp Plan 5 - for the most part. And I think that without getting into the details of what that even means, I would be really curious to ask every single person who was elected - So what's in Comp Plan 5? Because I think that sometimes campaigns deal with surface level issues, but the Comprehensive Plan is a massively complex document that they're going to be discussing over the course of a year now - starting in January, February - and it's really consequential. So that's just another example of a complex decision that this council is going to have to be making - again, without a lot of institutional knowledge. And I will say just to mention one idea that got squashed this year, Teresa Mosqueda, who is one of the councilmembers who's leaving to go serve on King County Council, brought up the idea of doing staggered elections so that instead of electing all 7 district city council seats all at once, like we did this year, we would do 4 one year and then 3 two years from then. And the idea is that even if you elect a completely new council every four years, at least people have a couple of years of experience under their belts. And that idea just got quashed, and I think it's very unlikely to happen - but that would have made a little bit of difference. [00:12:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I thought that was an excellent idea - was sad to see that not be able to move forward. Now, speaking of Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who was just elected to the King County Council - this now brings up an issue of there being a vacancy timing around when she can choose to go or not. Evidently there's been some calls - maybe people looking at the Supreme Court or Congress, different things, and then looking at the Seattle Council and going - Well, hey, if there's an opportunity to get another progressive in, maybe you should leave early. Why did she appear to decide against that? [00:13:31] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I mean, Teresa Mosqueda is not Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And one big difference is that she is not independently wealthy and - nor is her staff. And so I think that just as a practical matter - and this was my immediate reaction actually when I started seeing calls for her to step down and just kind of not have a job for a couple months, was - well, like normal people can't do that. And even if you're making $130,000 a year, or whatever it currently is at the city council, it is hard when - she has a little kid. And her staff, some of whom may go over with her to King County Council, still need to make a living. So there's a very practical consideration. And the other thing is, I think it's a bit of sour grapes. I mean, the voters have spoken and I think it would be a bit of sour grapes to say - Well, we're gonna shove a progressive onto the council under the wire. But more importantly, I don't think that it would probably work. I don't think it would be successful to try to get - for Teresa Mosqueda to try to appoint another Teresa Mosqueda-type to the council because you have to get the support of your colleagues. And I don't know that the current council would be willing to sort of subvert the process. I mean, it wouldn't be subverting the process, it would just be rushing it a bit. But to do that at this point, when we have a new council coming in, it just - there's a sense of fairness about that, that I think would strike some of the current council the wrong way, even if they are more progressive people who are leaving. [00:15:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's not like there's a situation now, or upcoming with the new council, where there is a one-member majority and this one change is going to tip the balance of decisions that are made. I think with looking at some of the budget action, which we'll talk about shortly, earlier this week - we can see that's not the case. And there's also just the responsibilities of the job, which I think Teresa Mosqueda takes seriously. The City of Seattle is heading into a pretty significant budget deficit - hundreds of millions of dollars budget deficit. And I think most people consider her to be the foremost budget expert on the council - particularly with so many new people coming into the council and so much work to do on the budget, the more work she can do to help prepare this next council for what's gonna happen, to help usher in what hopefully will be sustainable changes to the budget, the better for everyone and for the city, I believe. So that's gonna be interesting. I did see Hannah Krieg report on rumors that Tanya Woo is either angling for, or people are angling for her, to be appointed to that position when that does happen. Tanya just lost a very narrow election to Tammy Morales in Seattle's District 2. What do you think the prospects for that would be, or what that would mean? [00:16:45] Erica Barnett: Well, I mean, I would be completely speculating, but it does seem - and segue to completely speculate about that - I mean, it does seem sort of unlikely, you know, just looking at historical appointments for the council to appoint somebody who ran against one of the people that won. Historically what the council has done is either appoint sort of placeholder people who have said they're not going to run for re-election, because remember - this is just a temporary position until the next election, which in this case would actually be in 2024. Because of the way it works, it would be the next state election since there's not another city election until '25. So you're talking about a very temporary seat. I don't know. At this point, my gut would be that they wouldn't do that. But again, that is just speculation. I know Brianna Thomas, who ran for council a couple of times and now works in the mayor's office in labor relations, is another potential person who is definitely angling for that position. So she seems like another possibility, but again, that's somebody who really wants to stay on the council and maybe perceived as progressive, or a member of the kind of progressive wing of the council - she worked for Lorena González, who's quite progressive, before joining the mayor's office. So I'm not following that super, super closely yet, but yeah - it'll be interesting, but perhaps not hugely consequential, except for 2024, who ends up getting that position. [00:18:36] Crystal Fincher: I wanna talk about another Election Night story, or one that was really made plain on Election Night. And that was King County's elections website and its performance or lack thereof on Election Day. What happened? [00:18:50] Erica Barnett: Yeah, so I've been wanting to write about the King County website and it's not just the elections website, but we'll talk about that specifically. But I would encourage people to go to kingcounty.gov and just check it out. See what you think. They did a big website redesign, revamp. And one of the consequences of that revamp is that it's really hard apparently to load sort of new information into the website for just kind of regular County departments. And so on Election Night, if you are an election watcher, what ordinarily happens is that you start refreshing the webpage around 8:10p. The results usually go up right around 8:15p. And so on Election Night, people were refreshing, refreshing, refreshing, but there were no results for at least 15 minutes. I actually gave up and got the results from King 5, which apparently got them because the elections people had to post the results on Twitter. I'm not really on Twitter that much anymore, so I didn't see this, but they had to create essentially a workaround for this website that is - it's not only does it look like something from - I don't know, 1999, maybe that's a little mean, 2003 we'll say - but it doesn't function very well and a lot of stuff is broken, and links don't work, and all the photos are gone, and it's just a mess. And yeah, it was really consequential on Election Night when people were trying to find out who won and couldn't get this information for 15, 20 minutes, which I know might not sound like much, but it is hugely consequential if you are a campaign or if you are somebody interested in the results, like I was as a reporter. So man, it was just a mess. [00:20:54] Crystal Fincher: It was a mess. I was at KIRO doing Election Night coverage and it was a big challenge. Fortunately, their team was able to get the results from the alternate posts, so we had them before they were live on the website. But it's really a challenge. And especially at this point in time where there is so much bad faith information, misinformation about elections, the integrity of our elections, and what's happening. Unfortunately, that means that we need to do as great a job as possible at being transparent, at making sure that things work as expected, that we can explain what's happening and why it's happening, and provide some predictability and transparency in the process. And having that happen on Election Night is very suboptimal. We'll see what improvements they make to it. And we've seen rollouts of websites - these things are hard. It is not like you flip a switch and everything works. So I don't wanna devalue the work involved, but I do hope they reflect on the timing of this, the type of testing and rigor that they use to test this - especially for the kind of strain that is expected on a night like Election Night. I think we heard some of the reasoning was that - Well, you know, it just had a lot of traffic and that contributed to the collapse. Well, yeah, that's gonna be expected on Election Night. And I hope they are able to do a better job in the future - making sure that it can accommodate the infrequent but predictable heavy loads that the website is going to experience. [00:22:40] Erica Barnett: Well, I think in one way it was actually optimal - possibly - because I think it, you know, people have been complaining about this website for a while. I mean, when I first went to it - and I don't know, it's probably been a month or two now - I truly thought, and again, it's kingcounty.gov. I truly thought it was a, like a test website. Like it was sort of the interim version between the old website and the new one, and this was just like temporary. And then called and found out - no, this is the website. And I think there are just - there are so many things that are suboptimal and just bad about it. And I think that sometimes in my experience, the tech side of things tend to, you know, say things like - Well, it's just, you know, it's not the design, it's that you're just not used to using it, or you're not using it right, or there's nothing wrong, there's nothing to see here. And I think a website falling apart on Election Night that just really like pissed off a number of people outside the county might impel them to actually take some action on this thing, because it is infuriating to use. I mean, it is - just one quick example that, you know, that's emblematic - is you go to the website now, and one of the, it's sort of like "the top things people need." And one of them is like animal control. Another is a camera in rural King County that like is on some road in rural King County - I don't know who needs that, but I wouldn't put it in the top, you know, 10,000 things on that website that people are looking for. So hopefully this will bring some sanity back, 'cause I use that website pretty frequently and it is very frustrating to use. [00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I also use it frequently. And we didn't talk about this part before, but yeah - I had the same thought as you. I thought it was an interim site that - okay, well, they - my read was - well, they were hoping to do some upgrades, but clearly they couldn't get them done in time. So this is the, you know, meantime, they just stripped it down to bare bones and just want to make sure it's functional. That was my read, my assumption - I didn't look very deeply into it besides just being frustrated that everything was hard to find and wasn't where it was before. But yeah, it was a challenge, these things often are. But that would also make me want to keep it as, these things happening as far away from elections as possible. Like, you know, let's implement changes in January or February instead of later in the year, you know, closer to the primary or general election if we're doing these things. And yes, it may be a bigger site-wide thing, but my goodness - if you're hoping that things land well with the public, this is certainly - elections are one of the most visible things that the county does. I would be surprised if there was something that generated more traffic to the website than the election site around election time. But we will see how that continues and hopefully they're able to get that together soon. Also want to talk about another elections-related story, and that was the story of the post office missing pickups from a ballot box that contained ballots in some races - one of them still is too close to officially call. What happened here? [00:26:21] Erica Barnett: Well, from what I understand, the post office just didn't pick up any mail from this one site - or sorry, from this one box for like a month. And I just read about it in The Seattle Times, probably like you did. And I got a tip about it and was gonna look into it, but you know, a one-person website, so I didn't get around to it - Times did. And yeah, it just sounds like they somehow messed up and didn't pick up any mail at this box. So there are 85 ballots, I believe, that are being counted now. Not enough to turn around Ron Davis's election prospects against Maritza Rivera in District 4, but still - 85 ballots is 85 ballots. When you're talking about margins of like 300 votes, every little bit counts. So this was pretty significant to find out about at the, you know, at the 13th hour, really. [00:27:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And then just reading about the process that occurs when this does happen. It looks like they were able to follow the process and get these ballots counted by verifying the dates and signatures on them, but certainly a conundrum here, and would love to see what's put in place to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Yeah, will be interesting to see. And the last thing I'll just say about these elections is - you alluded to a little bit earlier with talking about Teresa Mosqueda - it's not just her, but it's her staff. And in big cities - smaller cities and suburbs don't have council staff, but in Seattle, they do. And the role of staff is really important. It's going to be even more important because they're gonna hold the institutional knowledge. They do a lot of the policy work, preparation work, doing the research, interacting with community, doing constituent service. And a lot of them have been there for a while. They are absolutely valuable resources. Sometimes bureaucrats get a bad name for working in government service, but I just - seeing the work that they do, how instrumental they are to the process, particularly in support of elected officials who oftentimes just need good information and assistance to get stuff through the system. It's really important to have capable and competent bureaucrats. I think the City does have a number of them, and I think we're gonna see how important they are in the coming year. [00:29:04] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the City couldn't run without the deep state. I mean, truly. You need those people who've been there 20 years who like know Robert's Rules of Order in and out, and can write a script and, you know, for a city councilmember to read, and can write legislation and just do all the sort of grunt work that keeps things running. I mean, they, you know, staff gets maligned and they're always sort of subject to budget cuts because - who needs all these administrative people? But in a lot of cases, you really do need the administrative people because they're the ones that make the council meeting not look like chaos. [00:29:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And who help make legislation stand up to legal challenges and get things implemented in the way they were intended. It is really important and just wanted to say that I see them. And when - I'm thinking about Andrew Lewis, who was not reelected - that means that his staff has a lot of question marks too. And in a city as expensive to live in in Seattle, that is a harrowing thing. So elections do impact lots of people in lots of different ways. I do wanna talk about the budget, and action this week with the council pertaining to the budget. What did they do? [00:30:21] Erica Barnett: Well, they are still continuing to sort of hack away at Mayor Bruce Harrell's 2024 budget. And they have voted on a whole slew of amendments. I would say the headline, and surprisingly it has not been a huge headline, is that Kshama Sawant - outgoing councilmember, often does a lot of kind of performative stunty stuff that doesn't actually result in legislation - but she won on a big issue this week. She got $20 million - a very, very tiny increase, I think it was 0.01%. So 0.0001 to the JumpStart Tax to fund mental health care and mental health programs for students. And $20 million is a really big deal at a time when the City is anticipating big budget decisions next year, potentially budget cuts. And when a lot of these debates in the City budget are over $300,000 or $1.5 million, just these very tiny increments. So to me, that is the huge headline is that Kshama Sawant sort of won the budget as she is walking out the door. But other stuff in the budget this year includes ShotSpotter, which is the controversial proposal that Mayor Bruce Harrell has made for a couple of years running to put surveillance systems in neighborhoods to detect gunshots or things that sound like gunshots. A lot of criticism of that system, but it sounds like the council is going to finally give in - on a 5-4 vote most likely - and fund that. And City pay increases are still sort of outstanding because that work is happening in the background, but there's gonna need to be money for City employees to get pay increases. And there's a lot of other stuff kind of around the margins - Sara Nelson is getting some money for the City to subsidize private drug treatment for some folks. And then kind of looming in the background after they pass this budget - and this is another reason Teresa Mosqueda, as you mentioned, is sticking around - They've got to figure out some revenue solutions for next year, 2025, and beyond. So they're looking at other increases to JumpStart, a capital gains tax, and there was talk of a CEO excess compensation tax but it seems like that's not gonna raise very much money - so it's off the table for now. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: Well, it certainly is gonna be interesting to see how those conversations play out as this year progresses, this next year progresses. I know several of the candidates who were elected expressed curiosity at some of the revenue options but were notoriously hesitant to commit to supporting any particular option. And knowing that so much of the outside spending that came into these races during the campaign was fundamentally about resisting taxation and some of those efforts and proposals, it's gonna be interesting to see what actually does wind up passing, if anything. [00:33:58] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I - on that note, I will just say that a lot of candidates said that the City doesn't have a budget problem, it has a spending problem. And I think they're going to realize that the City actually does have a budget problem when they have to get in and actually deal with the budget. I don't think that - there's a lot of talk of, We're gonna audit the whole system and I wanna look at the whole budget. Well, good luck, that's not really possible. I mean, you have entire departments each with their own budget division - hashing out the budget, looking at the actual budget documents for any one department could be a job for a person for a year. So I think they're going to be, they're in for a bit of a rough awakening if they think that they can't raise any new revenues and that they can accomplish $250 million in budget reductions through cuts alone. So we'll see when that awakening takes place, but I think it will. [00:34:58] Crystal Fincher: Oh, I absolutely think it will. It is certainly one thing to have catchy and simple slogans and taglines and soundbites when you're running for office, but governing is a serious thing. It is actually harder than running the campaign. So we will see how this progresses. Now I also want to talk about this week - a couple of things when it does come to the potential raises for City workers - that they've been saying, Hey, it's really expensive to live in Seattle. We count on cost of living adjustments to help keep up, but even that is hard with inflation, the cost of living. We aren't making enough in the first place. We need more money. This is teeing up to become a major confrontation, really, with the mayor's office signaling that they're hesitant to give raises anywhere close to what workers are asking for. There may be labor actions taken. We will see what happens. But this week, one interesting thing came out in an email from the mayor's office. What did they send? [00:36:16] Erica Barnett: So an email went out to most City employees this week. And what it said was - I think the subject line was "Financial Self-care," something related to that. And what it said was basically - if you are struggling with money, maybe you should look at your spending. And it gave some examples of things that you can do to sort of reduce your costs in your day-to-day life. And one was pay yourself first, which is this sort of very - I would say for a normal person - very unrealistic idea that before you pay your bills, you should put money in savings or in investments. And I think it's self-explanatory why most people can't do that. People living paycheck to paycheck need to keep the lights on, need to pay their rent. And then another suggestion was that people consider - when making purchases, whether something is a want or a need - which again, I mean, there's just something so condescending about that and so out of touch with the way normal people make spending decisions. And like, sure, like, do I make impulse buys? Does everybody sometimes? Yes. But the advice in this email - not to sort of waste your money on frivolous stuff - hits really poorly at a time when City employees are saying, Look, we're not asking for raises, we're asking for a cost of living adjustment to deal with the fact that inflation went up 8% last year and continues to rise. And what that means is a dollar buys less. So it's just - it was very, very, very poorly worded and poorly timed, considering that City employees are literally talking about striking right now. And so I just, I was sort of blown away by it. And one of the reactions - it got a lot of reaction when I posted about this. And one of the most common reactions was - huh, this is interesting because Mayor Harrell is saying that we all need to work from the office at least three days a week as part of his downtown revitalization plan. And part of that plan is that we're gonna go out to eat at lunch, and we're gonna go out to get drinks after work. And I don't know - is that a want or need, Mayor Harrell? So it's - I think it hit really poorly with a lot of City employees. And I've gotten a lot of reaction from folks who received it, sort of saying - Thanks for pointing this out, this is ridiculous. [00:38:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I've also seen a lot of reaction to that. When you're saying - Hey, help me, I'm struggling, and it's, you know, the cost of living, inflation is just unreasonable - it's hard to keep up with. And when the cost of rent is going up, and childcare is going up, and groceries are going up, and people are feeling this in every way - to have the person who does have the power and authority to say, You know what, we will ease this a little bit. We will grant your cost of living adjustment. We already know that you have shortages, and we're burning you out with the amount of work that we're placing on you and the amount that we're not paying you. So we're going to ease that burden and address some of these work shortages, some of these staff shortages in areas that are critical to delivering essential services for residents of Seattle. Seems like there's precedent for thinking that way - we've talked about financial solutions with the police department to help address retention and staffing. Seems like that should apply to other departments, but somehow it doesn't here. And just doesn't seem to be landing with people very well. And just to be clear, right - it's not like financial education and financial planning tips are never warranted. But they are not an intervention or response to poverty. The problem with poverty is not poor people making bad decisions and that's why they're poor. It's that they don't have enough money. And wow, we just got a whole lot of new data on how effective giving people in poverty more money is, as opposed to all of these extra things that are not more money. If you want to reduce poverty, invest in the people who are experiencing it. And if we want a city that is resilient moving forward, if we want a city where we do take pride in paying people a living wage - meaning a wage where they can live in the city - we're gonna have to do better than this for City employees, certainly. Now I also wanna talk about what the prospect is, and what the outlook is for this pay increase. And there was something that happens that maybe makes that cost of living adjustment look a little questionable. What was that? [00:41:11] Erica Barnett: I believe you're talking about the firefighters' contract, which was sent to firefighters - members of the Fire Department - last week. And the votes on that are gonna be tallied soon. But basically what it said was the firefighters, if they vote on this, will agree to a sort of maximum annual wage increase of 4%, a minimum of 2%, which is quite a bit less than the other City workers were asking for, the Coalition of City Unions. And the sort of compromise or payback for that is that if inflation is above 4%, then the money that would be paid to workers getting an inflationary increase is gonna go into what's called a COLA bank. And so - like say inflation 6%, your wage increase is 4% - you get 2% in the COLA bank. If next year inflation is 1%, you can get some of that back. So your minimum increase will always be 2% for the life of the contract. So that's still 2% to 4%, which is not a whole lot of increase, particularly for workers whose pay has been falling further and further behind under their existing contract. But the thinking is that this could be sort of a foreshadowing of what Harrell is going to ultimately offer the rest of the city. So I think there's quite a bit of discontent around that. And again, there is talk of some sort of action. There have been practice pickets happening. And I don't have any special insight into whether the City workers would strike, but I know it's being discussed. They are not technically allowed to do that under their contract. So again, not sure what sort of action they're going to take, but I know that there is a lot of discontent with the idea of settling for a 2% to 4% wage increase at this point. [00:43:16] Crystal Fincher: I wanna shift a little bit and really talk about a story that you broke - a couple weeks ago, I feel like it was - that we also saw reported at The Seattle Times as new this week. What is going on in the City of Burien right now? [00:43:33] Erica Barnett: Oh man, the - well, I mean, just a very, very quick background - the City of Burien passed a ban on sleeping in public at night. And has meanwhile, been sort of pushing around this group of unsheltered people from place to place - And now has the legal authority to use the Sheriff's Office to do so. They have meanwhile, been sort of sitting on an offer of a million dollars from King County, which originally proposed sort of a land swap deal where a Pallet shelter could be built in downtown Burien. But of course the city rejected that, I think, primarily because it would be in sort of a visible location. They've been sort of hemming and hawing on what to do with this million dollars ever since. And we're talking about, I think that was over the summer - I believe in June or July - that they, it was in July, that they voted against using it for that shelter. And so now it's November and King County has said - Look, we have to use this money. Or you have to use this money or we're going to put it out for bid. And so they have until November 27th to do that. The City Manager, Adolfo Bailon - apologies if I am mispronouncing his name - but he essentially sat on this information for a week and did not tell most of the council that this sort of deadline had come up until a week into the four weeks that they have to figure out a new location. So meanwhile, I think the council has one more meeting before this deadline passes. And my guess is they're not going to come up with a solution since they haven't done so so far. And this money is just going to go back into King County and then they'll put it out for bid for other South King County cities to use. [00:45:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think - if people do want to catch up on what's happened, there has been no one following what's been happening in Burien with more rigor than you and PubliCola. So I would encourage people to catch up on what you have already covered. But just a little more context - this is happening with a very polarized council. There is a 4-3 moderate conservative council majority. The three members in the minority have been very vocally opposed to the way things have gone. This all kicked off because the county basically - they were trying to figure out how to deal with this as a city, were looking like they were going to embark on some illegal sweeps. The county executive's office basically said - Hey, looks like you're about to embark on illegal sweeps. Since you contract your police department through the Sheriff's department, we're just letting you know that the sheriffs cannot participate in an illegal sweep. This kicked off a lot of hemming and hawing by the council - ended up coming to what, I think, the county viewed as a reasonable compromise and offer for help that lots of cities would love to have. And they said - Okay, you're trying to deal with this. We'll help you with a million dollars, some Pallet shelters. You talked about the land swap deal - there's publicly owned land that is being leased to a car dealership, we'll accommodate for that. And basically you have land available to make this happen. We know you need more resources to adequately address this. We will help you with that. And the council majority basically refused to engage with that for a long time. So the county finally has gotten around to saying - Okay, this isn't just an offer out there forever. We need to put this money to good use, so do you wanna take it? And the city manager in Burien initially said, Hey, I didn't even see it. I had no idea this was happening. Turns out he did, he actually responded to the email. But it has been quite a trial and tribulation there, and so we'll have to see what's gonna happen. But it does look like basically an effort to sabotage any attempt to do anything but criminalize homelessness, which just feels so out of joint from where most people are on this topic. Even people who feel that - hey, eventually sweeps are justified, almost uniformly feel like, but we need to do all we can to make sure that we do transition people into housing if possible, that offers of shelter are made, that we don't just move the problem from one place to another. City is not engaged with that at all. They seem perfectly satisfied to just sweep people from one place to another, as has been documented by the sweeps that they did of one location - seeing the people just move to another location. Homelessness is a problem about the lack of housing. If you aren't doing anything to provide housing, you aren't doing anything to solve homelessness, unless you feel the visibility of it, and not the people who actually don't have homes and are dealing with everything associated with that, which is just a very, very, very hard way to live. So we'll see what continues to happen. What are the prospects for them taking this up? Do they still have the option to ignore it? [00:49:14] Erica Barnett: Well, do you mean taking up the offer for a million dollars? Well, I mean, certainly they have the option to ignore it. I mean, it will go away. I mean, I think that - I'm perhaps a little bit less charitable than you are in my assessment of what people want, just having watched all these meetings of people sort of screaming that these are - Seattle people are sending mobs of homeless people down to Burien and just this kind of very unrealistic, fantastical stuff that people say. But I think there's some magical thinking going on on the council as well. The city has just hired, just signed a contract - a no-bid contract - with a group called The More We Love that's run by one individual, a Kirkland mortgage broker named Kristine Moreland. And she has said that she has access to special resources that no one else does, and she can easily house and shelter people. And that it's just that all these other experienced homeless outreach providers have failed. And I think that is a fantastical notion because, as you said, there is not enough housing, there is not enough shelter. And generally what she does is put people into detox, which is a three to five day program that doesn't include any housing or treatment, or takes people to Seattle and puts them into Union Gospel Mission shelters. Those are two of the things that I am aware of her doing, neither of which is a solution. And one of which is just moving people out of Burien and into Seattle, which is not housing them. So I think that there's just, there's a lot of unrealistic thinking going on. And of course, there was an election in Burien as well. And two of the more progressive members will no longer be on the council next year - they've been replaced by people who agree more on this issue with the conservative council majority. So yeah, it's, you know, I don't expect the situation there to get any better on this issue, nor do I think that this new council is going to have more realistic notions of what's possible without additional resources. [00:51:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly the election results there were definitely a move in the other direction. We saw King County GOP endorsed candidates like Kevin Schilling handily winning his race there. Now, some of the opponents were pretty new, didn't have many resources, but can pretty much see a continuation and perhaps even an acceleration of these policies that are very punitive and hostile towards the unhoused population. The last thing I wanna talk about today is an update on Sound Transit's fare enforcement policies and processes. We've talked about this before, you have covered this for quite some time. So now they're coming out with a new fare enforcement system. What are they going to do now? [00:52:32] Erica Barnett: Well, as far as I can tell, the main difference - they're going to be enforcing fares and this has been covered in the past, but there will be more opportunities for people to get warnings and things like that - the initial fines will be lower. But the main difference is that the fare enforcement people are now called fare ambassadors and they are not in security uniforms, which Sound Transit is saying is a significant change. I mean, I guess it does make things feel different if you have a person who is not in a uniform, but an orange vest, checking your fare. But ultimately, I mean, that's the big substantive difference. They say that this is gonna be more equitable, they're gonna check everybody on the train, but as you mentioned, I've been covering this for a long time and for years, they've been saying that their process is completely equitable and that they - it is essentially impossible for them to discriminate against anybody or target anybody because of their race or perceived socioeconomic status because they start at both ends of the train and they move to the middle. And there was a slide that they showed so many times that I started kind of making fun of it on PubliCola because, you know, it was just this very, you know, sort of bored recitation at every council, or sorry, at every Sound Transit meeting where they would say - You know, we start at both ends of the train, we work our way to the middle, it's completely equitable. So, you know, they're saying this is gonna be completely equitable too. I don't think that it is possible to have an equitable fare enforcement policy because I think fare enforcement hits different people differently. And if you can't pay it, eventually, you could go to court and get a misdemeanor on your record. So fare enforcement inherently and fares inherently are not equitable. So we'll see how it plays out in practice, but once you start enforcing fares, you have instituted an inequitable process because poor people are less likely to be able to pay fares, more likely to get caught without having paid their fare, and then more likely to be unable to pay the fines that will eventually start accruing. [00:54:50] Crystal Fincher: I have a major pet peeve - pet peeve is too minor a way to say it, but it probably comes through and I haven't overtly articulated it, but you know, in lots of things that I talk about - but people just taking action to take action, that is not a serious attempt to fix the problem that they say they're trying to fix. Whether I agree with what they're stating is a problem or their way that they're going about it - even if you take everything at face value, their solutions are not in any way adequate enough to address what they're saying is a problem. And so the momentum - we've heard Sound Transit board members talk about how important fare enforcement is - people are getting away with it and we need to collect these fares for our system. We - our budget depends on fare box recovery and if people aren't paying, then that's throwing our finances and our system into chaos. Which would make most people reasonably think - Okay, so if they're doing fare enforcement action and spending all of this money on these fare enforcement people, and instituting this basically entire administration dedicated to fare enforcement - one would think that the fines that they issue would be collected by Sound Transit. I was surprised to learn from your reporting before that that wasn't the case. And it seems like it still isn't the case under this new system, is that correct? [00:56:24] Erica Barnett: My understanding is - yes, that the fines go to the, go into the administration, into the court system, but, you know, I am not 100%, I have not looked into this. So please don't, please do some fact checking on this for me, 'cause I - maybe you can look into it, Crystal - but I'm pretty sure that, yeah, the fines don't go to Sound Transit. I mean, I think like big picture, Sound Transit does have some financial problems. A lot of them are related to the fact that they continue to provide service that is suboptimal for a lot of people. A lot of times trains are stopped because of incidents, escalators very often don't work. And the trains are running a lot slower now, they're more crowded because there's not enough cars and they're not running as frequently. And so the service has really suffered. And so - number one, it's not a great product right now. It could be a great product again, but you're sort of instituting fare enforcement at a time when the product itself is suboptimal. And second, they're planning the next expansion of the light rail system and a lot of the stuff they're doing, you know, in particularly in South Lake Union, for example, to appease Amazon and other companies in that area is moving stations around and making big changes that are going to cost money. And then on the flip side, eliminating stations like the Midtown Station that have huge constituencies, like all the people on First Hill that got robbed of a station in Sound Transit 1 when they cut the station there. So you're sort of putting the squeeze on people who might be your riders in the future and moving things around to appease big companies. So I don't know - I think a lot of people are frustrated with Sound Transit right now and focusing on, Oh my God, it's those damn, you know, fare evaders, as they call people who don't pay, they're the problem - just feels really off point right now. And, you know, I mean, I'm sure you've ridden light rail. It's noticeably slower recently because people, the drivers for one - I mean, one reason for that is that the drivers are slowing down in the Rainier Valley to avoid hitting people because Sound Transit put the trains at grade in the first segment of light rail. So yeah, it's just - it's not a great look. [00:59:05] Crystal Fincher: It's not a great look. And yes, I have ridden light rail recently. I've also ridden BART recently and LA Metro trains recently. And my goodness, is it just noticeable? If you know me, you've heard this rant, but Los Angeles, the car capital of the world, and Seattle actually started planning their light rail systems at the same time. And Seattle has wound up with a partial line that still has end points getting pushed off for decades, it seems like. And LA has built this vast network of multiple lines and everything in a city where it's not easy to get stuff done, where people have more of a connection to their cars, where it's harder to get around in other areas - so the lift of getting people to make that change seems heavier down there. And wow, we've just gotten bogged down in the Seattle process, it seems. But it seems like the main problem, what's underlying everything else, is that their - the people in charge of this system, the Sound Transit Board, are not regular transit riders. They don't seem to use the product that they're responsible for. And listening to them talk - most of them are, predominantly drive cars, they don't take transit often. And you can hear that in their comments, you can see that in how they are planning, or not planning, or the things that they're missing, as we progress here. So I certainly hope that we see more of a focus on appointing leaders to that board who understand the system and use it, and understand how important it is to their community and the relevance of their community, and how it needs to adapt to other communities. Yeah, it's really interesting. I'm thinking of a number of suburban leaders, whether it's Bothell or Covington - people wanting to improve the service, make it relevant for their community, but it is just been a big challenge. With that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 17th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on multiple platforms now - just search Erica and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and soon you'll be able to follow it on other platforms. You can find me on most platforms as @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe and leave a review if you're able - to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical 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.

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the early returns of the November election, a new twist in the transportation impact fees saga, a delay for the Comprehensive Plan, and a "protected intersection" in South Lake Union. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

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

Hello to you listening in Travelers Rest, South Carolina!Coming to you from Whidbey Island, Washington this is Stories From Women Who Walk with 60 Seconds for Thoughts on Thursday and your host, Diane Wyzga.I learned to sail many decades ago in a tiny boat: an 8 foot by 4 foot El Toro, a single-handed, single-masted, fiberglass dinghy. I sailed her in the challenging waters of Norfolk, Virginia's shipping lanes with crazy currents, shifting winds, freighters, container ships, and USNavy vessel traffic.Navigating challenging conditions taught me valuable lessons applicable to life goals. Setting a clear Destination, having a well-defined Direction, and maintaining a single-minded Intention to my purpose were crucial for safety and success. As the skipper of my tiny boat I understood I could not control external forces but needed to work with them.  Practical Tip: My analogy underscores the importance of aligning purpose with planning to reach your desire. Adopting a single-minded and resolute approach to goal setting allows you to stay focused on your desired destination while adapting your plans to changing circumstances and  confidently facing unexpected events on your own terms. When you are doing the best you can with what you have all that matters is the time it took for you to fulfill your journey.  NOTE: If you want to see the tiny El Toro in action, check the Episode Notes for a YouTube link to a video recap of the 2021 El Toro Regatta at the Center for Wooden Boats at South Lake Union in Seattle.You're always invited: “Come for the stories - stay for the magic!” Speaking of magic, would you subscribe, share a 5-star rating + nice review on your social media or podcast channel of choice, and join us next time!Meanwhile, stop by my Quarter Moon Story Arts website to:✓ Check out What I Offer ,✓ Arrange your free Story Start-up Session ,✓ Opt In to my monthly NewsAudioLetter for bonus gift, valuable tips & techniques to enhance your story work, and✓ Stay current with Diane on LinkedIn.Stories From Women Who Walk Production TeamPodcaster: Diane F Wyzga & Quarter Moon Story ArtsMusic: Mer's Waltz from Crossing the Waters by Steve Schuch & Night Heron MusicAll content and image © 2019 to Present Quarter Moon Story Arts. All rights reserved.

6am hour -- Kirby Wilbur in for John Carlson: how Seattle crime is becoming like a cancer for suburban Puget Sound cities, what are the chances Seattle City Council can deliver a "lid" over I-5 between Capitol Hill and South Lake Union for the price and goals they're promising?, an earth and climate science article for "Nature" confesses that essays and research don't get published in journals if they don't take a certain narrative or viewpoint (6:42:20) "they want climate papers that support certain pre-approved narratives", if you don't write a certain way "your scientific career will be over", Lars: the dilemma of defund police politicians requesting and/or accepting extra security protection. 7am hour -- Kirby Wilbur in for John Carlson: deciphering the political/PR campaign against US Sup. Crt. Justice Clarence Thomas for travel he has received from a wealthy conservative donor, how this social media/PR campaign is being spun as an ethics probe, an update on the collapse of Bud Light after the Dylan Mulvaney marketing fiasco, COVID vaccine shots study shows the more you get vaccinated the more likely you are to get a positive case, a Texas perspective on the bussing of undocumented illegal aliens from TX to NYC and other sanctuary cities, an examination of which nationalities are most likely coming across the US/Mexico border, the illegal aliens all take the bus trip voluntarily. 8am hour -- Kirby Wilbur in for John Carlson: Good Guy & Gal With (a) Gun(s) stories include a dad who has to confront his daughter's ex, Chicago rideshare driver may lose job (its called a driver disarmament policy) but used gun to defend himself from robbers at 1am, the continuing mis-adventures on social media of WA U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Pres. Biden walks away after presenting Medal Of Honor to Vietnam War heroic veteran helicopter pilot in the middle of a White House ceremony confounding on-lookers, Biden's mental acuity questioned again after yesterday's ceremony walk-off.

KVI's Kirby Wilbur and Phil Vandervort examine the push for an Interstate-5 lid to cover the freeway lanes north of the Seattle Convention Center. The plan that could cost between $1-$2.5 billion would create a large park and/or subsidized housing is intended to connect the Capitol Hill neighborhood to the South Lake Union neighborhood currently divided by I-5. According to KIRO 7 News, the Seattle City Council

Do you think you know the true impact of homeless encampments in your city? Brace yourself for a deep-dive into the shocking issue of Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood as we uncover the harrowing reality of an encampment fire caused by a repeat offender, affecting tens of thousands of daily commuters. This episode peels back the layers of the city's strategies to combat such crises, putting the effectiveness of our legal system under the microscope.With no stone left unturned, we delve into the broader implications of Seattle's homeless encampments on city resources. Unmasking a chilling case of a candle-triggered blaze in an encampment wedged between Mercer Street and Interstate 5, we scrutinize the Washington State Department of Transportation's oversight and the burgeoning issues of crime and drug misuse in the area. We also confront the complex challenges in offering permanent housing solutions for the homeless, spotlighting the King County Regional Housing Authority's crucial role in this societal issue. Tune in for an eye-opening discussion that will redefine your understanding of the homelessness crisis in Seattle.Support the show

For this Friday show, we present Part 2 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable which was live-streamed on August 8, 2023 with special guests - journalists Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos. In Part 2, the panel breaks down primary election results for Seattle City Council races in Districts 6 and 7 - which both feature incumbents employing different strategies to hold their seats - and explore whether any overarching narratives are on display in the Seattle results. The discussion then moves on to contrasting races in King County Council Districts 4 and 8, before wrapping up with what each panelist will be paying most attention to as we head towards the November general election. Find Part 1 on our website and in your podcast feed. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's special guests, Daniel Beekman at @DBeekman, Guy Oron at @GuyOron, and Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.    Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable Livestream | August 8th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 2 of our 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable, with guests Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron and Melissa Santos, that was originally aired live on Tuesday, August 8th. Part 1 was our last episode – you can find it in your podcast feed or on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. You can also go to the site for full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show. Thanks for tuning in! [00:00:42] Crystal Fincher: So also want to talk about the next district here - a race with an incumbent here - Dan Strauss and Pete Hanning. One where there was quite a bit of money in this race, quite a bit of spending. Dan Strauss - this was really interesting because as we touched on before, we saw with Tammy Morales really leaning into her record and a seeming justification and approval of that and almost a mandate from voters to continue on in the same direction based on how she represented herself - different strategy here and someone looking like they're running away from their record a bit or saying - Hey, I'm course correcting here. So do people know what they're getting? Do people know what they're expecting? But still a strong result for an incumbent here, with Dan Strauss currently at 51.77% of the vote in District 6. And then Pete Hanning, who was the Seattle Times-endorsed candidate with 29.32% of the vote, despite almost over $96,000 raised. How did you see this race, Melissa? [00:01:58] Melissa Santos: I think Dan has probably looked at this a little more closely, but I did find it interesting that Dan Strauss - getting back to Dan Beekman's point earlier - was Dan Strauss was just saying "Defund the Police" was a mistake - he just said it straight up. That's just - he was emphasizing that. And I - that has to be a reflection of his district. And I - gosh, I should be more familiar with the new district lines, but we are talking about a different district than District 3, which is central Seattle, here. We're talking about - I actually mix up the two guys on the council not infrequently, it's super embarrassing - but anyway, so Dan Strauss's district though is very different than central Seattle. It's not Andrew Lewis's district, which is different, but we're talking an area that does have more conservative pockets - conservative as it gets in Seattle in a way. So "Defund the Police" he's saying was a mistake, but then other people - that message hasn't resonated in some of the other races. So we are talking about a district that is very unique, I think, from some of the central Seattle districts in that apparently Dan's doing really well, just completely acting like "Defund the Police" was a discussion that never should have happened. So will be interesting seeing what happens there. [00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Dan? [00:03:19] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I don't know. I think Dan Strauss is definitely benefiting from being an incumbent to the extent that people - they may not feel like they love the guy, although some voters, I'm sure, do - but they know who he is, they know his name, he's been in office. He gives off - or tries to give off - a sort of I'm-just-Dan-from-Ballard vibe, your local guy who you know, a nice guy. Maybe that probably puts off some people, but I think he benefits from that in people just looking at the ballot and they may know The Red Door, but they may not know Pete Hanning's name. The one thing that I thought - I was looking at - that was most interested in was this is the district that changed most dramatically in redistricting. So it used to be the west part of north of the cut - Ballard, going up all the way up to Blue Ridge, etc, Broadview, and then over towards Green Lake. But now it hops the cut and basically is like Ballard, Fremont, and Magnolia - and looking at sort of the maps, all that's been released mapwise in terms of precinct level results is Election Night, so it's not the full picture, but you get a sense for the pattern. And overall the map, I don't think looks any different from any other Seattle election map, but this is a new configuration for that district and so interesting to see. Dan Strauss did very well in central Ballard, the more apartment-heavy part of Ballard and Fremont. And that Pete Hanning's stronghold, to the extent he had one in the primary, was in Magnolia, which isn't necessarily surprising. But it's just - it's a new map, so it's fun to see a new map. [00:05:32] Crystal Fincher: It is fun to see a new map. How did you see this, Guy? [00:05:37] Guy Oron: Yeah, Dan Strauss had a very impressive personal mandate - I think he got the most votes by far out of any of the Seattle City Council races - and this was the only district that reached like 40% turnout. So I wonder if that's in part because of just the demographics - being wealthier, whiter, more middle class. But I do wonder how much of that mandate is just because he's the default, milquetoast, moderate white guy. Or if it's just like people are passionate about him. Or I think a lot of people read The Stranger and voted for him - that would be my guess. And also he's incumbent and he's somehow managed to spin himself as not being that inoffensive. And also, I'm curious about Pete Hanning - if his candidate quality was as high as some of the other candidates in terms of getting his name recognition out there and actually making a mark - and so that would be his challenge going into the general election. But I would be very, very shocked if Strauss doesn't win at this point. [00:06:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it would be unprecedented for someone in Strauss's position, or really someone in Morales's position, not to be successful in the general. The power of incumbency is real. It is really, really hard to take out an incumbent, which is why sometimes you hear with a number of challengers, excitement - that it takes the electorate being in a place where they're ready to make a change and signaling they're going to make a change - and then takes a candidate who can take advantage of that. It looks like some were banking on the electorate being in more of a mood for a change than they actually are, which I think changes perhaps some of the strategy that some of the challengers had going in. But I think this is a case where there's an incumbent and people may have their feelings - I think he does try to be generally inoffensive and it's hard for a lot of the district to really, to very strongly passionately dislike him. But even those who were open to a change, it's one thing to say - Okay, I'm willing to hear other points of view - but it does take a candidate who can really articulate a clear vision and connect with voters to give them something that they can say - Okay, I can say yes to this, there is another vision here that I'm aligned with. And I don't know that voters heard another vision that they're necessarily aligned with unless they were really unhappy in the first place. It just looks like the amount of people who were really unhappy with their own councilmember just is not that big of a number, not one that's automatically creating a shift on the council. And so I think the job of a number of these challengers is a little bit harder than they bargained for. And I think here in another race - a closer race with an incumbent - in District 7, Andrew Lewis finished with, or currently has as of today the 8th, 43.47% of the vote to Bob Kettle's 31.5%. How do you see this race shaping up, Guy? [00:09:12] Guy Oron: Yeah. I thought - this was really a little surprising to me that Lewis did so poorly here. He still got the plurality, but he didn't have any challenges from the left, so it was a lot of pretty right-wing candidates or center who were really attacking him for his drug ordinance vote, policing. And I think this is probably the place we can expect a Chamber of Commerce or their successor organizations to pour in a ton of money to unseat him, to unseat Lewis. We also saw very low turnout in part because I think places like South Lake Union have a lot of expats and a lot of folks who are from around the country who don't pay attention to local politics. And so it might be important to have a ground game and activate those voters, and for Lewis just to find new voters instead of trying to look weak and flip-flop on issues. But that's just my two cents. [00:10:23] Daniel Beekman: Go ahead, Daniel. Yeah. I was just thinking that Guy was making some good points there and in theory, turnout should grow from the primary to the general election just as a rule. So yeah, Andrew Lewis is going to need to go after more voters. And in his 2019 race, he had the advantage of not just, I think, ad spending outside, but he had - I remember because I went out with them - hotel workers, union hotel workers knocking doors, turning out the vote for him on their own through independent work from his campaign, independent from his campaign in that election. And certainly he would hope to get that kind of support to turn out those additional voters in the general or else maybe he's in trouble. But yeah, I always like to look at the map. It was interesting looking at this one too, where you just had some real clear like top of Queen Anne and Downtown to some extent anti-Andrew Lewis voting or pro his challengers. And then the rest of the district, I think he did fairly well. But if turnout is a lot higher on upper Queen Anne than lower Queen Anne - doesn't matter what the map looks like in terms of space on it. [00:12:06] Crystal Fincher: Is that how you size it up, Melissa? [00:12:08] Melissa Santos: Yeah, I just think Andrew Lewis has a lot of work to do going forward to the general because theoretically you expect - I think it's reasonable to expect voters who voted for, for instance, Olga Sagan, the restaurant owner who is very anti-the work of the city council and anti-Andrew Lewis's record - they're more likely those voters are likely to vote for Bob Kettle, I would think in this particular case, than suddenly say maybe he's okay now. So and that would get - that alone - she only got 12% or something like that. But that's a sizable chunk to add to Bob Kettle's total there. And I do notice that Andrew Lewis seems a little worried. I do think he's trying to make sure his name's out there for stuff he's doing on the council right now - which all of them are doing who are incumbents - but I feel like Lewis especially is aware that he has some ground to make up. [00:13:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that Lewis has some reassuring to do of a lot of his base. I think that - right or wrong - but I think that there's cause for it, that there are people wondering if he really is a champion on their issues or can be pressured to not vote a certain way. I think more than other - certainly for the incumbents that are there - I think he's viewed as more of a swing vote than some others, which really says you may not know exactly what you're getting from him if you're in his base. And I think that's a challenge. I think that candidates - certainly incumbents are in a stronger position if they do have a well-defined persona, defined stances - that at least your base knows what they're going to get. And then you try and expand that a little bit. I think he has more of a challenge than the other incumbents there. With that said, I think that he is probably in a stronger position to win the general election. Not that this won't be competitive certainly, but I think if you're looking between the two of them and you're a betting person, he's more likely to be able to consolidate the vote and pick up people who vote in the general who don't necessarily vote in the primary than a more moderate candidate. But I think this is a race that has a lot of attention and a lot of interest, and one where we're likely to see outside spending playing a significant role in this race. [00:14:44] Melissa Santos: Yeah, and you are right that he didn't just annoy centrist people who wanted to see more prosecution of drug arrests. He actually has annoyed the progressives at various times by flip-flopping - I'm thinking about the capping rent fees as one vote he had where at first he was supporting a higher cap fee on, a higher maximum fee on late rent, than maybe the progressives wanted. And then went back to supporting a lower one - it was like $10 versus $50 or something like that. I think that some of the progressives were - Hey, where is this guy at on this - with that when they wanted to see that cap on late rent fees. I feel like it's hard to me for me to say all those words together correctly, but we wanted to see a very tight cap on how much landlords could charge for late rent. And Lewis was a little more willing, at one point, to consider letting landlords charge a little more for that. And that was something that disappointed progressives too. [00:15:43] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and it's - are you threading - he may be trying to thread the needle on some of these issues, but if he can't thread it correctly, does it look like you're flip-flopping or being - are you wavering rather than threading? [00:15:59] Guy Oron: It does seem like Lewis has been a little less successful with that strategy than Strauss. And maybe that's also because of their districts, but I think he should be worried a little bit about alienating those people who would maybe support him otherwise, for Stranger readers or that labor, for example, are labor unions actually going to come out and bat for him at this point like they did in 2019. So that will be something he has to work on in the next couple months. [00:16:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is. And so we've covered all of these Seattle City Council district races. Looking at them - is there a narrative to all of these races? Before this, Mayor Bruce Harrell had talked about recruiting against some of the incumbents here, having some candidates here. Do you see this as an acceptance, or repudiation, jury still out on what this says about where people stand in alignment with the mayor based on these results? Guy? [00:17:18] Guy Oron: I think, firstly, all the races are very competitive. So that was a little different than expectations. I think progressives do have a shot of actually winning back control a little bit, or retaining control, depending on how you define that. But I think the biggest narrative for me is just how low turnout we had. We had only 15% of 18 to 24 year olds vote across King County, so that shows that the political process isn't engaging a big amount of people - which is probably the most concerning fact out of this primary. [00:18:01] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Daniel? [00:18:08] Daniel Beekman: I don't know in terms of big takeaways overall, I guess we wait and see for the general. Some of the - some sort of fundamentals in Seattle politics aren't going to change that much generally from year to year and a lot of that is present in this election. Especially when, as Guy was saying, turnout wasn't high. There didn't seem to be tons of energy, even relative to other City elections, for this primary. And like I was mentioning before, that might not change unless there's one of these sort of big narratives that sort of - and they can be unpredictable like that Amazon money bomb, or who knows, maybe there's going to be another one of these tree protests - that really galvanize the voter imagination at the right moment and, or something around drugs and make it - pull an election out of the normal sort of rut of where you have these two general political factions and electorates in the city that are fairly evenly balanced. So it'll be interesting to see if there's something like that that grabs people and makes this time different in some way. [00:19:31] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts, Melissa? [00:19:34] Melissa Santos: While I think there's a lot of potential for change on the council, that's mostly - to me - the function of there being four open seats. And then, actually, we'll probably get to this in our last moments, but probably there'll be five seats that change over on the council, it looks like - which is five out of nine, that's a majority. So there's a lot of potential for change. However, it doesn't strike me that the incumbents are in danger of losing necessarily. So the change is just from new people coming in, but not throwing the old people out - is what it looks like. Lewis might be the one exception. He's the closest to potentially losing his seat, but I'm not certain that will happen either. So we could just end up with a lot of new voices and a lot of the incumbents all staying, which - the new voices may be aligned with the mayor, it's hard to say - I was just doing napkin math and looking at vote counts and how it will work out. But to that point, though, we don't know how some of these folks yet would vote on certain issues. So it's even hard to do that. Do I know where Joy Hollingsworth stands on certain, every single vote that the council's had on housing policy and taxing in the past five years? You know - I actually don't. So I don't know how those votes would shake out even if, whichever faction is elected. But I do think the progressive candidates are doing well in a lot of these races, so that will be interesting to see. [00:20:56] Daniel Beekman: It might just be that the biggest change in dynamic is something that has nothing to do with November, and it's that - no more Sawant on the council. Not that she always gets what she wants - that's hardly the case, but that's just been such a constant dynamic at City Hall for the last 10 years. And that could just change the way things are done and the sort of the whole political landscape up there on the dais at City Council as much as some of these other seats swapping out or who gets in those seats. [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. And I think - once again I hope people, whether you're an organization who's going to be doing forums or examining that or voters as you have opportunities to have conversations with these candidates - that you ask them where they stand and you hold them accountable for stating their position, for stating how they would have voted, for talking about how they did vote when they voted on different things so that you know what you're getting in terms of a councilmember and their vote. I think that there's growing frustration around looking at some of these challenges that we're facing in the City of Seattle and around the region, whether it's homelessness or public safety or climate change or taxation or progressive revenue, that there's been a lot of rhetoric over the past several years but maybe not the kind of change that people would expect based on some of the broad rhetoric that people have heard. And so I think the lesson to take from that is to really drill down and not just have people give you their very rosy, I-believe-the-children-are-the-future type sayings, but when they can't get everybody to agree, when everyone gathered around the table doesn't come up with one solution, what are they willing to step up and advocate for? What are they willing to stand up and say - Okay, I know this may not make everyone happy, but this is what I believe we need to do and how we need to move forward. I think those will be the most enlightening conversations that come out of this general election and will be the most helpful for voters making decisions. I do want to talk about these King County Council races. And one of these races features a current Seattle City Councilmember, Teresa Mosqueda, in the District 8 race against current Burien mayor, Sofia Aragon. This had a very strong showing - again for a Seattle City Council incumbent - Teresa Mosqueda with 57.56% of the vote right now, Sofia Aragon 37.57%. I don't think it's controversial to say that this is extremely likely to result in Teresa Mosqueda winning this race in the general election. We still have to go through it - nothing is absolutely set in stone, but this is about as safe as you can look as an incumbent. And interestingly enough, another Seattle City councilmember who has been on the forefront of big progressive policy wins - probably at the top of the list, the JumpStart Tax, which has been very consequential for the City of Seattle. What was your take of this race, and what do you think the big issues were or what this says about voters here in this race? - starting with Guy. [00:24:47] Guy Oron: I think the first outcome, I think, is just it shows how important high quality candidates are. I think Teresa is exemplary qualified. I think she has a lot of connections with local labor organizations, local community groups. And so she was really able to outmatch Sofia Aragon in that. And it also showed that I think that district was looking for more than just platitudes about policing and homelessness. And the third thing is maybe it's also a backlash against Aragon's handling of the recent saga over homelessness in Burien, and just how much the city has intensified vitriol against its unhoused population under her majority control. So those were my three takeaways. [00:25:45] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And for those unfamiliar, a dramatic saga currently playing out still in the City of Burien, where there have been a number of sweeps that have taken place with some homeless encampments there in the city. Those sweeps have to operate in a constitutionally legal framework. It looks like the City of Burien got outside of that framework - they were warned by the King County Executive that they were outside of that - you can't sweep people without an offer of shelter. But sometimes in cities, a major issue is that they don't have the resources to do that. Uniquely in Burien, King County offered to provide shelter and a number of Pallets [shelters] , a million dollars worth of that basically - Hey, work alongside us and we'll help you work through this with your population. And from the mayor, the deputy mayor on down basically rejected that offer and would rather not take that up, not house the population, and double down on more punitive criminalized efforts, which it seems may not be very popular in the city. And whether people favor more punitive or more evidence-based solutions there - seems like the one thing people do want is action taken. And when it looks like that isn't being taken, that's a challenge - that may have been a factor here in this race. I'm wondering what kind of addition to the council, or what does it look like voters voted for in terms of policy here and in terms of potential budget impacts or taxation? How did you see this, Melissa? [00:27:32] Melissa Santos: As you mentioned earlier, Mosqueda was really active in getting a tax on big business. This was the Amazon tax that actually ended up passing, after the head tax - kind of was an effort that failed in 2018. Mosqueda picked up the pieces and there were others, too, but she led this effort to actually get a tax on business passed in Seattle, which I think is a pretty big achievement, given how spectacularly that effort fell apart previously. And so she's sometimes been vilified by this - Sawant, for instance, as being too willing to work with people or something. But if you do get an Amazon tax out of it, then that seems to please progressives for the most part. So I think you will get some progressive views on tax policy on the County Council if Mosqueda is elected, which she is likely to be, it looks like. And Mosqueda is interesting because she is not - she has not, I don't think, walked away from the idea of saying - I don't, the number of police is not necessarily equivalent to having great public safety. I don't think we need all these police. She hasn't really walked back from her statements on that so much as maybe Dan Strauss and others here. And this was a real interesting contrast, because that's exactly where Aragon was going after her, saying - Defund the police has failed. Has the City Council of Seattle actually - did they actually follow through with actually defunding stuff? Not quite exactly, but the discussion certainly happened and that was a side that Mosqueda was interested in - looking at other solutions as opposed to hiring more cops, for sure, that's certainly fair to say. The voters in that area seem to think that's fine - 20 point spread here, it's not close. So I think that the thing that interests me most - I think the County Council is interesting, and then Mosqueda will join that and it will create another progressive voice in the County Council. But then we're going to have a fifth City Council seat that needs to be filled, and that will happen by appointment. And that's wild - voters aren't really going to be involved in that. And again, getting ahead of myself - the election has not happened, but 20 point spread, like we can probably assume there's going to be a fifth opening on the City Council. So that's the fifth seat that we aren't even really talking about on the ballot, which then there'll be people who parade through the City Council presenting themselves for the job. And they will have that happen probably toward the end of this year after the elections are over, or maybe early January, depending on the timing. But that will mean a majority of the City Council is changing over, and it could be not a progressive person replacing Mosqueda on the City Council. They won't be super far right or anything, but you could get a more centrist person than she is in that role because voters don't really have a say in it. [00:30:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and certainly whoever winds up on the council is going to be very consequential in that decision. What are your thoughts, Dan? [00:30:31] Daniel Beekman: Oh, I was just looking at the Election Night results map - and I should plug Washington Community Alliance because they did this and then put it out there, so that's what I'm looking at. But the interesting thing - I think it might be a little bit tempting because Sofia Aragon is an elected official - is she the mayor right now of Burien? Yeah, she's a mayor of Burien. So it might be a little tempting to read views into the whole Burien brouhah in this result. And maybe there's some of that. But looking at the map, Burien was actually - relatively speaking, she did decently. And the district also includes the dense part of Capitol Hill and the dense part of West Seattle - and that's where Mosqueda cleaned up. So I think you could a little bit more look at this and say it's the opposite of a repudiation in terms of Mosqueda's work on the City Council. But I would be a little bit more hesitant to read into it all that much about Burien, even though maybe some of that could be going on. [00:31:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. And again, I think that the mapping - more mapping options is wonderful. Kind of similar with first night results, I caution people against looking at first night precinct results - those tell a different story in the same way that the numbers tell a different story. So I'm super eager to dive into these when we have full results on those. And looking at that seems to be more enlightening and more accurate as to where things wind up there, but a really interesting view. And then in the other competitive King County Council race, District 4, where there were three pretty progressive candidates actually in this race in the primary where there was Jorge Barón, Sarah Reyneveld, and then Becka Johnson Poppe. Looking at this in comparison to the City Council races, the other County Council race, this is a race where all three of these candidates were, I think it's probably fair to say most people would consider them all to be progressives. And I've moderated one or two forums for this in the primary election. And these answers were routinely to the left of several of the city councilmembers here. But it looks like - in this race, an interesting dynamic - Jorge Barón got in the race a little bit later. He was previously involved in the legislative session, and so had to finish that up before joining the race, but ended up securing the endorsements of both The Times and The Stranger, which most people don't generally do. Usually there are only select few candidates each cycle who wind up getting both of those endorsements. He did. And it definitely shows in the results with Jorge - usually you don't see someone in an open seat primary getting over 50% - jorge Barón is currently at 50.65%. Sarah Reyneveld also advancing through to the general election at 28.7% here. How do you think this race shaped up and what did you see from this race, Melissa? [00:34:18] Melissa Santos: Jorge is just such a - has a big, big lead, as you said - and getting, again, this is not an incumbent getting almost 51% of the vote. This is a new candidate. But I do think this speaks to Jorge having done a lot of work. When we go back to 2017 and people rushing to SeaTac airport to respond to President, then-President Trump's ban on travel from certain Muslim countries, Jorge Barón was at the forefront of a lot of work. He was at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, I believe - off the top of my head, I think of it as the acronym, so I hope I have the full name correct here - but he's done so much work there where he's gotten a lot of earned media coverage because of doing a lot of work on behalf of people in the community. I think that, even if he hadn't campaigned at all - which I know he didn't just sit on the sidelines - but that did a lot of work before he even started campaigning. And I think that's reflected in the numbers here. [00:35:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. And to people looking to learn lessons when you're running - this is an excellent example of someone building their profile through serving in the community and people being aware of the work that they're doing, seeing tangible ways that that is playing out in the community. I think Jorge certainly benefited from that and benefited from just people saying - I certainly was a supporter of the work at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and so impactful and important in the community. How did you see this, Guy? [00:35:55] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think it really shows Jorge Barón's ground game kind of making, or rather the opposite of ground game, the networking. And just having served in the community for so long, I think, was probably what got him that endorsement - and familiarity with policy issues for years. Yeah, and I think it's a bit of a unicorn endorsement. I'm very curious what the deliberation was between The Seattle Times and The Stranger editorial boards. And it does show just how much power they have as gatekeepers, particularly in more low-turnout elections like these August primaries. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: How did you see this, Daniel? [00:36:40] Daniel Beekman: I don't have that much to add - I think Melissa and Guy nailed it. Only one anecdote is that The Stranger/Seattle Times double endorsement is like a unicorn, should be a slam dunk - but actually, Jon Grant in 2017 had both - got defeated, I think, pretty handily by Teresa Mosqueda, who we were just talking about. So it's not an absolute slam dunk always, but in this case, it looks like it probably will be. [00:37:14] Crystal Fincher: Definite themes of Teresa Mosqueda as a powerhouse in a number of different ways, it seems like. Now, as we've talked about a number of these races and we're almost done with time, so I guess just going around the horn here - What are you paying attention to most? What do you think is going to be the most interesting or impactful thing in the general election, either as a theme for these races or in any particular race that you're following? starting with Melissa. [00:37:46] Melissa Santos: Oh, geez. Okay. Yeah, I am really interested to know what people think about tax policy and whether they're supportive of new taxes that go beyond the JumpStart Tax because the City does have a budget deficit - not right at this precise moment over the next six months, but pretty big projected budget deficit going toward 2025 - and I'm curious how candidates will respond with specifics about what they'd support to deal with that. And then I'm also interested in where the candidates are on these police issues, because it's again - when you talk about slogans like "defund the police," that isn't even exactly what happened in Seattle. So it's - what are we talking about? And so that's what I'm watching - is what candidates actually have to say about that and what they mean when they say - I don't like defund the police - or, what does this mean? So I think I'm just really, now that there's not 10 candidates in a race, looking forward to actually figuring out where people stand on issues - hopefully. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: And Guy? [00:38:52] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think I'm looking forward to see if the economy rebounds a bit and if people start feeling a little less burned out from politics - and whether candidates and their ground game can really go upstream and try to convince some of the disillusioned young folks, and especially more of the progressive folks who are not as happy with Biden and are not looking forward to voting, and just convince them that voting matters and that they're not throwing away their time by filling out the ballot. [00:39:29] Crystal Fincher: And what about you, Daniel? [00:39:30] Daniel Beekman: I guess in Seattle City Council races, I'm just curious to see, I think the more conservative, moderate candidates - maybe unfair to paint with a broad brush, but that sort of side of things - will probably, whether there are policy solutions that are realistic to go along with these, but they'll bang on - Oh, we need to crack down or get tough with crime and drugs - and that kind of thing. I'm interested to see, though, what the left-wing candidates try to use or wave as the banner, policy-wise. Is it raising taxes on businesses more? Is it the rent control? Is it another minimum wage hike? What is it? Can they find something to latch on to that's going to capture the voter's imagination? And then I'm also just curious about some of these suburban races, like I was talking about before we went live - about Bothell and Burien and some interesting stuff up there. Bothell has this sort of growing urbanist political streak, and will that continue with one of the races up there? Looks like it could. And Kenmore finding itself dealing with affordable housing issues more and maybe getting a little bit of a lefty push - and will that continue? So I'm going to keep my eye on those. [00:41:06] Crystal Fincher: What I'm most looking forward to is to see where donors settle in these races. Certainly donors were spread out amongst a variety of candidates in the primary, but in some of these races, it's not super clear at the moment where the candidate stances are on all the issues. Some races it's pretty clear to say that there's a progressive and a moderate, others it's to be determined and the details of that are yet to be determined. So it's going to be interesting to see where donors consolidate - who more corporate-type donors feel are the candidates that are going to be on their side, where they invest - usually they do not donate to places where they don't feel pretty sure they're going to get a return on that investment of the candidates. So that's going to be interesting to see, and I will be paying attention to that throughout the primary, certainly. And with that, thank you for listening to this roundtable as it now comes to a close. I want to thank our panelists - Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos - for their insight and making this an engaging and informative event. To those watching online, thanks so much for tuning in. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page, YouTube channel, or on Twitter, where we're @HacksWonks. Special thanks to essential member of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinator for this evening, Dr. Shannon Cheng. If you missed voting in the election or know anyone who did, make sure to register to vote, update your registration, or find information for the next election at myvote.wa.gov. And as a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release in Washington state, even if you are still under community supervision. Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our Tuesday topical interviews and our Friday week-in-review shows or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher, and we'll see you next time.

6am Hour: Trump indicted with 13 charges by Georgia grand jury over attempt to overturn 2020 election, 18 other defendants named // Dolly Parton to visit Olympia to celebrate 65,000 enrolled WA children for Imagination Library // A massive fire at a homeless encampment in Seattle sent smoke pouring across nearby apartments in South Lake Union; Seattle drug use cases in limbo as new state law goes into effect // Lars Larson joins John to talk about the Trump indictments 7am Hour: How an obscure country artist

On this re-air, Crystal chats with former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his former Senior Communications Advisor Robert Cruickshank about the missed opportunity for generational impact through how decisions were made about Seattle's waterfront and the SR99 tunnel. Mike and Robert review how the vision of the scrappy People's Waterfront Coalition, centered around making a prized public space accessible for all while taking the climate crisis on by transforming our transportation system, nearly won the fight against those who prioritized maintaining highway capacity and those who prioritized increasing Downtown property values.  The conversation then highlights how those with power and money used their outsized influence to make backroom decisions - despite flawed arguments and little public enthusiasm for their proposal - leaving Seattle with an underutilized deep bore tunnel and a car-centric waterfront. Some of the decision makers are still active in local politics - including current Mayor Bruce Harrell and his current advisor Tim Burgess. With important elections ahead, Crystal, Mike and Robert discuss how political decisions tend to conflict with campaign promises rather than donor rolls, how proven action is a better indicator than value statements, and how today's dense ecosystem of progressive leaders and organizations can take inspiration and win the next fight. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii, Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, and Robert Cruickshank at @cruickshank.   Mike McGinn Mike is the Executive Director of national nonprofit America Walks.  He got his start in local politics as a neighborhood activist pushing for walkability. From there he founded a non-profit focused on sustainable and equitable growth, and then became mayor of Seattle. Just before joining America Walks, Mike worked to help Feet First, Washington State's walking advocacy organization, expand their sphere of influence across Washington state. He has worked on numerous public education, legislative, ballot measure and election campaigns – which has given him an abiding faith in the power of organizing and volunteers to create change.   Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013.   Resources “Seattle Waterfront History Interviews: Cary Moon, Waterfront Coalition” by Dominic Black from HistoryLink   “State Route 99 tunnel - Options and political debate" from Wikipedia   “Remembering broken promises about Bertha” by Josh Cohen from Curbed Seattle   “Fewer drivers in Seattle's Highway 99 tunnel could create need for bailout” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times   “Surface Highway Undermines Seattle's Waterfront Park” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle Prepares to Open Brand New Elliott Way Highway Connector” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Robert Cruickshank and former Mayor Mike McGinn to the show to talk about something that a lot of people have been thinking about, talking about recently - and that is Seattle's new waterfront. We feel like we've spent a decade under construction - from a deep bore tunnel to the tunnel machine getting stuck - that's not even covering all the debate before that, but all of the kind of follies and foibles and challenges that have beset the process of arriving at the waterfront that we have now. And now that we are getting the big reveal, a lot of people have feelings about it. So I thought we would talk about it with one of the people who was at the forefront of criticisms of the tunnel and calling out some red flags that turned out to be a very wise warning - several wise warnings that have come to pass, unfortunately - for not listening to them. But I want to start early on in the beginning, both of you - and I had a short stint in the mayor's office - worked on this, talked about this on the campaign, really got it. But when did you first hear that we needed to replace the viaduct and there were some different opinions about how to make that happen? [00:02:06] Mike McGinn: Okay, so I'm sure I can't pin down a date, but the really important date was, of course, the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. And so it gave the Alaska Way Viaduct a good shake - the decks weren't tied into the columns, the columns were on fill, which could liquefy - and everybody understood that if that quake had been a little stronger and harder, the elevated would come down. Now you might think that that would call for immediately closing the roadway for safety reasons, but what it did call for was for reconstructing it. And you have to remember that highway was really one of the very first limited access highways - it was built long ago and it was just at the end of its useful life anyway. Certainly not built to modern seismic standards or modern engineering standards. So the conversation immediately started and I don't know when everything started to settle into different roles, but the Mayor of Seattle Greg Nickels, was immediately a proponent for a tunnel - and a much larger and more expensive tunnel than what was ultimately built. And it would have been a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront that included a new seawall. So they thought they were solving two things at one time - because the seawall too was rotting away, very old, very unstable. But it would have gone all the way under South Lake Union and emerged onto Aurora Avenue further north, it would have had entrances and exits to Western and Elliott. And I seem to remember the quoted price was like $11 billion. And the state - governor at the time was Christine Gregoire - they were - No, we're replacing the highway. We don't have $11 billion for Seattle. And of course had the support of a lot of lawmakers for obvious reasons - we're not going to give Seattle all that money, we want all that highway money for our districts. And those were immediately presented as the alternatives. And so much of the credit has to go to Cary Moon, who lived on the waterfront and started something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. I think Grant Cogswell, a former City Council candidate - now runs a bookstore down in Mexico City, but wrote a book about the Monorail, worked on the different Monorail campaigns before that - they launched something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. And the basic proposition was - We don't need a highway. This is a great opportunity to get rid of the highway and have a surface street, but if you amp up the transit service - if we invest in transit instead - we can accommodate everyone. And so that was really - as it started - and actually I remember being outside City Hall one day, going to some stakeholder meeting - I went to so many different stakeholder meetings. And I remember Tim Ceis saying to me - he was the Deputy Mayor at the time - You're not supporting that Cary Moon idea - I mean, that's just crazy. I was - Well, actually, Tim. So the Sierra Club was - I was a volunteer leader in the Sierra Club - and the Sierra Club was one of the first organizations - I'm sure there were others, I shouldn't overstate it - but the Sierra Club was persuaded by the wisdom of Cary's idea and supported it in that day. And so that was really how the three different options got launched - no public process, no analysis, no description of what our needs were. The mayor went to a solution, the governor went to a solution - and it was up to members of the public to try to ask them to slow down, stop, and look at something different. [00:05:42] Crystal Fincher: And Robert, how did you first engage with this issue? [00:05:47] Robert Cruickshank: For me, I had just moved to Seattle the first time in the fall of 2001 - so it was about six months after the Nisqually quake - and I came from the Bay Area. And that was where another earthquake had damaged another waterfront highway, the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. And that was where San Francisco had voted - after that quake had damaged their viaduct beyond repair - they voted to tear it down and replace it with the Embarcadero Waterfront, which is a six-lane arterial but they built a lot more transit there. So they did the - what we might call the surface transit option - and it worked really well. It was beautiful. It still is. And so when I came up here and started to learn a little bit about the place I was living and the legacy of the Nisqually quake, I thought - Oh, why don't you just do the same thing here? It worked so well in San Francisco. Let's just tear down this unsightly monstrosity on the waterfront and replace it with a surface boulevard and put in a bunch of transit - San Francisco's made it work successfully. And the more I learned about Seattle, I realized there's a legacy of that here, too. This is a city where we had a freeway revolt, where activists came together and killed the RH Thomson freeway, which would have destroyed the Arboretum. They killed the Bay Freeway, which would have destroyed Pike Place Market. And so I naturally assumed - as being a relatively new resident - that Seattle would stay in that tradition and welcome the opportunity to tear this down and build a great waterfront for people, not cars. But as we'll talk about in a moment, we have a lot of business interests and freight interests and others who had a different vision - who didn't share that community-rooted vision. And I think at numerous points along the way, though, you see people of Seattle saying - No, this is not what we want for our waterfront. We have an opportunity now with the fact that this viaduct nearly collapsed, as Mike mentioned, in the Nisqually quake - we have an opportunity for something really wonderful here. And so I think Cary Moon and then Mike McGinn and others tapped into that - tapped into a really strong community desire to have a better waterfront. I wasn't that politically engaged at the time in the 2000s - I was just a grad student at UW - but just talking to folks who I knew, anytime this came up - God, wouldn't it be wonderful down there if this was oriented towards people and not cars, and we took that thing down? So I think one of the things you're going to see is this contest between the vision that many of us in Seattle had and still have - this beautiful location, beautiful vista on Elliott Bay, that should be for the people of the city - and those in power who have a very different vision and don't really want to share power or ultimately the right-of-way with We the People. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And I was involved in some things at the time - some curious coalitions - but definitely I was around a lot of people who favored either rebuilding the viaduct or the tunnel. Definitely not this roads and transit option - there's no way that's workable. That's pie-in-the-sky talk from those loony greenies over there. What are you talking about? But as this went on - I think no matter what camp people were in - there was always a clear vision articulated and people really focused on the opportunity that this represented, and I think correctly characterized it as - this is one of these generational decisions that we get to make that is going to impact the next generation or two and beyond. And there's an opportunity - the waterfront felt very disconnected with the way things were constructed - it was not easy just to go from downtown to the waterfront. It wasn't friendly for pedestrians. It wasn't friendly for tourists. It just did not feel like a world-class waterfront in a world-class city, and how we see that in so many other cities. You talk about the decision with the Embarcadero, Robert, and looking at - that definitely seemed like a definitive step forward. This was sold as - yeah, we can absolutely take a step forward and finally fix this waterfront and make it what it should have been the whole time. As you thought about the opportunity that this represented, what was the opportunity to you and what did you hear other people saying that they wanted this to be? [00:09:38] Mike McGinn: Yeah, so I think there are - I think that's really important, because I don't think there was a real discussion of what the vision was. People will say there was, but there really wasn't. Because what was baked in and what you're referring to is - well, of course you have to build automobile capacity to replace the existing automobile capacity, right? In fact, this state is still building more highways across the state in the misguided belief that more highway capacity will somehow or another do some good. So this idea that you have to replace and expand highway capacity is extremely powerful in Washington state and across the country. And there were very few examples of highway removal, so that was just a real challenge in the first place - that somehow or other the first priority has to be moving automobiles. For me, at that time I had become - the issue of climate had really penetrated me at that point. And in fact, when Greg Nickels took office and the Sierra Club endorsed him over Paul Schell - I was a local leader in the Sierra Club and a state leader in the Sierra Club - and my goal was that Mayor Nickels would do more than Paul Schell. And Paul Schell, the prior mayor, had done some good things. He had made Seattle City Light climate neutral - we'd gotten out of coal plants and we didn't purchase power from coal plants. He was really progressive on a number of environmental issues and we wanted Mayor Nickels to do more - and Mayor Nickels had stepped up. So we put on a campaign to urge him to do more. And he had stepped up to start something called the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative - which was the City of Seattle was going to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol, which was like the Paris Agreement of its day. And that was - it set an emissions reduction target by a date in the future. And that was really great - in fact, over a thousand cities around the country signed up to the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative. And I was appointed to a stakeholder group with other leaders - Denis Hayes from the Bullitt Foundation and others - to develop the first climate action plan for a city. Al Gore showed up at the press conference for it - it was a big - it was a BFD and a lot of excitement. And one of the things that was abundantly clear through that process of cataloging the emissions in the City of Seattle and coming up with a plan to reduce them was that our single largest source of emissions at that time was the transportation sector. We'd already gotten off of coal power under Mayor Schell - we received almost all of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. We had good conservation programs. Unlike other parts of the country, transportation was the biggest. Now what's fascinating is now - I don't know if I want to do the math - almost 20 years later, now what we see is that the whole country is in the same place. We're replacing coal and natural gas power plants. And now nationally, the single largest source of emissions is transportation. So how do you fix that? If we're serious about climate - and I thought we should be - because the scientists were telling us about heat waves. They were telling us about forest fires that would blanket the region in smoke. They were telling us about storms that would be bigger than we'd ever seen before. And flooding like we'd never seen and declining snowpack. And it was all going to happen in our futures. Honestly, I remember those predictions from the scientists because they're in the headlines today, every day. So what do we do to stop that? So I was - I had little kids, man - I had little kids, I had three kids. How are we going to stop this? Well, it's Seattle needs to lead - that's what has to happen. We're the progressive city. We're the first one out with a plan. We're going to show how we're going to do it. And if our biggest source is transportation, we should fix that. Well, it should seem obvious that the first thing you should do is stop building and expanding highways, and maybe even change some of the real estate used for cars and make it real estate for walking, biking, and transit. That's pretty straightforward. You also have to work on more housing. And this all led me to starting a nonprofit around all of these things and led to the Sierra Club - I think at a national level - our chapter was much further forward than any other chapter on upzones and backyard cottages and making the transition. So to me, this was the big - that was the vision. That was the opportunity. We're going to tear this down. We're going to make a massive investment in changing the system, and this in fact could be a really transformative piece. That's what motivated me. That climate argument wasn't landing with a whole bunch of other interests. There was certainly a vision from the Downtown and Downtown property owners and residents that - boy, wouldn't it be great to get rid of that elevated highway because that's terrible. There was also a vision from the people who still believed in highway capacity and that includes some of our major employers at the time and today - Boeing and Microsoft, they have facilities in the suburbs around Seattle - they think we need highway capacity. As well as all of the Port businesses, as well as all the maritime unions - thought that this highway connection here was somehow critical to their survival, the industrial areas. And then they wanted the capacity. So there were very strong competing visions. And I think it's fair to say that highway capacity is a vision - we've seen that one is now fulfilled. The second priority was an enhanced physical environment to enhance the property values of Downtown property owners. And they cut the deal with the highway capacity people - okay, we're here for your highway capacity, but we have to get some amenities. And the climate folks, I'm not seeing it - never a priority of any of the leaders - just wasn't a priority. [00:15:44] Crystal Fincher: How did you see those factions come into play and break down, Robert? [00:15:48] Robert Cruickshank: It was interesting. This all comes to a head in the late 2000s. And remembering back to that time, this is where Seattle is leading the fight to take on the climate and the fight against George W. Bush, who was seen as this avatar of and deeply connected to the oil industry. Someone who - one of his first things when he took office - he did was withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, which is the earlier version of what's now known as the Paris Agreement - global agreement to try to lower emissions. And so Seattle, in resisting Bush - that's where Greg Nickels became a national figure by leading the Mayors' Climate Action Group - not just say we're going to take on climate, we're going to do something about really de facto fighting back against Bush. And then Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore comes out with An Inconvenient Truth. And by 2007, people in Seattle are talking a lot about climate and how we need to do something about climate. But then what you see happening is the limits of that - what are people really actually willing to do and willing to support? The other piece that comes together, I think - in the 2000s - is a revival of the City itself. Seattle spends the late 20th century after the Boeing bust - since the 70s "Will the last person out of Seattle turn out the lights," recovering in the 80s somewhat, recovering in the 90s, and then the tech boom. And by the 2000s, Seattle is a destination city for young people coming to live here and living in apartments and working in the tech industry. I think that unsettles a lot of people. One thing that really stood out to me about the discussion about what to do on the waterfront was this vision from old school folks - like Joel Connelly and others - we've got to preserve that working waterfront. And it's very much the sense that blue collar working class labor is under threat - not from corporate power, but from a 20-something millennial with a laptop working at Amazon who comes to Seattle and thinks - Gosh, why is this ugly viaduct here? It's unsafe. Why don't we just tear it down and have a wonderful waterfront view? And those who are offended by this idea - who are so wedded to the 20th century model that we're going to drive everywhere, cars, freedom - this is where you see the limits of willingness to actually do something on climate. People don't actually want to give up their cars. They're afraid they're going to sacrifice their way of life. And you start to see this weird but powerful constellation come together where rather than having a discussion about transportation planning or even a discussion about climate action, we're having this weird discussion about culture. And it becomes a culture war. And the thing about a culture war is people pushing change are never actually trying to fight a war. They're just - This is a good idea. Why don't we do this? We all say these - we care about these values. And the people who don't want it just dig in and get really nasty and fight back. And so you start to see Cary Moon, People's Waterfront Coalition, Mike McGinn, and others get attacked as not wanting working class jobs, not wanting a working waterfront, not caring about how people are going to get to work, not caring about how the freight trucks are going to get around even though you're proposing a tunnel from the Port to Wallingford where - it's not exactly an industrial hub - there are some businesses there. But dumping all these cars out or in South Lake Union, it's like, what is going on here? It doesn't add up. But it became this powerful moment where a competing vision of the City - which those of us who saw a better future for Seattle didn't see any competition as necessary at all - those who are wedded to that model where we're going to drive everywhere, we're going to have trucks everywhere, really saw that under threat for other reasons. And they decided this is where they're going to make their stand. This is where they're going to make that fight. And that turned out to be pretty useful for the Port, the freight groups, the establishment democratic leaders who had already decided for their own reasons this is what they wanted too. [00:19:11] Mike McGinn: It's important to recognize too, in this, is to follow the money. And I think that this is true for highway construction generally. You have a big section of the economy - there's a section of the economy that believes in it, as Robert was saying, right? And I do think the culture war stuff is fully there - that somehow or another a bike lane in an industrial area will cause the failure of business. Although if you went to the bike - outside the industrial building - you'll find a bunch of the workers' bike there, right? Because it's affordable and efficient. So there's this weird belief that just isn't true - that you can't accommodate industry and transit and walking and biking. Of course you can. And in fact, adding all the cars is bad for freight movement because of all the traffic jams. So there's that belief, but there's also a whole bunch of people - I mentioned Downtown property owners - that gets you to your Downtown Seattle Association. The value of their property is going to be dramatically enhanced by burying, by eliminating the waterfront highway. But then you also have all of the people who build highways and all of the people who support the people who build highways. Who's going to float $4 billion in bonds? It's going to be a Downtown law firm. And by the way, the person who worked for that Downtown law firm and did the bond work was the head of the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time. So you have the engineering firms, you have the material providers, and then you have the union jobs that go with it. So really at this point - and this isn't just about the waterfront highway, this could be any highway expansion - you've captured the business community because a big chunk of the business community will get direct dollars from the government to them. And you've actually captured a significant chunk of the labor community as well, because labor fights for labor jobs. In the big picture, service workers are taking transit, service workers need housing in town, and you can start to see a split - like in my ultimate run for mayor, I won some service worker unions, never won any construction trades. In fact, they held a rally my first year in office to denounce me, right? Because I was standing in the way of jobs. So that's a really powerful coalition. And I think what you see today in the country as a whole - as you know, I'm the ED of America Walks, so I get to see a lot more - this is a pattern. Highways aren't really supported by the public. They don't go to the public for public votes on highways anymore - the public wouldn't support it. And in fact, the data suggests the public gets that building more highway lanes won't solve everything. But you've got a big, big chunk of the economy that's gotten extremely used to billions and billions of dollars flowing into their pockets. And they need to protect that in every year. So you get that level of intensity around - Look, we're talking about $4 billion on the waterfront and a bunch of that money's coming to us. Better believe it's a good idea, and what are you talking about, climate? [00:22:03] Robert Cruickshank: You talk about public votes, and I think there are three crucial public votes we got to talk about. One is 2007, when these advisory votes are on the ballot - and they're not binding, but they're advisory. Do you want to rebuild the viaduct or build a tunnel? They both get rejected. And then the next big vote is 2009, the mayoral election, where Mike McGinn becomes mayor - in part by channeling public frustration at this giant boondoggle. And then ultimately, the last public vote on this, 2011 - in June, I believe it was, it was in August - about whether we go forward or not and the public by this point, fatigued and beaten down by The Seattle Times, decides let's just move on from this. [00:22:43] Mike McGinn: There's no other alternative. And it is worth returning to that early vote, because it was such a fascinating moment, because - I think the mayor's office didn't want to put his expansive tunnel option in a direct vote against the new elevated, fearing it would lose. So they engineered an agreement with the governor that each one would get a separate up or down vote. And by the way, Tim Ceis, the Deputy Mayor at the time, called in the Sierra Club, briefed us on it, and one of our members said - What would happen if they both got voted down? And Deputy Mayor Ceis said - by the way, Tim Ceis has got a big contract right now from Mayor Harrell, longtime tunnel supporter. Tim Ceis is the consultant for most of the business side candidates. Tim Burgess, another big supporter of the tunnel, now works for Mayor Harrell. Oh, and Christine Gregoire has been hired by the biggest corporations in the region to do their work for them as well. So there's a pretty good payoff if you stick around and support the right side of this stuff. But anyway, Mayor Ceis, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, when said, What happens if they're both voted down? He goes - Well, that would be chaos. You don't want that, do you? And I remember all of us just kind of looked at each other - and we all went out on the sidewalk, there were like six of us. And we went - We want that, right? And so we joined in and supported the No and No campaign. And The Stranger came in really hard. And I think Erica Barnett wrote the articles. And Cary Moon was in on it. And the defeat of that, for the first time, opened up the possibility - Well, let's think about something else. And so a stakeholder group was formed. Cary Moon was appointed. Mike O'Brien was appointed. The waterfront guys were appointed. And the Downtown folks were appointed. And the labor folks were appointed. And I think a really important part of the story here is that it was advisory - they weren't making the decisions, it was advisory. But they got to a point at which the head of the State DOT, the head of the Seattle DOT, and the head of the King County DOT all expressed to their respective executives that surface transit worked and was worth it. And this was extremely distressing to the business community. So they mounted a big lobbying push and went straight to Gregoire. And Gregoire, for the first time, became a tunnel supporter. And they were promised that this new tunneling technology - the deep bore tunnel - would solve the cost issues of the deep bore tunnel. And not only that, the state's commitment, which to date was $2.4 billion - they had committed $2.4 billion to a rebuild - the state wouldn't have to pay anymore, because the Port would put in $300 million and they would raise $400 million from tolling. And coincidentally, the amount they thought they could raise from tolling was the exact amount needed to meet the projected cost of using the deep bore tunnel boring machine. So the deal was cut and announced. And the whole stakeholder group and the recommendations from the DOT heads were abandoned. And that occurred, basically, late 2008, early 2009 - the deal was made. And that was about the time that I was contemplating - well, I think I'd already decided to run, but I had not yet announced. [00:26:14] Crystal Fincher: And this was an interesting time, especially during that vote. Because at that time, I had an eye into what the business community was doing and thinking, and it was clear that their numbers didn't add up. [00:26:26] Mike McGinn: Oh my God - no. [00:26:28] Crystal Fincher: But they just did not want to face that. And what they knew is they had enough money and resources to throw at this issue and to throw at a marketing effort to obfuscate that, that they wouldn't have to worry about it. And there was this sense of offense, of indignation that - Who are these people trying to come up and tell us that we don't need freight capacity, that we don't need - that this extra highway capacity, don't they understand how important these freeways are? Who are these people who just don't understand how our economy works? [00:27:02] Mike McGinn: They were the grownups who really understood how things worked. And we were the upstarts who didn't understand anything. But there's a great line from Willie Brown talking about - I think the Transbay Bridge, and Robert can correct the name, in California, which was way over budget. And people were lamenting that the early estimates had been made up. And he goes - Look, this is how it works. You just need to dig a hole in the ground so deep that the only way to fill it up is with money. I think that's pretty much the quote. So that's the strategy. You get it started. Of course you have rosy estimates. And then you just have that commitment, and it's the job of legislators to come up with the cost overruns, dollars later. [00:27:43] Robert Cruickshank: And I think it's so key to understand this moment here in the late 2000s, where the public had already weighed in. I remember voting - it was the last thing I voted on before I moved to California for four years. I'm like no - I was No and No. And that's where the Seattle voters were. They rejected both options. And then you start to hear, coming out of the stakeholder group - Okay, we can make the surface transit option work. And I left town thinking - Alright, that's what's going to happen, just like the Embarcadero in San Francisco and done. And the next thing I hear in late 2008, early 2009, there's this deal that's been cut and all of a sudden a deep bore tunnel is on the table. And this is Seattle politics in a nutshell. I think people look back and think that because we are this smart, progressive technocratic city - those people who live here are - we think that our government works the same way. And it doesn't. This is - time and time again, the public will make its expression felt. They'll weigh in with opinion poll or protest or vote. And the powers that be will say - Well, actually, we want to do this thing instead. We'll cook it up in a backroom. We're going to jam it on all of you, and you're going to like it. And if you don't like it, then we're going to start marshaling resources. We're gonna throw a bunch of money at it. We'll get The Seattle Times to weigh in and pound away at the enemy. And that's how politics works here - that's how so much of our transportation system is built and managed. And so people today, in 2023, looking at this monstrosity on the waterfront that we have now think - How did we get here? Who planned this? It was planned in a backroom without public involvement. And I think that's a thing that has to be understood because that, as we just heard, was baked in from the very start. [00:29:11] Mike McGinn: Well, Robert, the idea of a deep bore tunnel was brought forward by a representative of the Discovery Institute, who you may know as the folks that believe in creationism. [00:29:21] Robert Cruickshank: Well, and not only that, the Discovery Institute is responsible for turning Christopher Rufo from a failed Seattle City Council candidate in 2019 into a national figure. [00:29:31] Mike McGinn: The Discovery Institute, with money from local donors - major, very wealthy local folks - they actually had a long-term plan to turn all of 99 into a limited access freeway. It's like - we need to get rid of that First Avenue South and Highway 99 and Aurora Avenue stuff - all of that should be a freeway. So they were the architects of the idea of - Hey, this deep bore tunnel is the solution. But Robert's point is just right on - transportation policy was driven by power and money, not by transportation needs, or climate needs, or equity needs, or even local economy needs really. When you get right down to it, our city runs on transit - that's what really matters. Our city runs on the fact that it's a city where people can walk from place to place. The idea that our economic future was tied to a highway that would skip Downtown - the most valuable place in the Pacific Northwest, Downtown Seattle. No, that's not really what powers our economy. But it certainly worked for the people that were going to get the dollars that flowed from folks and for the people who own Downtown property. [00:30:42] Crystal Fincher: And I want to talk about money and power with this. Who were the people in power? What was the Council at that time? Who made these decisions? [00:30:50] Mike McGinn: The Council at the time was elected citywide. And I think some people have concerns about district representation, but one of the things that citywide elections meant at the time was that you had to run a citywide campaign, and that's expensive. There's no way to knock on enough doors citywide. I did not have a lot of money when I ran for mayor, but at least I had the media attention that would go to a mayoral candidate. A City Council candidate would kind of flow under the radar. So you had people come from different places, right? They might come from the business side, they might come from the labor side. But ultimately, they would tend to make peace with the other major players - because only business and only labor could finance a campaign. They were the only ones with the resources to do that. So the other interests - the environmentalists, the social service folks, neighborhood advocates of whatever stripe - we chose from amongst the candidates that were elevated by, they would unify - in some cases, the business and labor folks would unify around a candidate. In fact, that's what we saw in the last two mayoral elections as well, where they pick a candidate. And so this doesn't leave much room. So when I was mayor, almost the entire council was aligned with the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time, either endorsed by them or had made their peace with them so the challenger was not being financed. So Robert said something about those outsiders - I went under the radar screen as a candidate at the beginning of my campaign. When I entered the race, nobody was running because everybody thought that Greg Nickels had the institutional support locked down. [00:32:33] Crystal Fincher: But then a snowstorm happened. [00:32:35] Mike McGinn: Well, it was even before that - honestly, everybody thought that he could win. And long before the snowstorm, I was like - We're getting a new mayor. And I was actually looking around to try to figure out who it was going to be - because I wanted a mayor who actually believed in climate, who had my values. But nobody - I was looking through who the people were that might run, and it dawned on me - Well, nobody's going to run. But we're going to get a new mayor and I have my values - and I've actually run ballot measure campaigns and had a very modest base of support. So I was really the first one in the race that got any attention. So I got some great media attention off that. Then my opponent in the general, Joe Mallahan - whatever else you may think about Joe Mallahan - he actually saw it too. He saw that there was an opening. And then we were joined by a long-time City Councilmember, Jan Drago. And I remember the headline from The Seattle Times or the comments at the time was - Okay, now it's a real race. But it just really wasn't. So I was really under the radar screen in that race because they were disregarding me. But there was in fact a lot of anger about the tunnel. There was a lot of just - Greg, for whatever his positives or negatives that history will deal with - and by the way, I actually think Greg did a lot of good. I just was disappointed in his highway policies and his climate policies at the end of the day - I have a lot of respect for Greg Nickels, but he wasn't going to win that race. And I came out of the primary against Joe Mallahan. And all of a sudden we had these two outsiders and the business community's freaking out. All of it - I remember watching it - all of the support, the business support shifted to Joe. It took about a month, it took a few weeks. But all of a sudden - there was actually one week where I think I raised more money than he did, that was pretty unusual - and then all of a sudden all the money was pouring in. And boy, did Joe believe in that tunnel. And did Joe believe in what the Chamber of Commerce wanted to do. In fact, he believed in it so much that he believed that Seattle should pay cost overruns if there were cost overruns on the tunnel - an admission I got from him during the televised debate, I was shocked he admitted to it. [00:34:41] Crystal Fincher: I remember that debate. [00:34:43] Mike McGinn: Yeah. So you were kind of asking about how politics worked. It was really something. Yeah - here's another memory. About two weeks before the election, the City Council took - three weeks before the, two, three weeks, four weeks - they took a vote to say that the tunnel was their choice. Even though there's a mayoral election in which the tunnel is on the ballot, so to speak - in terms of the issues of the candidates - they took a vote for no reason to say it was a done deal. And then WSDOT released a video of the elevated collapsing in a highway, which is the first time a public disclosure request from a third party was ever given straight to a TV station, I think, in my experience in Seattle. I had Gregoire and the DOT folks down there working on that campaign too - their tunnel was threatened. So it really was something how - I indeed was kind of shocked at - it was such a learning experience for me - how much the ranks closed around this. I didn't appreciate it. I had my own nonprofit, I had been on stakeholder committees, I'd worked with a lot of people that weren't just Sierra Club members and neighborhood types. I'd worked with a lot of business people, many of whom had supported my nonprofit because they liked its vision. But they were very clear with me that as long as I supported the surface transit option, there was no way they could be associated with my run for mayor in any way, shape, or form - even if they liked me. It was a complete lockdown - right after the primary where Greg lost the primary and it was me and Joe, I was - Okay, open field running. I can now reach out to these people. There's no incumbent - maybe some of them can support me now. And they were abundantly clear on all of those phone calls that - Nope, can't do it. Until you change your position on the tunnel, we just can't do it. We have business in this town, Mike. We have relationships in this town. We cannot do that. So it was a real lockdown - politically. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: That was also a big learning experience for me - watching that consolidation, watching how not only were they fighting for the tunnel against you and making the fight against you a fight about the tunnel, but the enforcement to those third parties that you were talking about that - Hey, if you play ball with him, you're cut off. And those kinds of threats and that kind of dealing - watching that happen was very formative for me. I'm like - Okay, I see how this works, and this is kind of insidious. And if you are branded as an outsider, if you don't play ball, if you don't kiss the ring of the adults in the room - which is definitely what they considered themselves - then you're on the outs and they're at war. And it was really a war footing against you and the campaign. Who was on the Council at that time? [00:37:30] Mike McGinn: Oh my God. Let me see if I can go through the list. No, and it really, it was - your point about it was a war footing was not something that I fully, that I did not appreciate until actually going through that experience - how unified that would be. Excuse me. The City Council chair was Tim Burgess at the time. Bruce Harrell was on the Council. Sally Clark, Richard Conlin, Nick Licata. Mike O'Brien was running on the same platform as me with regard to the tunnel and he'd just been elected. Jean Godden, Sally Bagshaw. I hope I'm not leaving anything out - because - [00:38:04] Robert Cruickshank: Tom Rasmussen will forgive you. [00:38:06] Mike McGinn: Tom Rasmussen. Yeah - because City Councilmembers would get really offended if you didn't thank them publicly - that was another thing I had to learn. You have to publicly thank any other politician on stage with you or they held a grudge. Yeah. So I had - I didn't know all the politicians' rules when I started. [00:38:25] Crystal Fincher: There are so many rules. [00:38:27] Mike McGinn: There are so many, there's so many rules. But really what you saw then was that the Council tended to move in lockstep on many issues - because if they all voted together and they all worked citywide, there was protection. None of them could be singled out. So it was very - and it's not to say that some of them didn't take principled votes and would find themselves on an 8-1 position sometimes, but for the most part, it was much, much safer to be - it was much, much safer to vote as a group. And they tended to do that. And they had coalesced around the tunnel, except for O'Brien. And that could not be shaken by anything we brought to bear. [00:39:04] Robert Cruickshank: And this is wrapped up in not just the electoral politics, but the power politics. Because Mike McGinn comes in - mayor leading the 7th floor of City Hall, the head of City government - and smart guy, nice guy, willing to talk to anybody. But is not from their crew, is not from that group. And as Crystal and Mike said, the ranks were closed from the start. This is - again, 2009, 2010 - when nationally Mitch McConnell is quoted as saying, It's his ambition to make Obama a one-term president. I don't know if he's ever caught on record, but I would be quite certain that Tim Burgess would have said the exact same thing - that his ambition was to make Mike McGinn a one-term mayor. As it turned out in 2013, Tim Burgess wanted his job - one of the candidates running for it. So these are all people who have a reason to close ranks against Mike McGinn and to use a tunnel as a bludgeon against him to do so. [00:39:58] Mike McGinn: There were other bludgeons. After I won the general election and before I took office, they passed their annual budget - they cut the mayor's office budget by a third before I even took office. Just boom - I know - they were determined, they were determined. And so that was when the planning - that council then and with WSDOT - that was when basically the contours of the waterfront were locked into place, including what we now see as that very wide surface road. That was that Council. So if you're wondering, if you're looking at that going - Okay, wow, who decided that and where did it come from? Again, our current mayor and his current advisor and others - they've always been for that. Building that big surface road has always been the plan to go along with the tunnel, because highway capacity was their highest priority. And the park on the waterfront, along with a lot of money into the aquarium and into these new structures - that's their signature thing for so many other people. But the idea that you should, that there was an opportunity to transform our transportation system and transform our city to make it more equitable and climate friendly was never a priority in this process. Just wasn't. [00:41:20] Crystal Fincher: It was never a priority. It was never seriously considered. And to me, through this process - lots of people know, have talked about it on the show before - I actually didn't start off Team McGinn. I wound up Team McGinn - didn't start off that way. But through that - and you won me over with logic - it was you being proven right on several things. You pointed out that their projections, their traffic projections were just so far out of left field that there was no way that they were going to come close. And they even had to come down on their projections before we even saw the traffic - the actual traffic turned out to be lower. You were right on that one - the laughable - [00:41:59] Mike McGinn: They're under 40,000 cars a day - for a highway that was carrying 110,000 cars a day beforehand. So even as a traffic solution - to put that into context, 40,000 cars a day is like the Ballard Bridge. And I can guarantee you the replacement costs of the Ballard Bridge is not $4 billion or $3.1 billion. The E Line, I think, carries 15,000 people a day. Metro carries 220,000 people a day. What you could do with that $3.1 billion or $4 billion in terms of bus lanes, bike lanes, rolling stock for Metro, maybe pay raises for bus drivers so that we could actually have service - you could do so much with those billions of dollars. And we put it all into moving 40,000 cars a day? It's just pathetic. That's three Rapid Ride lines we could have had for a 10th of the cost, or even less. I think the investments in Rapid Ride lines are about $50-100 million a line to make the capital investments to make it work. So the waste - even if you don't care about climate, the waste of dollars - and who's paying those taxes? To a great degree, we have the most regressive state and local tax system in the nation. And we'll have a ballot measure soon, and I know a lot of environmentalists will be out there if the package spends for the right thing saying - Hey, we need money for local streets. Imagine if we'd taken that gas tax money and the Legislature had allowed cities and towns to use it to improve their streets - which they can do. I know that the constitution says highway purposes, but when you read highway purposes, it says roads and bridges. It includes everything. You can use gas taxes for anything that improves the road. And they do. WSDOT has used gas taxes to pay for bike lanes and sidewalks. It's legal. That's a choice. So we're driving around potholed streets. We have - we're putting up little plastic dividers because we care more about the car getting hurt than the bicyclist on the other side of that plastic divider. We're watching our transit service melt away because we can't pay bus drivers enough. But hey, man, somebody's got a really rapid - 3,000 people a day get to skip Downtown in their private vehicles. Where are our priorities for equity? Where are the priorities for economy, or even just plain old-fashioned fiscal prudence? None of that was there - because all of those dollars were going to fund the needs of the most powerful people in the City. And they captured those dollars - and all of us will pay the taxes, all of us will breathe the smoky air, and all of us will watch our streets deteriorate and our transit service evaporate. [00:44:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And to me, it was such a foundational lesson that the people that we have making decisions really matter - and that we have to really explore their records, their donors, their histories - because over and over again, we look at the decisions that wind up being made that frequently conflict with campaign promises, but that very, very rarely conflict with their donor rolls. [00:45:16] Mike McGinn: And yes - and every one of them knows how to make the value statements. So if I had any advice for people in this year's election - everyone is going to say they care about housing, everyone's going to say they think biking safe. I don't - one of the things that I came away with - I don't care about the goals you put into some policy anymore. Show me the hard physical action you will take that might piss somebody off, but you're willing to do it because it's right. And if you can't do that, then your value statements are meaningless. So take a look - who actually, and that's the question I always ask candidates for office - Tell me about a time you did something hard that might've caused you criticism, but you did it because it was right. Or that you made somebody who was an ally or friend upset, but you did it because it was right. Tell me about that time. [00:46:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a challenge. And to your point and learning through just watching how people operated through that and some other processes - but that certainly was a big learning for me - is the role of coalitions, the role of accountability, and understanding. You have always had your finger on the pulse of Seattle, really - you're extraordinarily good at that. You're actually - both of you - are great strategists. But our political class is so detached from that sometimes - certainly I'm feeling frustration at some recent actions by our Legislature - we just had our special session day where they increased criminalization of substances, personal possession of substances - just reflecting on legislation to provide school, kids with free meals at school, things that seem like really basic and foundational that we should be able to land this. If we can call a special session to hand Boeing billions of dollars, we should be able to feed kids, right? [00:47:00] Mike McGinn: At the time we were cutting school budgets - when we found money for that. But I don't want to be too gloomy. And then I want to turn it over to Robert to get a last word in here, 'cause I just loved - his analysis is so awesome. I don't want to be too gloomy because - I look at what happened in the Legislature this year on housing, that we're finally going to allow housing, people to build more housing in places so people can actually live closer to their jobs and live more affordably. 10 years ago, we would have thought that was impossible. There's a lot of hard organizing that did it. At America Walks, we're the host of the Freeway Fighters Networks - there are people in 40 cities or more around the country that are organizing to remove highways. And while it's just a small amount of money compared to the amount going to highway expansion, there's actually federal funds to study and remove highways. So it's a long, hard slog. What felt for us - for Robert and me and Cary Moon and others fighting this - which felt like an impossible fight at the time is a fight that is now winning in places. Not winning enough - we're not winning fast enough - but it can change. And so that's - I don't want to be too negative. They got money, but organizing and people - and we actually have the public with us on this, just like we have the public with us on housing. So we just have to do more. We just got to keep at it, folks - got to keep at it. We can win this one. Don't allow this story of how hard it was to deal with the unified political class in the City of Seattle for their climate arson - should not deter you. It should inspire you, 'cause I actually won the mayor's office and we actually did do a lot of good. And the next fight is right in front of us again today, so get in it people. We need you. [00:48:46] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's spot on. And I remember coming to work in your office at the very beginning of 2011, when it seemed like the tunnel was just dominating discussion, but not in the mayor's office, right? When I joined, I fully expected to be like - roll my sleeves up to take on that tunnel. Instead, I'm working on the mayor's jobs plan, the Families and Education Levy, on transit. That's the stuff that was really getting done, and I think McGinn left a really great legacy on that. But we didn't win the tunnel fight. And I think we've diagnosed many of the reasons why, but one thing that really stands out to me as I look back from 12, 13 years distance is we didn't have the same density of genuinely progressive and social democratic organizations and people and leaders in Seattle that we have now. I think that matters because Mike's been talking about what's the next fight. I think one of the big fights coming up next year - when it comes time to renew that Move Seattle Levy - that's nearly a billion dollars that's going to be on the table. And we keep getting promised - when we are asked to approve these massive levies - that a lot of that money is going to go to safe streets, it's going to go to protect vulnerable users, we're going to do something to finally get towards Vision Zero. And instead it all gets taken away to build more car infrastructure. At what point do we finally stand - literally in the road - and say, No more. Do we look at the broken promises on the waterfront where we were promised a beautiful pedestrian-friendly waterfront and got another car sewer? We're going to have to organize and come together. We have many more groups now and many more leaders who are willing to stand up and say - We're not passing this levy unless it actually focuses on safe streets, unless it focuses on pedestrians and cyclists and transit users, and gives iron-clad promises to make sure stuff gets built so that some future mayor can't just walk in and start canceling projects left and right that we were promised. That's the lesson I take from this is - we're better organized now, we have more resources now, but it's still going to be a slog, and we're going to have to stand our ground - otherwise we get rolled. [00:50:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I thank you both for this conversation today - reflections on the tunnel fight, how it came to be, what it was like in the middle of it, and the lessons that we take moving forward in these elections that we have coming up this year, next year, and beyond. Thanks so much for the conversation. [00:50:50] Mike McGinn: Thank you, Crystal. [00:50:51] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you - it's been wonderful. [00:50:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm! The show kicks off with a rundown of The Urbanist's primary election endorsements, followed by discussion of a Federal Way shooting that raises lots of questions, the Burien council majority's continued failure on homelessness response, Ed Murray being spotted at political events, a court ruling that Seattle's primary encampment sweeps tool is unconstitutional, and a Mayor Harrell change of heart on South Lake Union light rail stations. 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, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Doug Trumm Doug Trumm is Publisher of The Urbanist, where he has contributed as a writer and editor since 2015. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at UW in 2019 with a concentration in urban policy. As a car-free renter living in Seattle, his policy focuses include improving transit and street safety and tackling the housing affordability crisis. His cat Ole is a national treasure.   Resources “Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats” from Hacks & Wonks   “2023 Primary Election Endorsements” from The Urbanist   “The Stranger's Endorsements for the August 1, 2023, Primary Election” from The Stranger   “Seattle Times editorial board endorsements: Aug. 1, 2023, primary” from The Seattle Times   Endorsements from PubliCola   Progressive Voters Guide from Fuse WA   2023 Policing and Public Safety Voter Guide - Seattle City Council from People Power Washington   “Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police say” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Burien still can't decide whether it'll take homelessness offer” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “After Refusing Shelter Offer from King County, Burien Proposes Camping Ban” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces his resignation on September 12, 2017.” by Nick Rousso from HistoryLink.org   “City's Primary Tool for Sweeping Encampments Without Notice Ruled Unconstitutional” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell Advances New Denny Station Options That Could Delay Ballard Link” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Transit Advocates Push to Save South Lake Union Light Rail Station” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Ballard Link Extension: South Lake Union Stations Webinar #2 | Sound Transit   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats, about how the county party engages in local elections and politics to improve lives in our area. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Hey. [00:01:20] Doug Trumm: Hey, good to see you - thanks so much for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Very, very happy and excited to have you. And as we sit here, people have ballots at their homes - you should have received your ballot - if you haven't, you should pursue getting another one or tracking down where that is. But primary election is in full swing. The primary election end date is Tuesday, August 1st. And wow, there have been a lot of endorsements, including endorsements from The Urbanist. Who did The Urbanist decide to support in several different races? And what was the approach The Urbanist took to making these endorsements? [00:01:58] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we are excited to announce our slate. I'll, I guess, start with how we got there, which was a painstaking process - we've done it the same way, going back six, seven years. And that involves - first, the questionnaire to get people on the record about some issues important to urbanists and Safe Street advocates and housing advocates. And then after they've submitted their questionnaire, we invite them in for actual interviews that are now happening over Zoom - which has been convenient, I think, for everyone, since we're covering a wide area. We probably should have been doing this the whole time - save the candidates time and you get through more candidates. And it's about a 25-minute interview and you learn a little bit more - when you get a vague response in a questionnaire or some issue becomes relevant that maybe wasn't when you sent out the questionnaire. And then we debate what we felt about it. And luckily we didn't have any big fights this year, but obviously some disagreement. And I guess I can start with the Seattle City Council. We also endorsed in Bellevue this year, but where we endorsed, there's not a primary - so not the big fireworks that rolled that one out, but there will be more in the general. But we'll start in order. District 1 in Seattle - Maren Costa, we liked. She's a climate activist and clearly had the best housing platform. A slam dunk as far as what urbanists are looking for, I think, as some of the other candidates were much more wishy-washy about how much housing are they going to allow and how many ways are they going to allow to block it. Costa was pretty clear - I want housing. And then in [District] 2, we liked the incumbent, Tammy Morales. She's been the most strident Safe Streets advocate in the council, so we need someone like that 'cause it's very hard to get Safe Streets projects done. And her district is also in most in need of it, and she's been very clear about that. So it just seems like we need a strong voice, especially in that district. D3, we went with Alex Hudson. We thought she had the most policy chops experience - a lot of progressives in that race, but we thought Alex had the most ability to get it done. In D4, we liked Ron Davis. Didn't really seem to be anyone else who wanted the progressive mantle in that race, and maybe that's a credit partially to Ron Davis being a strong candidate. And we think he is really clear about where he stands and not very politician-y in that way, which is refreshing - was very clear about he wanted a lot of housing in the Comp Plan update that's due next year. Just to underscore that it's a really consequential election because that Comp Plan update is happening next year and a lot of big stuff happening next year, so definitely don't sit out this election. And Ron seems like the person clearly who actually believes in urbanism, believes in 15-minute cities, and things that can make it easier to get around the city as well. Competition just isn't very good. Then in D5, we went with Nilu Jenks. And that is interesting, right - so maybe I get your take on that rather than keep grandstanding here with our endorsements - but we liked Nilu a lot, but then it turned out The Stranger went with ChrisTiana ObeySumner, who we didn't get a chance to interview, otherwise we might have been so inclined potentially - just couldn't get that scheduled. So we ended up going with Nilu, who is pretty strong on most of our issues - was clear she was for housing abundance. And we didn't love some of her police takes, but we thought she was the best candidate we interviewed. And then The Seattle Times went with Cathy Moore. D5 is a weird race because Cathy Moore is now the de facto business chamber candidate, but there aren't as clear of lines. Did you have anything on that or should I keep going? [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: I think you should keep going and I will chime in at the end. But I do agree that is a race with a number of very interesting candidates that I think are all worthy of looking into. And I think looking deeper into, particularly ChrisTiana ObeySumner and what they're doing is warranted. [00:05:36] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we're gonna continue to try to get that interview scheduled, so there's always potential in the general - it can be different. Also, who knows who's gonna make it through that primary, so it could be a very interesting field - there's a lot of candidates who have a decent shot. Tye Reed also has the Transit Riders Union endorsement and some other progressive endorsements, and is running probably farthest to the left. We wrote in our write-up that we liked Tye as well, but we just thought Nilu had the stronger chance in the general and also a little bit more of a bridge builder. Then moving on to D6, we went with Dan Strauss. We weren't terribly excited about it. He's been someone who's definitely tacked to the center and to the right. And his district has too, so maybe that's just survivalism, but we don't think those votes are good - I'm thinking of his recent vote that gave Ann Davison the power to lock poor people and drug users on the street. It just seemed like a forced vote - there wasn't actually a treatment plan and a diversion plan offered, but on pinky swearing - I don't know how you would take that pinky swear from Ann Davison. So that was a culmination of a continuing slide to the right, especially on safety. And he's been all right as Land Use Chair, but also has moved fairly slowly. But compared to Pete Hanning, his main competition, Dan's still clearly better so we went with Dan. And then D7, we went with Andrew Lewis. We thought Andrew Lewis and Dan Strauss were very similar - they both reflected as progressives and there was always questions about how progressive they really are, but I think Andrew's done a better job than Dan at defining himself and taking some brave votes here and there - he's been more accessible in explaining his waffles, rather than waffle-and-hide - I think that waffling is indicative of his kind of process to get somewhere. I'm not sure, always, what Dan's thinking. So we went with Lewis. The people running against Lewis also are all running pretty far right. It wasn't like there was someone who was gunning for The Urbanist endorsement in that race. But I think Lewis, as Chair of the Homelessness Committee, has done some good stuff and been very clear about trying to set up a alternate response and really hammering on that, so he's definitely worthy of a second term. We also endorsed in King County Council. One really hard race for us to endorse - because we had so many candidates we liked and we really went back and forth about how to do it - we ultimately decided not to do a dual. But in District 4 of the King County Council, which is Northwest Seattle, we went with Becka Johnson Poppe. And she works at King County now as a Budget and Policy Director, and that experience pushed her over the top for us. She's someone who already can hit the ground running. She knows this stuff inside-out and she has credibility - she is a progressive and has pushed on stuff. And one thing we're really watching on the King County Council is Metro Transit service - it's not where it was pre-pandemic, there's less frequency. And she's someone who's been clear about county-wide Transportation Benefit District, which could fund bus service and get us back to that pre-pandemic level eventually. Oddly, the King County Council's been dragging their feet on that and letting obstacles stand in the way rather than solve those obstacles, which is always frustrating to see. I think getting some new people in there, maybe they can take more of a problem-solving approach rather than - We can't get enough bus drivers, so I guess we're gonna accept mediocrity from our transit delivery. [00:08:32] Crystal Fincher: If that would have been a dual endorsement, who would have been the other? [00:08:36] Doug Trumm: Probably Jorge Barón. The vote didn't go that way, so I couldn't say for certain how it would have went. We liked all three candidates in that race, so I think it would probably have been Jorge - who got in late, but has an incredible record as far as leading [Northwest] Immigrant Rights Project. He's led that organization, has done incredible work. We certainly heard from him how he was going to apply that background to advocating for people of color communities in the county and understanding their issues better. And even though you're not gonna be determining that policy at the county level, you are doing a lot of policy that still affects people's livelihood. So liked Jorge Barón - he ended up getting The Seattle Times endorsement, he's pretty progressive for a Seattle Times endorsement. It might just be a reflection of three pretty progressive people in the race. Did The Stranger also go with Jorge? [00:09:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, he nailed what many candidates don't usually nail, which is getting both The Times and The Stranger endorsement. That doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it is usually a very encouraging sign for that candidate. But you're right, this is a race where there are only good choices. And so it just depends on your personal preferences and who you think can best carry out the vision - three solid candidates, each with impressive resumes and impressive experience. [00:09:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the third being Sarah Reyneveld, who got the Transit Riders Union endorsement, and I think a handful of labor endorsements. And has also been someone who's been active on transit issues - that countywide Transportation Benefit District, or other funding measures, to get the county back on track. Another open seat in the County Council in District 8, a more West Seattle-type area all the way to Burien and Tukwila. We went with Teresa Mosqueda, which was an easy choice for us, especially after her main competition - Burien Mayor Sofia Aragon - has been on this get-the-homeless-people-out-of-our-city-and-not-provide-services tangent now. So Teresa Mosqueda has been a great City Councilmember in Seattle, and obviously it'd be tough to see her go. She has a clear plan of how she's going to continue working on these issues at the county - transit, housing, healthcare, and childcare kind of being the pillars of her platform. And yeah, she's just someone who got a lot done, including JumpStart, which was the biggest step forward for progressive tax reform in Seattle in maybe ever. So I think that kind of resume is tough to beat. [00:10:49] Crystal Fincher: And that makes sense. There are a number of races for people to choose from this year - definitely going to be reshaping what the Seattle City Council looks like, with so many vacancies and so many open seats and new candidates that are going to be coming aboard. I think it's a solid group of endorsements. There are arguments that can be made for some other candidates in some of those races. I think District 5 is one of those where there are a number of good choices. You talked about Tye Reed, who was instrumental in the passage of social housing in Seattle - making that happen, getting that passed, and has been an organizer for a while around a number of different issues in the city. No one can question Tye's dedication to these issues and real personal investment - and making sure it can get better. We talked about ChrisTiana ObeySumner and Nilu Jenks, so we'll see how that race turns out - that's going to be another interesting one to check out. So we'll leave that there. We'll probably include links to other endorsing entities - just as you try to make up your mind as a listener and a voter - just to give you resources there to assist with those. Also want to talk about a number of other things, but we will go to this brief story about a drive-by shooting - evidently, sheriff deputies were on-site. There's not much that's been reported, and it really seems like the reporter dictated an initial statement from the police and didn't ask any questions. I'll read it to you, and then we can talk about it. Title - Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police Say. A person was killed during a drive-by shooting while King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check early Saturday morning in Federal Way. Officers were attempting to check on the person seen behind a property in the 3900 block of South 320th Street shortly before 3 a.m. when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. Sheriff's spokesperson, Sergeant Eric White said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene. Deputies followed the two vehicles but they got away. No arrests had been made as of Saturday afternoon. Several businesses are located in the area of the shooting. That's the whole story. That's quite an interesting tale. What is your initial reaction to this, Doug? [00:13:16] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's a head scratcher - have a story, we don't have a lot to go on. It tears down the mythology of what policing can do, especially with us rolling back our police chase limitations and letting police go hog wild in these chases again - at this past session at the State Legislature - because of pushback from the police lobbying forces. Theoretically, they were gonna do these chases and catch people exactly like this. They saw someone doing a drive-by shooting and they were in their cars, conceivably - this is the perfect time to do that chase. And yeah, it didn't work out, so it just underscores that using police chases is such a uncertain and certainly dangerous type of way to try to apprehend criminals when you can easily just ID the car and catch up with them later. And there's so many pedestrians and other bystanders that die in these chases - there really has to be a good chance of a good outcome, like some sort of win, to deal with that collateral damage. That's the first thing that popped into my mind. And the drive-by was apparently someone else. All these police press releases, reported with very little critical eye - when police are involved, they put it in passive voice and passive action. But because of that way they write the press releases, you wonder - Did the police open fire? Did they do anything? - we don't have that information yet. It was reported as a drive-by, so one would assume it wasn't just police opening fire during a wellness check. Were these people involved in the wellness check at all? - you end up with more questions than you have answers. In real-life situations, you realize there's so much that could go wrong. [00:14:42] Crystal Fincher: So many questions I have - a person was killed during a drive-by. Okay, so King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check. First thing, Federal Way has its own police department - doesn't contract with King County for its deputies. So these deputies, for some reason, responded instead of the Federal Way Police Department. Was it in response to a call? Who called it in? But they decide to go by themselves. Why were they on scene? So they were attempting to check out a person behind a property, they say, when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. I notice it doesn't say those shots came from the vehicle - it's vaguely worded and isn't useful, especially when there's so much that can be consequential, based on their characterization of what happens. Then the Sheriff's spokesperson said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene - I'm wondering if this reporter did anything but dictate this statement - did they ask anything about this? This is just a very vaguely worded statement. Deputies followed the two vehicles, but they got away. Again, this is a situation where even with the police pursuit law, they would have been able to follow them, but they said they needed a rollback to be able to catch criminals like this, and evidently that's not the case. What happened here? So no arrests have been made, no information has been shared that we've seen. What was the make and model of the car? Any description of the people inside the car? What came of that whole thing? There's no information. So if we take what they say at face value, what a spectacular failure in public safety. You have two officers on-site, and a person still gets murdered according to this account? All the excuses of they need more officers, they need more funding, we need to be able to have the officers nearby, on-site to protect people - there were two here, and they couldn't protect one person. How does that happen? Why does that happen? What was the situation? Was something missed? Did they not see people prowling in the area? What a failure. They assume that the shots came from this vehicle that killed this person. How do we not have a description of the car, a license plate, the people inside, any followup on that? Where does this case stand? None of that information provided. If police departments want to restore trust, if they want to have people work for them - those are the kind of answers that people want to see. Do people want to work for a department that can't stop a murder when two deputies are on scene, that can't apprehend a perpetrator when they have a zero-second response time and they can immediately respond? What is the purpose and utility here? And are they doing the work to figure out how to keep this from happening again, to figure out how to actually ensure safety? Unfortunately, too often that is not the case. And that's if you take everything just at face value here. It would be great to see some supporting information - some dash cam, body-worn camera video - just to see what happened, how this happened, and does the evidence match up with the narrative here? There is work that the Federal Way Police Department needs to do, that many departments need to do, and that the King County Sheriff's Office needs to do to rebuild trust within the community. [00:17:54] Doug Trumm: Why even run the story if you have so little information? It plays right into the police narrative. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep, definitely a decision that The Seattle Times should dive into and ask themselves a lot of questions - about how this came to be published and what information they were relying on. Also wanna talk about the City of Burien and their continuing shame, really. The council majority deciding that not only do they wanna refuse the offer of shelter - the million dollars, 30-some odd Pallet shelters on provision, 100-ish parking spaces to backfill some space that a dealership was using. They are turning all that down and moving towards just a blanket camping ban in the city, which we've seen fail in so many other cities, but they are determined to do it themselves. This again is happening on a 4-3 council vote. The council majority, unfortunately, is winning this. What do you see happening here? What's your reaction to this, Doug? [00:18:57] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's pretty sickening. I don't know that folks necessarily saw this coming. We saw some progressives elected onto the Burien City Council, so there was some hope that they were actually going to be looking towards making progress on this issue, doing things that actually work in the long term - rather than sweeping it under the rug and pushing it to other cities. But the four centrists on Burien City Council continue to hammer on this issue - they're not taking this offer of help that very few other cities in the region have, with so few strings attached, to a million dollars worth of housing for their homeless people. It's the type of thing that makes your head explode because - if you're mad about homeless people, having more roofs over the people's heads is the most direct way of dealing with that. And they had a million process complaints, like - Oh, what's gonna happen in five years or whatever? We're gonna be on the hook. It's just that type of thing that they wouldn't ask for any other offer of a million dollars from the county - suddenly they want a 20-year plan for this when they have no plan themselves. It's really, like you said, shameful. They've lost the majority of their Burien Planning Commission, as you've talked about in this podcast before, because of this move when the mayor decided to remove the head of the Planning Commission and then some other Planning Commissioners quit in protest. We all covered all that, but the one thing that's gonna happen if that commission continues to be unfilled is it's gonna slow down the production of housing in Burien - large projects have to go to that commission. If that happens, you're exasperating your housing shortage - they're creating the problem that they're complaining about. It's maddening, it's not treating these folks as human beings - I think it was Stephanie Mora referring that they should poop in doggy bags like they're dogs - it's clearly dehumanizing language. I think should be disqualifying for holding this office, but hopefully they lose their seats. For now, they're the people making policy for a city of about 50,000 people - it's crazy. [00:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it absolutely is. And as you talked about, Mayor Sofia Aragon, Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling, Councilmember Jimmy Matta have been part of making these decisions that are unconscionable. This is really a depiction of this soft, kind of progressive rhetoric with a wink and a nod. In previous statements, they had talked like - We definitely want to sweep, but we'll do it in a nice way, in a compassionate way, in the progressive way. But when it comes down to it, they really weren't interested in that at all. They just wanted to get people away and using very dehumanizing language. The real tell is - the place where they usually make an excuse and get away with it - We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If we could, we would, but we just can't - we don't have anything, I'm sorry. So the only choice we have is to sweep because we just don't have the choice to do anything else. King County basically called that bluff and said - Okay, we've got a million dollars for you. We've got Pallet shelters ready to go. We've got a location that we can partner with. And hey, this dealership is gonna be impacted? We'll provide 100 parking spaces, which is larger than their inventory. - every objection, every excuse, every hurdle that they had was basically responded to by the county. And by the way, kudos to Dow Constantine and his office for taking a stance and for trying to constructively work with the City of Burien. There sometimes have been criticisms for Dow doing that in South County. He is doing it here. And Burien and the Council majority - they turned all that down. They could have already housed the people there. This would make a meaningful, visible, substantial difference in their situation overnight - once this is implemented - and they just decided not to. They're just looking for a ban. Bans are wholly ineffective, as the prior sweeps were wholly ineffective. And they just moved people from one location to another and making, as you said, the problem they're allegedly trying to fix even worse. This is just a continuing shame and negligence from the council. These people are their constituents - whether someone has a home or not, these are Burien residents - and their job is to help them and to serve them. And they refuse to do so. And it's shameful. It's pathetic. [00:22:59] Doug Trumm: Hopefully they come to their senses - this 4-3 split has been pretty durable. [00:23:03] Crystal Fincher: We will see what the primary elections hold. Sofia Aragon is running currently for King County Council against Teresa Mosqueda. I don't think anyone really expects Sofia to win this race. But it is really important to make sure people don't just rest on their laurels and sit on the sidelines. And even in this primary, even when it seems like one person is clearly more qualified than the other, you actually need to vote and make your own choice. [00:23:28] Doug Trumm: These are like conservative trial balloons - they're testing the waters - can Democrats get away with very conservative Trump-esque rhetoric, dehumanizing homeless people, pandering to cops in completely unaccountable ways? They want to see if that works. I don't know if Sofia is connecting these two - it seems like she would be when she declares for office for the King County Council race. But maybe her calculation is this makes her more popular. And I think it's really incumbent upon people who don't agree with that to actually turn out to an odd-year election, because it's validating that approach. And you're going to see more and more of it if people get rewarded for that. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: That's blatantly the calculation that they're making. Kevin Schilling has an opponent - Patricia Hudson - running against him right now, who is the progressive choice who is endorsed by King County Democrats. I mean, they received a very unusual letter of rebuke from the King County Executive's office, also from the 33rd District Democrats, which encompasses part of Burien. And the other part of Burien is the 34th, who also submitted an open public letter of rebuke. Anyone who calls themself a Democrat on record, locally, is outwardly opposing it. And it hasn't stopped them. In fact, they seem to be using that as cred. So this is important. These are still the people in office. They do need to be held accountable, and people need to make their voices heard. Another disillusioning development we've seen over the past couple of weeks is Ed Murray evidently popping up at political events around the region and definitely catching a number of people off guard. There seem to be some people who are okay with it. But just as a reminder - Ed Murray, former legislator, former mayor of Seattle, had to resign in disgrace as mayor of Seattle after credible allegations of molestation of underage people who were under his care and also potentially a family member. Also troubling was his response using someone's background against them - they were going through hard times as unhoused youth working with LGBTQ youth, who oftentimes very unfortunately are disowned by family, kicked out of the house, and left in very vulnerable positions - to then cite that vulnerable position as a reason why someone may not be believed was really victim blaming. The entire community, who has so many people who have been victimized - was a re-victimization to hear that. But he's been out of the public eye for a while and seems to be doing a soft launch to get back in. What's your reaction to this? [00:26:04] Doug Trumm: With someone like that who's had such a long political career, they don't start going to political events just for fun. They're plotting getting back into politics. He's clearly testing the waters here, seeing if he can get back into politics. He's seeing if he can get acceptance enough to the point where he can run for something again or be a campaign manager. I don't think it should happen. And it's also not a pleasant experience for folks who did have a negative reaction to his handling of that situation - making it very hard for his accuser to come forward because he was using the whole weight of his office against that person. That's not how you handle it if you're a leader - you don't victim blame. Luckily, he finally resigned, but he was going to hold on to that office with everything he had. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: I also think that's a low bar. It's wholly inappropriate for him to be in these. There's been no atonement. There's been no acknowledgment of what he's done. And while I don't believe in throwing people away forever, there has been nothing to indicate that he acknowledges what he's done, that he's attempted to make amends to his victims. In fact, that seems quite the opposite. He's just hoping to pick up where he left off. I think it is going to be really interesting to survey who is okay with him being at political events, and at their political events, and who is not - and what that says about different people as candidates. Who is finding this troubling and who is finding it just fine? I'm curious about where he does feel welcome and why, and what that says about those spaces. We will see how this continues to unfold throughout the city. And if you spot Ed Murray, shoot me a message. Also, a pretty significant court ruling this week came in about encampment sweeps, particularly about the City of Seattle - Seattle has been sweeping too broadly and is unconstitutional in its application. When there's clearly a risk to public safety or they are blocking completely a sidewalk, there is cause for encampment sweeps. But they've been doing it too much and for reasons that are too broad - they need to effectively offer shelter and provide shelter if they're going to sweep people. Without that provision of shelter, there's nowhere else for someone to go. It is illegal to say you can't exist here - in essence, you're saying you can't exist anywhere. And this court ruling was powerful with some pretty clear statements calling the current policy dehumanizing, destabilizing, and counterproductive. How did you see this? [00:28:31] Doug Trumm: The two individuals who brought it - their story was so tragic - they mentioned losing wedding rings, family heirlooms, because they've just been repeatedly swept while they're getting services or going to work or whatever. One person mentioned losing their work boots and then that jeopardized their employment and that sunk them deeper into the spiral of homelessness. They kept getting these last-second-notice sweeps because they were supposedly an obstruction. If the definitions are broad, they don't have anywhere to go. The ruling says the two main ways they were bending this rule is they were defining the blockages - 50% blockage, it becomes 100% blockage in their eyes, or even a 30% blockage - because some of these sidewalks in downtown are fairly wide. And unfortunately, some sidewalks in our city are pretty narrow. Often folks aren't trying to block the whole sidewalks. They're trying to go somewhere they can and not fear that their stuff's gonna get snatched up and taken away. They lost all these valuable possessions, including their wedding ring. What are we doing here? This cruel unusual punishment that rises to a constitutional violation and this judge issues this ruling. Now the City's gonna have to rethink how they do this. The other main way they avoid the Boise ruling, Martin v. Boise, is they say that anything in the park is an obstruction - because someone wants to use that particular part of the park, even if it's some secluded, say in the forest, in a large park when 99% of the park is still accessible. Part of Mayor Harrell's campaign pledges to clear the parks. Some of the parks are clearer than they were when he took office, but others still have encampments and it goes to this whack-a-mole approach of you're constantly chasing people around the city at great expense and great suffering to some individuals, like the two that brought the suit, and we haven't made durable progress. [00:30:11] Crystal Fincher: Another event this week with Sound Transit - Mayor Harrell is up for a Denny Station on West Lake Avenue again. How'd this happen? [00:30:19] Doug Trumm: Hey, I gotta give credit to grassroots organizers there - there's a lot of people involved. Seattle Subway sent, I think, over 6,000 letters via online petition. Uptown Alliance got a lot of letters because they were also very dismayed to see that the station on the eastern edge of their neighborhood was suddenly gonna disappear - at a whim - six, seven years into this process. And what was happening here, if you didn't follow this story, is there's gonna be obviously this new Ballard Link Light Rail line that will go from Downtown to Ballard. And on the way, it's gonna pick up Denny Triangle, it's gonna pick up South Lake Union, it's gonna pick up Uptown. And these were gonna be really high-use stations, but there's one problem in that some of the corporations and real estate interests in Denny Triangle were not excited about the station location. Folks like Amazon, Vulcan, were lobbying against this location because they didn't like the closure of Westlake Avenue, they said, which South Transit at this point in this process was estimating a full closure of four years. They're putting the station right under Westlake so they do have to mine it, it's gonna be closed for that part. But they realized that they could put decking over the top - they didn't propose that initially 'cause it's more complicated and expensive. But they realized they could do that, obviously, if the alternative is putting some station two blocks to the west, which is what the proposal that came forward out of this last-minute wrangling - wasn't in the DEIS, the draft environmental impact statement. So that means it requires more planning and process. So there's two public meetings online that Sound Transit is hosting - I think one of them is today and the other one is a couple of days from now - we can link to that in the notes maybe. But because this shifted-west alternative came forward late in the process, was proposed as a way to alleviate these concerns from corporations and real estate - they had to do this process. The mayor backed it at a meeting last month, I think it was, but then last week he walked that back. He said - You know what? We really need to keep the South Lake Union Station because what happens with shifting the station west is it gets super close to the other station on Aurora, which is a major bus artery. - so that's where a lot of people were going to transfer from bus to rail. And it would put you closer to Uptown too if you're headed to the eastern part of Uptown. So the shifted-west alternative consolidates the two stations into one. And that's what sort of set off all these alarm bells with Seattle Subway and Uptown Alliance and the urbanists and others that - Hey, why are we dropping a station? And they presented to Uptown Alliance - Sound Transit did two days ago, I think it was - and apparently the consolidating those two stations, they shared their ridership analysis, which was new information. It's gonna cost about 10,000 riders - someone who was at that presentation told me. And that's a pretty big deal - 10,000 daily riders. So the mayor didn't have that information last week when he made his statement - he said he was still waiting for ridership to confirm his decision, but he said he's starting to lean Westlake and just wants a good mitigation plan, which I don't know why we couldn't start there from the first place - because we're seeing across, especially the Ballard Link Station, that there's lots of changes that are happening because people don't like the construction period and don't think the mitigation plan is very good. And there may be something to that. The mitigation plan should be really good, but rather than focus on the mitigation, we've been just tossing around all these different ideas and extending the - what that means is you have to do a whole new study and that delays the whole project. So maybe small progress there on the Denny Station decision - we can focus on how to do that right and get a good construction mitigation plan, rather than last-minute options that are un-vetted and are going to require another year or two of study. [00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 21st, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm, that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on all platforms - Bluesky, SPILL, Twitter, all of them, Mastodon - @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his former Senior Communications Advisor Robert Cruickshank about the missed opportunity for generational impact through how decisions were made about Seattle's waterfront and the SR99 tunnel. Mike and Robert review how the vision of the scrappy People's Waterfront Coalition, centered around making a prized public space accessible for all while taking the climate crisis on by transforming our transportation system, nearly won the fight against those who prioritized maintaining highway capacity and those who prioritized increasing Downtown property values.  The conversation then highlights how those with power and money used their outsized influence to make backroom decisions - despite flawed arguments and little public enthusiasm for their proposal - leaving Seattle with an underutilized deep bore tunnel and a car-centric waterfront. Some of the decision makers are still active in local politics - including current Mayor Bruce Harrell and his current advisor Tim Burgess. With important elections ahead, Crystal, Mike and Robert discuss how political decisions tend to conflict with campaign promises rather than donor rolls, how proven action is a better indicator than value statements, and how today's dense ecosystem of progressive leaders and organizations can take inspiration and win the next fight. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii, Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, and Robert Cruickshank at @cruickshank.   Mike McGinn Mike is the Executive Director of national nonprofit America Walks.  He got his start in local politics as a neighborhood activist pushing for walkability. From there he founded a non-profit focused on sustainable and equitable growth, and then became mayor of Seattle. Just before joining America Walks, Mike worked to help Feet First, Washington State's walking advocacy organization, expand their sphere of influence across Washington state. He has worked on numerous public education, legislative, ballot measure and election campaigns – which has given him an abiding faith in the power of organizing and volunteers to create change.   Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013.   Resources “Seattle Waterfront History Interviews: Cary Moon, Waterfront Coalition” by Dominic Black from HistoryLink   “State Route 99 tunnel - Options and political debate" from Wikipedia   “Remembering broken promises about Bertha” by Josh Cohen from Curbed Seattle   “Fewer drivers in Seattle's Highway 99 tunnel could create need for bailout” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times   “Surface Highway Undermines Seattle's Waterfront Park” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle Prepares to Open Brand New Elliott Way Highway Connector” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Robert Cruickshank and former Mayor Mike McGinn to the show to talk about something that a lot of people have been thinking about, talking about recently - and that is Seattle's new waterfront. We feel like we've spent a decade under construction - from a deep bore tunnel to the tunnel machine getting stuck - that's not even covering all the debate before that, but all of the kind of follies and foibles and challenges that have beset the process of arriving at the waterfront that we have now. And now that we are getting the big reveal, a lot of people have feelings about it. So I thought we would talk about it with one of the people who was at the forefront of criticisms of the tunnel and calling out some red flags that turned out to be a very wise warning - several wise warnings that have come to pass, unfortunately - for not listening to them. But I want to start early on in the beginning, both of you - and I had a short stint in the mayor's office - worked on this, talked about this on the campaign, really got it. But when did you first hear that we needed to replace the viaduct and there were some different opinions about how to make that happen? [00:02:06] Mike McGinn: Okay, so I'm sure I can't pin down a date, but the really important date was, of course, the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. And so it gave the Alaska Way Viaduct a good shake - the decks weren't tied into the columns, the columns were on fill, which could liquefy - and everybody understood that if that quake had been a little stronger and harder, the elevated would come down. Now you might think that that would call for immediately closing the roadway for safety reasons, but what it did call for was for reconstructing it. And you have to remember that highway was really one of the very first limited access highways - it was built long ago and it was just at the end of its useful life anyway. Certainly not built to modern seismic standards or modern engineering standards. So the conversation immediately started and I don't know when everything started to settle into different roles, but the Mayor of Seattle Greg Nickels, was immediately a proponent for a tunnel - and a much larger and more expensive tunnel than what was ultimately built. And it would have been a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront that included a new seawall. So they thought they were solving two things at one time - because the seawall too was rotting away, very old, very unstable. But it would have gone all the way under South Lake Union and emerged onto Aurora Avenue further north, it would have had entrances and exits to Western and Elliott. And I seem to remember the quoted price was like $11 billion. And the state - governor at the time was Christine Gregoire - they were - No, we're replacing the highway. We don't have $11 billion for Seattle. And of course had the support of a lot of lawmakers for obvious reasons - we're not going to give Seattle all that money, we want all that highway money for our districts. And those were immediately presented as the alternatives. And so much of the credit has to go to Cary Moon, who lived on the waterfront and started something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. I think Grant Cogswell, a former City Council candidate - now runs a bookstore down in Mexico City, but wrote a book about the Monorail, worked on the different Monorail campaigns before that - they launched something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. And the basic proposition was - We don't need a highway. This is a great opportunity to get rid of the highway and have a surface street, but if you amp up the transit service - if we invest in transit instead - we can accommodate everyone. And so that was really - as it started - and actually I remember being outside City Hall one day, going to some stakeholder meeting - I went to so many different stakeholder meetings. And I remember Tim Ceis saying to me - he was the Deputy Mayor at the time - You're not supporting that Cary Moon idea - I mean, that's just crazy. I was - Well, actually, Tim. So the Sierra Club was - I was a volunteer leader in the Sierra Club - and the Sierra Club was one of the first organizations - I'm sure there were others, I shouldn't overstate it - but the Sierra Club was persuaded by the wisdom of Cary's idea and supported it in that day. And so that was really how the three different options got launched - no public process, no analysis, no description of what our needs were. The mayor went to a solution, the governor went to a solution - and it was up to members of the public to try to ask them to slow down, stop, and look at something different. [00:05:42] Crystal Fincher: And Robert, how did you first engage with this issue? [00:05:47] Robert Cruickshank: For me, I had just moved to Seattle the first time in the fall of 2001 - so it was about six months after the Nisqually quake - and I came from the Bay Area. And that was where another earthquake had damaged another waterfront highway, the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. And that was where San Francisco had voted - after that quake had damaged their viaduct beyond repair - they voted to tear it down and replace it with the Embarcadero Waterfront, which is a six-lane arterial but they built a lot more transit there. So they did the - what we might call the surface transit option - and it worked really well. It was beautiful. It still is. And so when I came up here and started to learn a little bit about the place I was living and the legacy of the Nisqually quake, I thought - Oh, why don't you just do the same thing here? It worked so well in San Francisco. Let's just tear down this unsightly monstrosity on the waterfront and replace it with a surface boulevard and put in a bunch of transit - San Francisco's made it work successfully. And the more I learned about Seattle, I realized there's a legacy of that here, too. This is a city where we had a freeway revolt, where activists came together and killed the RH Thomson freeway, which would have destroyed the Arboretum. They killed the Bay Freeway, which would have destroyed Pike Place Market. And so I naturally assumed - as being a relatively new resident - that Seattle would stay in that tradition and welcome the opportunity to tear this down and build a great waterfront for people, not cars. But as we'll talk about in a moment, we have a lot of business interests and freight interests and others who had a different vision - who didn't share that community-rooted vision. And I think at numerous points along the way, though, you see people of Seattle saying - No, this is not what we want for our waterfront. We have an opportunity now with the fact that this viaduct nearly collapsed, as Mike mentioned, in the Nisqually quake - we have an opportunity for something really wonderful here. And so I think Cary Moon and then Mike McGinn and others tapped into that - tapped into a really strong community desire to have a better waterfront. I wasn't that politically engaged at the time in the 2000s - I was just a grad student at UW - but just talking to folks who I knew, anytime this came up - God, wouldn't it be wonderful down there if this was oriented towards people and not cars, and we took that thing down? So I think one of the things you're going to see is this contest between the vision that many of us in Seattle had and still have - this beautiful location, beautiful vista on Elliott Bay, that should be for the people of the city - and those in power who have a very different vision and don't really want to share power or ultimately the right-of-way with We the People. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And I was involved in some things at the time - some curious coalitions - but definitely I was around a lot of people who favored either rebuilding the viaduct or the tunnel. Definitely not this roads and transit option - there's no way that's workable. That's pie-in-the-sky talk from those loony greenies over there. What are you talking about? But as this went on - I think no matter what camp people were in - there was always a clear vision articulated and people really focused on the opportunity that this represented, and I think correctly characterized it as - this is one of these generational decisions that we get to make that is going to impact the next generation or two and beyond. And there's an opportunity - the waterfront felt very disconnected with the way things were constructed - it was not easy just to go from downtown to the waterfront. It wasn't friendly for pedestrians. It wasn't friendly for tourists. It just did not feel like a world-class waterfront in a world-class city, and how we see that in so many other cities. You talk about the decision with the Embarcadero, Robert, and looking at - that definitely seemed like a definitive step forward. This was sold as - yeah, we can absolutely take a step forward and finally fix this waterfront and make it what it should have been the whole time. As you thought about the opportunity that this represented, what was the opportunity to you and what did you hear other people saying that they wanted this to be? [00:09:38] Mike McGinn: Yeah, so I think there are - I think that's really important, because I don't think there was a real discussion of what the vision was. People will say there was, but there really wasn't. Because what was baked in and what you're referring to is - well, of course you have to build automobile capacity to replace the existing automobile capacity, right? In fact, this state is still building more highways across the state in the misguided belief that more highway capacity will somehow or another do some good. So this idea that you have to replace and expand highway capacity is extremely powerful in Washington state and across the country. And there were very few examples of highway removal, so that was just a real challenge in the first place - that somehow or other the first priority has to be moving automobiles. For me, at that time I had become - the issue of climate had really penetrated me at that point. And in fact, when Greg Nickels took office and the Sierra Club endorsed him over Paul Schell - I was a local leader in the Sierra Club and a state leader in the Sierra Club - and my goal was that Mayor Nickels would do more than Paul Schell. And Paul Schell, the prior mayor, had done some good things. He had made Seattle City Light climate neutral - we'd gotten out of coal plants and we didn't purchase power from coal plants. He was really progressive on a number of environmental issues and we wanted Mayor Nickels to do more - and Mayor Nickels had stepped up. So we put on a campaign to urge him to do more. And he had stepped up to start something called the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative - which was the City of Seattle was going to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol, which was like the Paris Agreement of its day. And that was - it set an emissions reduction target by a date in the future. And that was really great - in fact, over a thousand cities around the country signed up to the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative. And I was appointed to a stakeholder group with other leaders - Denis Hayes from the Bullitt Foundation and others - to develop the first climate action plan for a city. Al Gore showed up at the press conference for it - it was a big - it was a BFD and a lot of excitement. And one of the things that was abundantly clear through that process of cataloging the emissions in the City of Seattle and coming up with a plan to reduce them was that our single largest source of emissions at that time was the transportation sector. We'd already gotten off of coal power under Mayor Schell - we received almost all of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. We had good conservation programs. Unlike other parts of the country, transportation was the biggest. Now what's fascinating is now - I don't know if I want to do the math - almost 20 years later, now what we see is that the whole country is in the same place. We're replacing coal and natural gas power plants. And now nationally, the single largest source of emissions is transportation. So how do you fix that? If we're serious about climate - and I thought we should be - because the scientists were telling us about heat waves. They were telling us about forest fires that would blanket the region in smoke. They were telling us about storms that would be bigger than we'd ever seen before. And flooding like we'd never seen and declining snowpack. And it was all going to happen in our futures. Honestly, I remember those predictions from the scientists because they're in the headlines today, every day. So what do we do to stop that? So I was - I had little kids, man - I had little kids, I had three kids. How are we going to stop this? Well, it's Seattle needs to lead - that's what has to happen. We're the progressive city. We're the first one out with a plan. We're going to show how we're going to do it. And if our biggest source is transportation, we should fix that. Well, it should seem obvious that the first thing you should do is stop building and expanding highways, and maybe even change some of the real estate used for cars and make it real estate for walking, biking, and transit. That's pretty straightforward. You also have to work on more housing. And this all led me to starting a nonprofit around all of these things and led to the Sierra Club - I think at a national level - our chapter was much further forward than any other chapter on upzones and backyard cottages and making the transition. So to me, this was the big - that was the vision. That was the opportunity. We're going to tear this down. We're going to make a massive investment in changing the system, and this in fact could be a really transformative piece. That's what motivated me. That climate argument wasn't landing with a whole bunch of other interests. There was certainly a vision from the Downtown and Downtown property owners and residents that - boy, wouldn't it be great to get rid of that elevated highway because that's terrible. There was also a vision from the people who still believed in highway capacity and that includes some of our major employers at the time and today - Boeing and Microsoft, they have facilities in the suburbs around Seattle - they think we need highway capacity. As well as all of the Port businesses, as well as all the maritime unions - thought that this highway connection here was somehow critical to their survival, the industrial areas. And then they wanted the capacity. So there were very strong competing visions. And I think it's fair to say that highway capacity is a vision - we've seen that one is now fulfilled. The second priority was an enhanced physical environment to enhance the property values of Downtown property owners. And they cut the deal with the highway capacity people - okay, we're here for your highway capacity, but we have to get some amenities. And the climate folks, I'm not seeing it - never a priority of any of the leaders - just wasn't a priority. [00:15:44] Crystal Fincher: How did you see those factions come into play and break down, Robert? [00:15:48] Robert Cruickshank: It was interesting. This all comes to a head in the late 2000s. And remembering back to that time, this is where Seattle is leading the fight to take on the climate and the fight against George W. Bush, who was seen as this avatar of and deeply connected to the oil industry. Someone who - one of his first things when he took office - he did was withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, which is the earlier version of what's now known as the Paris Agreement - global agreement to try to lower emissions. And so Seattle, in resisting Bush - that's where Greg Nickels became a national figure by leading the Mayors' Climate Action Group - not just say we're going to take on climate, we're going to do something about really de facto fighting back against Bush. And then Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore comes out with An Inconvenient Truth. And by 2007, people in Seattle are talking a lot about climate and how we need to do something about climate. But then what you see happening is the limits of that - what are people really actually willing to do and willing to support? The other piece that comes together, I think - in the 2000s - is a revival of the City itself. Seattle spends the late 20th century after the Boeing bust - since the 70s "Will the last person out of Seattle turn out the lights," recovering in the 80s somewhat, recovering in the 90s, and then the tech boom. And by the 2000s, Seattle is a destination city for young people coming to live here and living in apartments and working in the tech industry. I think that unsettles a lot of people. One thing that really stood out to me about the discussion about what to do on the waterfront was this vision from old school folks - like Joel Connelly and others - we've got to preserve that working waterfront. And it's very much the sense that blue collar working class labor is under threat - not from corporate power, but from a 20-something millennial with a laptop working at Amazon who comes to Seattle and thinks - Gosh, why is this ugly viaduct here? It's unsafe. Why don't we just tear it down and have a wonderful waterfront view? And those who are offended by this idea - who are so wedded to the 20th century model that we're going to drive everywhere, cars, freedom - this is where you see the limits of willingness to actually do something on climate. People don't actually want to give up their cars. They're afraid they're going to sacrifice their way of life. And you start to see this weird but powerful constellation come together where rather than having a discussion about transportation planning or even a discussion about climate action, we're having this weird discussion about culture. And it becomes a culture war. And the thing about a culture war is people pushing change are never actually trying to fight a war. They're just - This is a good idea. Why don't we do this? We all say these - we care about these values. And the people who don't want it just dig in and get really nasty and fight back. And so you start to see Cary Moon, People's Waterfront Coalition, Mike McGinn, and others get attacked as not wanting working class jobs, not wanting a working waterfront, not caring about how people are going to get to work, not caring about how the freight trucks are going to get around even though you're proposing a tunnel from the Port to Wallingford where - it's not exactly an industrial hub - there are some businesses there. But dumping all these cars out or in South Lake Union, it's like, what is going on here? It doesn't add up. But it became this powerful moment where a competing vision of the City - which those of us who saw a better future for Seattle didn't see any competition as necessary at all - those who are wedded to that model where we're going to drive everywhere, we're going to have trucks everywhere, really saw that under threat for other reasons. And they decided this is where they're going to make their stand. This is where they're going to make that fight. And that turned out to be pretty useful for the Port, the freight groups, the establishment democratic leaders who had already decided for their own reasons this is what they wanted too. [00:19:11] Mike McGinn: It's important to recognize too, in this, is to follow the money. And I think that this is true for highway construction generally. You have a big section of the economy - there's a section of the economy that believes in it, as Robert was saying, right? And I do think the culture war stuff is fully there - that somehow or another a bike lane in an industrial area will cause the failure of business. Although if you went to the bike - outside the industrial building - you'll find a bunch of the workers' bike there, right? Because it's affordable and efficient. So there's this weird belief that just isn't true - that you can't accommodate industry and transit and walking and biking. Of course you can. And in fact, adding all the cars is bad for freight movement because of all the traffic jams. So there's that belief, but there's also a whole bunch of people - I mentioned Downtown property owners - that gets you to your Downtown Seattle Association. The value of their property is going to be dramatically enhanced by burying, by eliminating the waterfront highway. But then you also have all of the people who build highways and all of the people who support the people who build highways. Who's going to float $4 billion in bonds? It's going to be a Downtown law firm. And by the way, the person who worked for that Downtown law firm and did the bond work was the head of the greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time. So you have the engineering firms, you have the material providers, and then you have the union jobs that go with it. So really at this point - and this isn't just about the waterfront highway, this could be any highway expansion - you've captured the business community because a big chunk of the business community will get direct dollars from the government to them. And you've actually captured a significant chunk of the labor community as well, because labor fights for labor jobs. In the big picture, service workers are taking transit, service workers need housing in town, and you can start to see a split - like in my ultimate run for mayor, I won some service worker unions, never won any construction trades. In fact, they held a rally my first year in office to denounce me, right? Because I was standing in the way of jobs. So that's a really powerful coalition. And I think what you see today in the country as a whole - as you know, I'm the ED of America Walks, so I get to see a lot more - this is a pattern. Highways aren't really supported by the public. They don't go to the public for public votes on highways anymore - the public wouldn't support it. And in fact, the data suggests the public gets that building more highway lanes won't solve everything. But you've got a big, big chunk of the economy that's gotten extremely used to billions and billions of dollars flowing into their pockets. And they need to protect that in every year. So you get that level of intensity around - Look, we're talking about $4 billion on the waterfront and a bunch of that money's coming to us. Better believe it's a good idea, and what are you talking about, climate? [00:22:03] Robert Cruickshank: You talk about public votes, and I think there are three crucial public votes we got to talk about. One is 2007, when these advisory votes are on the ballot - and they're not binding, but they're advisory. Do you want to rebuild the viaduct or build a tunnel? They both get rejected. And then the next big vote is 2009, the mayoral election, where Mike McGinn becomes mayor - in part by channeling public frustration at this giant boondoggle. And then ultimately, the last public vote on this, 2011 - in June, I believe it was, it was in August - about whether we go forward or not and the public by this point, fatigued and beaten down by The Seattle Times, decides let's just move on from this. [00:22:43] Mike McGinn: There's no other alternative. And it is worth returning to that early vote, because it was such a fascinating moment, because - I think the mayor's office didn't want to put his expansive tunnel option in a direct vote against the new elevated, fearing it would lose. So they engineered an agreement with the governor that each one would get a separate up or down vote. And by the way, Tim Ceis, the Deputy Mayor at the time, called in the Sierra Club, briefed us on it, and one of our members said - What would happen if they both got voted down? And Deputy Mayor Ceis said - by the way, Tim Ceis has got a big contract right now from Mayor Harrell, longtime tunnel supporter. Tim Ceis is the consultant for most of the business side candidates. Tim Burgess, another big supporter of the tunnel, now works for Mayor Harrell. Oh, and Christine Gregoire has been hired by the biggest corporations in the region to do their work for them as well. So there's a pretty good payoff if you stick around and support the right side of this stuff. But anyway, Mayor Ceis, Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis, when said, What happens if they're both voted down? He goes - Well, that would be chaos. You don't want that, do you? And I remember all of us just kind of looked at each other - and we all went out on the sidewalk, there were like six of us. And we went - We want that, right? And so we joined in and supported the No and No campaign. And The Stranger came in really hard. And I think Erica Barnett wrote the articles. And Cary Moon was in on it. And the defeat of that, for the first time, opened up the possibility - Well, let's think about something else. And so a stakeholder group was formed. Cary Moon was appointed. Mike O'Brien was appointed. The waterfront guys were appointed. And the Downtown folks were appointed. And the labor folks were appointed. And I think a really important part of the story here is that it was advisory - they weren't making the decisions, it was advisory. But they got to a point at which the head of the State DOT, the head of the Seattle DOT, and the head of the King County DOT all expressed to their respective executives that surface transit worked and was worth it. And this was extremely distressing to the business community. So they mounted a big lobbying push and went straight to Gregoire. And Gregoire, for the first time, became a tunnel supporter. And they were promised that this new tunneling technology - the deep bore tunnel - would solve the cost issues of the deep bore tunnel. And not only that, the state's commitment, which to date was $2.4 billion - they had committed $2.4 billion to a rebuild - the state wouldn't have to pay anymore, because the Port would put in $300 million and they would raise $400 million from tolling. And coincidentally, the amount they thought they could raise from tolling was the exact amount needed to meet the projected cost of using the deep bore tunnel boring machine. So the deal was cut and announced. And the whole stakeholder group and the recommendations from the DOT heads were abandoned. And that occurred, basically, late 2008, early 2009 - the deal was made. And that was about the time that I was contemplating - well, I think I'd already decided to run, but I had not yet announced. [00:26:14] Crystal Fincher: And this was an interesting time, especially during that vote. Because at that time, I had an eye into what the business community was doing and thinking, and it was clear that their numbers didn't add up. [00:26:26] Mike McGinn: Oh my God - no. [00:26:28] Crystal Fincher: But they just did not want to face that. And what they knew is they had enough money and resources to throw at this issue and to throw at a marketing effort to obfuscate that, that they wouldn't have to worry about it. And there was this sense of offense, of indignation that - Who are these people trying to come up and tell us that we don't need freight capacity, that we don't need - that this extra highway capacity, don't they understand how important these freeways are? Who are these people who just don't understand how our economy works? [00:27:02] Mike McGinn: They were the grownups who really understood how things worked. And we were the upstarts who didn't understand anything. But there's a great line from Willie Brown talking about - I think the Transbay Bridge, and Robert can correct the name, in California, which was way over budget. And people were lamenting that the early estimates had been made up. And he goes - Look, this is how it works. You just need to dig a hole in the ground so deep that the only way to fill it up is with money. I think that's pretty much the quote. So that's the strategy. You get it started. Of course you have rosy estimates. And then you just have that commitment, and it's the job of legislators to come up with the cost overruns, dollars later. [00:27:43] Robert Cruickshank: And I think it's so key to understand this moment here in the late 2000s, where the public had already weighed in. I remember voting - it was the last thing I voted on before I moved to California for four years. I'm like no - I was No and No. And that's where the Seattle voters were. They rejected both options. And then you start to hear, coming out of the stakeholder group - Okay, we can make the surface transit option work. And I left town thinking - Alright, that's what's going to happen, just like the Embarcadero in San Francisco and done. And the next thing I hear in late 2008, early 2009, there's this deal that's been cut and all of a sudden a deep bore tunnel is on the table. And this is Seattle politics in a nutshell. I think people look back and think that because we are this smart, progressive technocratic city - those people who live here are - we think that our government works the same way. And it doesn't. This is - time and time again, the public will make its expression felt. They'll weigh in with opinion poll or protest or vote. And the powers that be will say - Well, actually, we want to do this thing instead. We'll cook it up in a backroom. We're going to jam it on all of you, and you're going to like it. And if you don't like it, then we're going to start marshaling resources. We're gonna throw a bunch of money at it. We'll get The Seattle Times to weigh in and pound away at the enemy. And that's how politics works here - that's how so much of our transportation system is built and managed. And so people today, in 2023, looking at this monstrosity on the waterfront that we have now think - How did we get here? Who planned this? It was planned in a backroom without public involvement. And I think that's a thing that has to be understood because that, as we just heard, was baked in from the very start. [00:29:11] Mike McGinn: Well, Robert, the idea of a deep bore tunnel was brought forward by a representative of the Discovery Institute, who you may know as the folks that believe in creationism. [00:29:21] Robert Cruickshank: Well, and not only that, the Discovery Institute is responsible for turning Christopher Rufo from a failed Seattle City Council candidate in 2019 into a national figure. [00:29:31] Mike McGinn: The Discovery Institute, with money from local donors - major, very wealthy local folks - they actually had a long-term plan to turn all of 99 into a limited access freeway. It's like - we need to get rid of that First Avenue South and Highway 99 and Aurora Avenue stuff - all of that should be a freeway. So they were the architects of the idea of - Hey, this deep bore tunnel is the solution. But Robert's point is just right on - transportation policy was driven by power and money, not by transportation needs, or climate needs, or equity needs, or even local economy needs really. When you get right down to it, our city runs on transit - that's what really matters. Our city runs on the fact that it's a city where people can walk from place to place. The idea that our economic future was tied to a highway that would skip Downtown - the most valuable place in the Pacific Northwest, Downtown Seattle. No, that's not really what powers our economy. But it certainly worked for the people that were going to get the dollars that flowed from folks and for the people who own Downtown property. [00:30:42] Crystal Fincher: And I want to talk about money and power with this. Who were the people in power? What was the Council at that time? Who made these decisions? [00:30:50] Mike McGinn: The Council at the time was elected citywide. And I think some people have concerns about district representation, but one of the things that citywide elections meant at the time was that you had to run a citywide campaign, and that's expensive. There's no way to knock on enough doors citywide. I did not have a lot of money when I ran for mayor, but at least I had the media attention that would go to a mayoral candidate. A City Council candidate would kind of flow under the radar. So you had people come from different places, right? They might come from the business side, they might come from the labor side. But ultimately, they would tend to make peace with the other major players - because only business and only labor could finance a campaign. They were the only ones with the resources to do that. So the other interests - the environmentalists, the social service folks, neighborhood advocates of whatever stripe - we chose from amongst the candidates that were elevated by, they would unify - in some cases, the business and labor folks would unify around a candidate. In fact, that's what we saw in the last two mayoral elections as well, where they pick a candidate. And so this doesn't leave much room. So when I was mayor, almost the entire council was aligned with the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce at that time, either endorsed by them or had made their peace with them so the challenger was not being financed. So Robert said something about those outsiders - I went under the radar screen as a candidate at the beginning of my campaign. When I entered the race, nobody was running because everybody thought that Greg Nickels had the institutional support locked down. [00:32:33] Crystal Fincher: But then a snowstorm happened. [00:32:35] Mike McGinn: Well, it was even before that - honestly, everybody thought that he could win. And long before the snowstorm, I was like - We're getting a new mayor. And I was actually looking around to try to figure out who it was going to be - because I wanted a mayor who actually believed in climate, who had my values. But nobody - I was looking through who the people were that might run, and it dawned on me - Well, nobody's going to run. But we're going to get a new mayor and I have my values - and I've actually run ballot measure campaigns and had a very modest base of support. So I was really the first one in the race that got any attention. So I got some great media attention off that. Then my opponent in the general, Joe Mallahan - whatever else you may think about Joe Mallahan - he actually saw it too. He saw that there was an opening. And then we were joined by a long-time City Councilmember, Jan Drago. And I remember the headline from The Seattle Times or the comments at the time was - Okay, now it's a real race. But it just really wasn't. So I was really under the radar screen in that race because they were disregarding me. But there was in fact a lot of anger about the tunnel. There was a lot of just - Greg, for whatever his positives or negatives that history will deal with - and by the way, I actually think Greg did a lot of good. I just was disappointed in his highway policies and his climate policies at the end of the day - I have a lot of respect for Greg Nickels, but he wasn't going to win that race. And I came out of the primary against Joe Mallahan. And all of a sudden we had these two outsiders and the business community's freaking out. All of it - I remember watching it - all of the support, the business support shifted to Joe. It took about a month, it took a few weeks. But all of a sudden - there was actually one week where I think I raised more money than he did, that was pretty unusual - and then all of a sudden all the money was pouring in. And boy, did Joe believe in that tunnel. And did Joe believe in what the Chamber of Commerce wanted to do. In fact, he believed in it so much that he believed that Seattle should pay cost overruns if there were cost overruns on the tunnel - an admission I got from him during the televised debate, I was shocked he admitted to it. [00:34:41] Crystal Fincher: I remember that debate. [00:34:43] Mike McGinn: Yeah. So you were kind of asking about how politics worked. It was really something. Yeah - here's another memory. About two weeks before the election, the City Council took - three weeks before the, two, three weeks, four weeks - they took a vote to say that the tunnel was their choice. Even though there's a mayoral election in which the tunnel is on the ballot, so to speak - in terms of the issues of the candidates - they took a vote for no reason to say it was a done deal. And then WSDOT released a video of the elevated collapsing in a highway, which is the first time a public disclosure request from a third party was ever given straight to a TV station, I think, in my experience in Seattle. I had Gregoire and the DOT folks down there working on that campaign too - their tunnel was threatened. So it really was something how - I indeed was kind of shocked at - it was such a learning experience for me - how much the ranks closed around this. I didn't appreciate it. I had my own nonprofit, I had been on stakeholder committees, I'd worked with a lot of people that weren't just Sierra Club members and neighborhood types. I'd worked with a lot of business people, many of whom had supported my nonprofit because they liked its vision. But they were very clear with me that as long as I supported the surface transit option, there was no way they could be associated with my run for mayor in any way, shape, or form - even if they liked me. It was a complete lockdown - right after the primary where Greg lost the primary and it was me and Joe, I was - Okay, open field running. I can now reach out to these people. There's no incumbent - maybe some of them can support me now. And they were abundantly clear on all of those phone calls that - Nope, can't do it. Until you change your position on the tunnel, we just can't do it. We have business in this town, Mike. We have relationships in this town. We cannot do that. So it was a real lockdown - politically. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: That was also a big learning experience for me - watching that consolidation, watching how not only were they fighting for the tunnel against you and making the fight against you a fight about the tunnel, but the enforcement to those third parties that you were talking about that - Hey, if you play ball with him, you're cut off. And those kinds of threats and that kind of dealing - watching that happen was very formative for me. I'm like - Okay, I see how this works, and this is kind of insidious. And if you are branded as an outsider, if you don't play ball, if you don't kiss the ring of the adults in the room - which is definitely what they considered themselves - then you're on the outs and they're at war. And it was really a war footing against you and the campaign. Who was on the Council at that time? [00:37:30] Mike McGinn: Oh my God. Let me see if I can go through the list. No, and it really, it was - your point about it was a war footing was not something that I fully, that I did not appreciate until actually going through that experience - how unified that would be. Excuse me. The City Council chair was Tim Burgess at the time. Bruce Harrell was on the Council. Sally Clark, Richard Conlin, Nick Licata. Mike O'Brien was running on the same platform as me with regard to the tunnel and he'd just been elected. Jean Godden, Sally Bagshaw. I hope I'm not leaving anything out - because - [00:38:04] Robert Cruickshank: Tom Rasmussen will forgive you. [00:38:06] Mike McGinn: Tom Rasmussen. Yeah - because City Councilmembers would get really offended if you didn't thank them publicly - that was another thing I had to learn. You have to publicly thank any other politician on stage with you or they held a grudge. Yeah. So I had - I didn't know all the politicians' rules when I started. [00:38:25] Crystal Fincher: There are so many rules. [00:38:27] Mike McGinn: There are so many, there's so many rules. But really what you saw then was that the Council tended to move in lockstep on many issues - because if they all voted together and they all worked citywide, there was protection. None of them could be singled out. So it was very - and it's not to say that some of them didn't take principled votes and would find themselves on an 8-1 position sometimes, but for the most part, it was much, much safer to be - it was much, much safer to vote as a group. And they tended to do that. And they had coalesced around the tunnel, except for O'Brien. And that could not be shaken by anything we brought to bear. [00:39:04] Robert Cruickshank: And this is wrapped up in not just the electoral politics, but the power politics. Because Mike McGinn comes in - mayor leading the 7th floor of City Hall, the head of City government - and smart guy, nice guy, willing to talk to anybody. But is not from their crew, is not from that group. And as Crystal and Mike said, the ranks were closed from the start. This is - again, 2009, 2010 - when nationally Mitch McConnell is quoted as saying, It's his ambition to make Obama a one-term president. I don't know if he's ever caught on record, but I would be quite certain that Tim Burgess would have said the exact same thing - that his ambition was to make Mike McGinn a one-term mayor. As it turned out in 2013, Tim Burgess wanted his job - one of the candidates running for it. So these are all people who have a reason to close ranks against Mike McGinn and to use a tunnel as a bludgeon against him to do so. [00:39:58] Mike McGinn: There were other bludgeons. After I won the general election and before I took office, they passed their annual budget - they cut the mayor's office budget by a third before I even took office. Just boom - I know - they were determined, they were determined. And so that was when the planning - that council then and with WSDOT - that was when basically the contours of the waterfront were locked into place, including what we now see as that very wide surface road. That was that Council. So if you're wondering, if you're looking at that going - Okay, wow, who decided that and where did it come from? Again, our current mayor and his current advisor and others - they've always been for that. Building that big surface road has always been the plan to go along with the tunnel, because highway capacity was their highest priority. And the park on the waterfront, along with a lot of money into the aquarium and into these new structures - that's their signature thing for so many other people. But the idea that you should, that there was an opportunity to transform our transportation system and transform our city to make it more equitable and climate friendly was never a priority in this process. Just wasn't. [00:41:20] Crystal Fincher: It was never a priority. It was never seriously considered. And to me, through this process - lots of people know, have talked about it on the show before - I actually didn't start off Team McGinn. I wound up Team McGinn - didn't start off that way. But through that - and you won me over with logic - it was you being proven right on several things. You pointed out that their projections, their traffic projections were just so far out of left field that there was no way that they were going to come close. And they even had to come down on their projections before we even saw the traffic - the actual traffic turned out to be lower. You were right on that one - the laughable - [00:41:59] Mike McGinn: They're under 40,000 cars a day - for a highway that was carrying 110,000 cars a day beforehand. So even as a traffic solution - to put that into context, 40,000 cars a day is like the Ballard Bridge. And I can guarantee you the replacement costs of the Ballard Bridge is not $4 billion or $3.1 billion. The E Line, I think, carries 15,000 people a day. Metro carries 220,000 people a day. What you could do with that $3.1 billion or $4 billion in terms of bus lanes, bike lanes, rolling stock for Metro, maybe pay raises for bus drivers so that we could actually have service - you could do so much with those billions of dollars. And we put it all into moving 40,000 cars a day? It's just pathetic. That's three Rapid Ride lines we could have had for a 10th of the cost, or even less. I think the investments in Rapid Ride lines are about $50-100 million a line to make the capital investments to make it work. So the waste - even if you don't care about climate, the waste of dollars - and who's paying those taxes? To a great degree, we have the most regressive state and local tax system in the nation. And we'll have a ballot measure soon, and I know a lot of environmentalists will be out there if the package spends for the right thing saying - Hey, we need money for local streets. Imagine if we'd taken that gas tax money and the Legislature had allowed cities and towns to use it to improve their streets - which they can do. I know that the constitution says highway purposes, but when you read highway purposes, it says roads and bridges. It includes everything. You can use gas taxes for anything that improves the road. And they do. WSDOT has used gas taxes to pay for bike lanes and sidewalks. It's legal. That's a choice. So we're driving around potholed streets. We have - we're putting up little plastic dividers because we care more about the car getting hurt than the bicyclist on the other side of that plastic divider. We're watching our transit service melt away because we can't pay bus drivers enough. But hey, man, somebody's got a really rapid - 3,000 people a day get to skip Downtown in their private vehicles. Where are our priorities for equity? Where are the priorities for economy, or even just plain old-fashioned fiscal prudence? None of that was there - because all of those dollars were going to fund the needs of the most powerful people in the City. And they captured those dollars - and all of us will pay the taxes, all of us will breathe the smoky air, and all of us will watch our streets deteriorate and our transit service evaporate. [00:44:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And to me, it was such a foundational lesson that the people that we have making decisions really matter - and that we have to really explore their records, their donors, their histories - because over and over again, we look at the decisions that wind up being made that frequently conflict with campaign promises, but that very, very rarely conflict with their donor rolls. [00:45:16] Mike McGinn: And yes - and every one of them knows how to make the value statements. So if I had any advice for people in this year's election - everyone is going to say they care about housing, everyone's going to say they think biking safe. I don't - one of the things that I came away with - I don't care about the goals you put into some policy anymore. Show me the hard physical action you will take that might piss somebody off, but you're willing to do it because it's right. And if you can't do that, then your value statements are meaningless. So take a look - who actually, and that's the question I always ask candidates for office - Tell me about a time you did something hard that might've caused you criticism, but you did it because it was right. Or that you made somebody who was an ally or friend upset, but you did it because it was right. Tell me about that time. [00:46:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a challenge. And to your point and learning through just watching how people operated through that and some other processes - but that certainly was a big learning for me - is the role of coalitions, the role of accountability, and understanding. You have always had your finger on the pulse of Seattle, really - you're extraordinarily good at that. You're actually - both of you - are great strategists. But our political class is so detached from that sometimes - certainly I'm feeling frustration at some recent actions by our Legislature - we just had our special session day where they increased criminalization of substances, personal possession of substances - just reflecting on legislation to provide school, kids with free meals at school, things that seem like really basic and foundational that we should be able to land this. If we can call a special session to hand Boeing billions of dollars, we should be able to feed kids, right? [00:47:00] Mike McGinn: At the time we were cutting school budgets - when we found money for that. But I don't want to be too gloomy. And then I want to turn it over to Robert to get a last word in here, 'cause I just loved - his analysis is so awesome. I don't want to be too gloomy because - I look at what happened in the Legislature this year on housing, that we're finally going to allow housing, people to build more housing in places so people can actually live closer to their jobs and live more affordably. 10 years ago, we would have thought that was impossible. There's a lot of hard organizing that did it. At America Walks, we're the host of the Freeway Fighters Networks - there are people in 40 cities or more around the country that are organizing to remove highways. And while it's just a small amount of money compared to the amount going to highway expansion, there's actually federal funds to study and remove highways. So it's a long, hard slog. What felt for us - for Robert and me and Cary Moon and others fighting this - which felt like an impossible fight at the time is a fight that is now winning in places. Not winning enough - we're not winning fast enough - but it can change. And so that's - I don't want to be too negative. They got money, but organizing and people - and we actually have the public with us on this, just like we have the public with us on housing. So we just have to do more. We just got to keep at it, folks - got to keep at it. We can win this one. Don't allow this story of how hard it was to deal with the unified political class in the City of Seattle for their climate arson - should not deter you. It should inspire you, 'cause I actually won the mayor's office and we actually did do a lot of good. And the next fight is right in front of us again today, so get in it people. We need you. [00:48:46] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's spot on. And I remember coming to work in your office at the very beginning of 2011, when it seemed like the tunnel was just dominating discussion, but not in the mayor's office, right? When I joined, I fully expected to be like - roll my sleeves up to take on that tunnel. Instead, I'm working on the mayor's jobs plan, the Families and Education Levy, on transit. That's the stuff that was really getting done, and I think McGinn left a really great legacy on that. But we didn't win the tunnel fight. And I think we've diagnosed many of the reasons why, but one thing that really stands out to me as I look back from 12, 13 years distance is we didn't have the same density of genuinely progressive and social democratic organizations and people and leaders in Seattle that we have now. I think that matters because Mike's been talking about what's the next fight. I think one of the big fights coming up next year - when it comes time to renew that Move Seattle Levy - that's nearly a billion dollars that's going to be on the table. And we keep getting promised - when we are asked to approve these massive levies - that a lot of that money is going to go to safe streets, it's going to go to protect vulnerable users, we're going to do something to finally get towards Vision Zero. And instead it all gets taken away to build more car infrastructure. At what point do we finally stand - literally in the road - and say, No more. Do we look at the broken promises on the waterfront where we were promised a beautiful pedestrian-friendly waterfront and got another car sewer? We're going to have to organize and come together. We have many more groups now and many more leaders who are willing to stand up and say - We're not passing this levy unless it actually focuses on safe streets, unless it focuses on pedestrians and cyclists and transit users, and gives iron-clad promises to make sure stuff gets built so that some future mayor can't just walk in and start canceling projects left and right that we were promised. That's the lesson I take from this is - we're better organized now, we have more resources now, but it's still going to be a slog, and we're going to have to stand our ground - otherwise we get rolled. [00:50:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I thank you both for this conversation today - reflections on the tunnel fight, how it came to be, what it was like in the middle of it, and the lessons that we take moving forward in these elections that we have coming up this year, next year, and beyond. Thanks so much for the conversation. [00:50:50] Mike McGinn: Thank you, Crystal. [00:50:51] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you - it's been wonderful. [00:50:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

It's Ladies night! was going to be the original name of this episode, but it seems too obvious and I thought the new one was more eye catching. This week we talk about Backstage catering adventures with 3 pieces of garlic, That dick thing Syd did to Mackenzie 10 years ago, Muse live in South Lake Union, Boat Life, Phish Curry, A new food pod opening in Mercer Island, and Syd gets sexually discriminated against at an Indian restaurant. I would say he's pretty consistent, consistently fucking up.

The death of a 66-year-old woman whose body was found in a Seattle homeless encampment earlier this month has been ruled a homicide.A medical examiner's report identifies the woman as Annette Barnes and suggests she died four days before her body was discovered in an encampment on Mercer Street in South Lake Union on March 14.The report said Barnes died from asphyxia due to manual strangulation and suffocation.KOMO News recorded drone video of the area on March 13 for a story about frustrations from neighbors who have been calling the city with safety concerns around the encampment.A neighbor who asked to not be identified told KOMO News on Tuesday that she is considering moving out of South Lake Union to the city and state's inaction to clear the encampment."I want to feel safe again. The police keep getting these phone calls, the fire department keeps getting these phone calls, but nobody is doing anything. If I continue not feeling safe, there's no way I can keep living here anymore," she said.The Mercer street encampment has had multiple prior issues, including at least eight reported fires since last summer.A resident of the encampment was arrested and charged in 2022 for an alleged rape that occurred in the encampment. Those charges were later dismissed due to 'evidentiary issues', according to court documents.Support the showSign Up For Exclusive Episodes At: https://reasonabletv.com/LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. https://www.youtube.com/c/NewsForReasonablePeople

The 'Trans Vengeance' movement has led to a series of assaults and now the murder of Christian children // Seattle Way - Biden's DOJ praises Seattle police for reducing use of force, anti-bias training, and accountability // The Swamp - Starbucks' Howard Schultz defends union stance before Senate // Woke Report - Meet The Seattle Schools Woke Indoctrination Czar Who Married A Child Molester // Woman was strangled and left in South Lake Union encampment for days, report says // Woke BLM-supporting Portland pizza chain closes most locations amid soaring crime // Seattle Police Department sees fewer departures, increase in applications. SPOG President Mike Solan joins Ari to discuss the details // HOW TO KNOW IF YOU ARE A WHITE SUPREMACIST (According to Washington Ethnic Studies Now) //

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

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

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith! They look at tragic traffic deaths in Seattle, track leg updates on free school meals and minimum wage for incarcerated workers, discuss the Washington Supreme Court's hearing on our capital gains tax, outline County Prosecutor Leesa Manion's changes to the office, update us on Seattle's social housing initiative, and react to candidates running for Seattle City Council.  Crystal and Rich start the show by covering this week's tragic traffic deaths, including the death of 23-year old grad student Jaahnavi Kandula, who was hit by a police vehicle. The number of these incidents is a horrific reminder that these fatalities aren't due to random chance, but are the result of numerous policy priorities and choices by elected officials and institutions.  Turning to the state legislature, our hosts give overviews on a bill to give free lunches to all public school students in Washington state and a bill that would provide minimum wage to incarcerated individuals for their labor. In state Supreme Court news, this week the court heard arguments for the suit over our state's capital gains tax that the legislature passed last year. We'll be keeping an eye out to see when we finally get a decision on this case.  King County's new Prosecuting Attorney, Leesa Manion, outlined her new approach to the office, including the creation of a gun violence prevention unit and a division focused on prosecuting gender-based violence. Rich also updates Crystal on the Stranger's Election Control Board's endorsement of Seattle's social housing initiative I-135, which will be on the ballot for the upcoming February 14th election. Finally, we end the show catching up on the newly announced candidates for this year's Seattle City Council elections, and ask why some candidates are announcing their campaigns without a clear vision of why they want the seat.  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 Rich Smith at @richsssmith.   Resources “Evaluating the Role of Incarceration in Public Safety with Criminologist Damon Petrich” - Hacks & Wonks    “Casual Friday with Crystal Fincher & Besa Gordon” by Patricia Murphy & Brandi Fullwood from KUOW    “Officer Responding to Overdose Call Killed Woman In Marked Intersection Where City Canceled Safety Project” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola    “Three pedestrians taken to hospital after collision in South Seattle” by Amanda Zhou from The Seattle Times    Follow Ryan Packer twitter: @typewriteralley   “Prevent traffic deaths with proven solutions for Seattle streets” by Gordon Padelford from The Seattle Times    “WA bill would make school meals free for all students” by Ruby de Luna from KUOW   “WA lawmakers consider minimum wage requirement for incarcerated workers” by Libby Denkman & Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Supreme Court Ruling Could Allow Washington to Tax the Rich” by Will Casey from The Stranger   “Public safety is focus of new prosecutorial units” by Christine Clarridge from Axios    “Vote Yes on Initiative 135” from The Stranger    “Who's running for Seattle City Council in 2023“ by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Formerly Unhoused, Andrew Ashiofu Wants to Fight for Housing Progress on City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Central District Resident Joy Hollingsworth Is Running for City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Urbanist Alex Hudson Enters Council Race to Replace Sawant” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “Assistant Attorney General Sarah Reyneveld Is Running for King County Council” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I am a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, we re-aired our conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich, who led the most comprehensive analysis of incarceration and crime data to-date, which found that incarceration doesn't reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Damon and I talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. Also today, I appeared on KUOW's Casual Friday podcast - we'll put a link to that in the show notes and on the website. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:01:30] Rich Smith: Thanks for having me again - so good to be back. [00:01:33] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. This is a week that was packed full of news. Starting off - some news that really sucked - really sad and tragic events happened this week when it came to pedestrians being hit by cars. One killed by an SPD officer driving a car on the way to a substance abuse call. And another - family, a parent and two kids, hit in a crosswalk. It has just been a horrible week. What happened and where do we stand on this? [00:02:15] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was on Monday - Fire was called to an OD [overdose] call, cops responded along with that. And a young woman, 23-year-old woman, named Jaahnavi was crossing the road - she's a grad student. And the cop hit her with her car. She died later of injuries later that evening. The cops slow rolled the information on this, at first saying that there had been a collision, putting the blame on the fire department. And then later on Tuesday, they finally confirmed that she died after being hit. And it's a tragedy, and it's one of those stories that show just how few choices we have - or how constrained our choices really are - by policy that we don't even see. We think we're out here making decisions - we think people are out here making decisions - but those decisions are circumscribed. And there are so many of those policies hidden in the background of this story. For instance, that intersection where she crossed was due for a while to get a revamp - a protected intersection - that would have prevented, or that may have prevented, this tragedy from occurring. We haven't seen the video - I don't know where she crossed in the crosswalk, I know she was in the crosswalk. But the design of this protected intersection may have prevented that from happening. The mayor took it out of his budget this year due to a giant $140 million hole that they had to work around and as a result of slowing real estate market, et cetera. The City Council didn't put that money back in and so - obviously, work wouldn't have started on that project before this incident happened - I don't want to get into butterfly effect stuff. But had we moved on that earlier, had we treated this Vision Zero - the city's plan to reduce all pedestrian deaths to zero - more seriously than we have been, if we'd been prioritizing that earlier, then tragedies like this could have been prevented. Also, there's the policy of having a police officer respond alongside a medic when they're doing an OD call. My understanding is that if the medic has to give the person who's suspected of having an OD Narcan, they want a cop there in case there's some kind of violent response to reversing the overdose with Narcan - and so they request this backup. The person who the medic checked on declined medical assistance at the time - it turns out it wasn't an emergency, but they were called. I'm not sure who called or why, but they were called because they thought someone was having an OD - and now it creates this emergency situation where if the cop threw on his lights, then they're racing to the scene. It's hard to really put the whole picture together because we haven't seen the video. We only know what the police are saying and what Fire is saying, but it does seem to be this confluence of questionable policy decisions that allowed for this tragedy to happen. [00:06:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And at least the information that we have now - as you said, the police have been slow to release information - but it appears that dispatch made the call to dispatch the police, that it wasn't actually requested by the fire department. But they were co-dispatched to the call along with Fire once they determined that was the case with the call, which is questionable - these are the things that we're talking about. So many times you talk about how all of these issues are related - how when we're talking about housing, we're talking about poverty. How we're talking about health, we're talking about equity - and so many of these failures came together. And just overall, even with the timing of this thing, this is a result of longstanding neglect. How long have we been talking about how unsafe this is? And this was just one pedestrian collision and injury this week. We also had a family mowed down in a crosswalk. [00:07:20] Rich Smith: Did you see that video? [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: I unfortunately did see that video. We have to do better. I think a lot of people are wondering - we hear lip service being given to this year, after year, after year. Certainly there have been some electeds who have tried to propose money and others - Tammy Morales comes to mind - but overall between the council and the mayor, we have not gotten this to be a priority. And we have to do something different, we have to do something substantial. If we had the amount of poisoning deaths by some source that we do with pedestrian deaths and collisions, we would be doing something about it. If there were a Brown person walking around and beating up people to this magnitude, we would be doing something different. This is a crisis. And just because it's happening to people outside of cars doesn't mean that we just give thoughts and prayers and don't do anything. And it's feeling like the situation where we all know we need to do more to stop gun violence, yet so much action isn't taken. There's an excellent article that was written last year, I think, by Gordon Padelford at The Urbanist, which kind of goes through - Hey, this is what percentage of pedestrian deaths are caused by this type of issue, this is the recommendation or the ask to solve it - this is what can happen. There's short term stuff, there's long term stuff. I just hope to see some action here. And it appears that there are some things that don't require the building of new infrastructure, but some signal timings - we need to look at how we allow drivers to turn both right on red and left turns - and we can be doing those in a safer way. And just all of that. I hope we get real serious about this across the region real quick. We just talked last week about the alarming skyrocketing pedestrian deaths and injuries across South King County. And I follow Ryan Packer on Twitter and their Patreon, and they cover the majority of these pedestrian-involved collisions. And just watching the amount of those come down the timeline is sobering. [00:09:45] Rich Smith: That's another sort of system - just people being in their cars and having car brain and forgetting - the great lie of the car is that you're not a 2-ton steel cage traveling down the road at 70 mph or 40 mph that could just absolutely wreck the fragile human body. For some, the car - you don't feel like that when you're in the car and that - so we got to kill the car in our head. [00:10:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the mind frame that comes with it - I drive, I have a car. I drive a lot less than I used to, but still drive. And I've had feelings before - of that feeling of inconvenience and wanting to get somewhere as fast as possible, but I really do think it takes a reframing to be like - Okay, I am in a 2-ton vehicle that can instantly kill or maim someone. It's okay if it takes me literally two minutes longer to get somewhere. When we talk about traffic calming, when we talk about signal timing, or not taking a right on red - yeah, it may delay you for 30 seconds - for 30 seconds, right? It may delay you for two minutes. But if the trade off of two minutes - that we can plan around, we can manage - is people not getting gruesomely killed, that's a trade off we can make. And we need to have more conversations that you don't just have free rein and cars aren't this - the ultimate priority above and beyond anything else. We have to also address - everything is culture now, but car culture - and how we teach people to drive, how we talk about driving, how we design around that. Until we reframe that it's okay if cars stop every now and then or go slow every now and then, we're going to continue to see this kind of stuff. [00:11:42] Rich Smith: Absolutely. And when I drive, I feel myself like I just turn - I'm like, when I'm a pedestrian, I'm like, are you kidding me? It's the - the roads are ours, I'm fragile, I could be destroyed by your machines. Stop, slow down - in the crosswalk, you monsters. But then when I'm in a car, I'm like - all of these pedestrians don't care about their lives at all. They're walking into the middle of the road. They're dressed the exact same color of the night. They need to get out of my way - blah, blah, blah. So I have to consciously remind myself - I'm in a climate-controlled environment. I'm listening to the music that I want to listen to, or the radio that I want to listen to, or the podcast I want to listen to - like Hacks & Wonks. And if I need to pause - to pay more careful attention to my surroundings - then I'm the one who should because I'm the one who's basically a weapon right now. It just, yeah - and it's - you'll get there, it's not going to take - even if you're 30 seconds later, two minutes late, you'll get there. People will welcome you - so just chill out, cars. [00:12:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. This week - more action in our legislative session that we have this week - there were two bills in particular that caught my eye. One to make all school lunches in Washington free, which I think is an excellent idea. And another to require that incarcerated workers at least make minimum wage, because right now they don't and it's basically slavery. What's your take on these bills? [00:13:24] Rich Smith: Yeah, it's weird to make anybody - they're kind of related - but it's weird to make children go to a place for - whatever, 7-8 hours, and then make them buy their food there if they want to not operate at a caloric deficit. And poverty is high. Child poverty is shockingly high. And it just shouldn't be an expense. As somebody who went to school and - I could have made my lunch before I went, but I always just tried to bum money from other people so that I could have the pizza or whatever at school. So I don't know, it was always embarrassing to bring lunch. And so I just always wanted to have the school lunch. I remember being - as a kid, school lunch was somehow prestige - even though in popular culture, school lunch is stereotypically lunch lady giving you neon food or whatever. In any event, it's just - I really would have benefited from this bill. I wouldn't have had to convince so many of my fellow students to give me dimes and quarters so that I could get bad pizza or whatever. But yeah, philosophically, kids shouldn't have to pay for food. Poor families shouldn't have to be scrounging up a couple of bucks just so that they can eat. And similarly, if we are forcibly incarcerating people and they are working, they should make the minimum wage and not, as Representative Tarra Simmons - who brought this bill to the Legislature - testifies, 42 cents an hour because of how much the jail can just dock from your pay for medicine, for this, for that, for this financial obligation, for this financial obligation. Basically, you're paying to incarcerate yourself. You're paying the state to make you less free, to take away your freedom. And you are effectively a slave. It's unconscionable. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: It is unconscionable. And when this is an exception in the constitutional amendment banning slavery - means it's literally slavery. These people are working and doing the same kind of work that everyone else is. Just because they're incarcerated does not mean that their labor has no value. And there is such a problem with making elements of our criminal legal system profitable for people - we have seen how corrupting and how corrosive that is. We should not be incentivizing people to lock people up and keep them locked up. We just re-aired our midweek show about how problematic carceral solutions are, and it just makes no sense. And also we spend so much time and energy, so much administrative resources on managing who gets lunch, who doesn't get lunch - just tracking and doing the - tracking who does qualify for free lunch, and who doesn't, and who's behind, and how to collect it. That all takes money too. We're requiring them to be there, just as you said. And the consequences - say a family is having trouble affording food, so their kid needs to be shamed and humiliated and can't eat or get something - how does that make any kind of sense? And also, we just got so much data from the unfortunately brief free school lunches that we provided nationwide and what kind of an impact that had on child poverty, on child hunger - was absolutely a positive and way more transformative than most people even anticipated. Really, why are we not doing this? It seems cruel not to. So I'm very excited to see both of those making their way through the Legislature. Also big news this week - on the wealth tax issue - the Supreme Court heard the capital gains tax case. How is that playing out? Where do we stand with that? [00:17:45] Rich Smith: Well, we'll see. They just heard - that is, the Supreme Court just heard - oral arguments on the case yesterday. It's difficult, really, to follow the arguments because Justice Steven González is so fine that I have trouble paying attention to what the lawyers are arguing about, the difference between the excise tax and income tax, etc. I'm joking - he's a good-looking man, but he didn't actually talk that much during the oral arguments. But he did ask a kind of prescient question, or a useful question, that was interesting to me. This is all to say that - yeah, we'll see - they presented their arguments yesterday. Backing up a second, the State Legislature - after a decade of arm twisting and back bending and watering down bill after bill after bill - finally decided to pass a capital gains tax on the richest 8,000 Washingtonians. That is a 7% tax whenever you realize capital gains, which is a financial asset over - $250 million is the threshold of the tax. If you cash out stocks for more than $250 million, then you're going to get hit with a 7% tax. A bunch of conservatives sued and said this isn't a excise tax or a sales tax - a transactional tax as the state is arguing - this is an income tax because that property, or that $250 million is property. According to the State of Washington's Constitution, that's income. State's taxing that money at 7%. Constitution says you can only tax property at 1%, so it's unconstitutional. Also, the fact that there's an exemption means it's not taxed uniformly, so that's unconstitutional. They also argue that it's a violation of - they have some kind of commerce clause argument that I didn't understand and that didn't seem to apply. It didn't seem particularly sophisticated - the justices didn't seem particularly bothered by it during oral arguments yesterday, but that's basically the gist. And it's up to these political figures - these justices after hearing the arguments - to determine whether or not we're going to allow the state to raise $500 million to pay for education. The state hoped that they're - or asked the court to give a decision before April 18th on the matter, so that the lawmakers who are busy writing the state budget can know if they can include this $500 million that we raised from the capital gains tax in their bottom lines or not. The Supreme Court didn't seem bothered by that, didn't seem like they were moved by that request and will release a decision on their own time - a little sort of cross-branch flexing back and forth there during the oral arguments. But we know that on some Thursday, sometime in the next few months, we'll get an answer to whether or not we can tax them. And there's also the possibility that the court could, in their decision, say - Actually, income tax - or income isn't property. Those court rulings that determine that, the court decisions that determined that in the '30s were wrong. And that would allow Washington State to pass income taxes for the first time in over 100 years, which would really give us the opportunity to rebalance the tax code that is right now balanced on the backs of the poor. Every recession we dig ourselves out of - we do it from sales tax, property taxes, taxes on gross receipts of small businesses and other businesses - and large businesses, frankly. And that's the most regressive way to do it. And we're the most regressive state - in terms of taxes - in the country. So there's a slim possibility that we could change the whole game, but I don't know if they'll do that. They don't seem hungry to do that. [00:22:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And Will Casey had a great breakdown of this all in The Stranger, in a piece that we'll link in the show notes and in our social media threads on this show. But to your point, they can - they do actually have a few different choices. This isn't necessarily just a binary - it's allowed or not allowed. They could agree with the lower court that it's not allowed. They could also agree with the Attorney General's opinion, which doesn't take any view on overturning the prior case that said income is property, we can't have an income tax, and just say it's an excise tax. It doesn't even get into the other discussion. And then that third option, as you articulated, can have them overturn the ruling that made an income tax illegal. One of the most foremost Washington State constitutional scholars and professors that we have in the state - Hugh Spitzer and some others - thought that that isn't likely - just overturning the whole thing and finding that income tax is legal to do in the state is unlikely. That if something does happen, they predict it would be agreeing that it's an excise tax. But who knows? They can do anything. We will see what happens. [00:24:01] Rich Smith: Sorry, just one correction. We can have an income tax, but it just has to be uniform and it can't be more than 1% because that's - yeah. But yeah, just to clarify - we all know, and I know - I said it too. But it's just - it's like a shorthand - it's we can't do an income tax that makes sense - is what we mean when we say we can't do an income tax. [00:24:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. A graduated income tax. Thank you for that clarification. [00:24:21] Rich Smith: Yeah. Yeah, but I agree that - listening to oral arguments in any case, and especially in a case like this, just makes me go crazy because the arguments are never about the moral value of the question at hand. The judges aren't deciding whether or not it's - we should have a capital gains tax if the Legislature does it. It's based on previous case law triangulated over the course of many different years - is it technical - are these definitions, does this definition of capital gains and income and property align with the plain language of this law or not, and to what degree do we care that it does? It seems like it's all up to us to decide, right? You've got Noah Purcell, the Assistant Attorney General, arguing on behalf of the state saying stuff like, This is an excise tax because when we're taxing the capital gain, we're taxing it at the point of the transaction - not taxing the actual - we're taxing the transaction, not the money, but the ability to do the transaction, not the money that you get coming in. And the other side says like, In all 50 states, or in every other state in the country, they have capital gains taxes - but those taxes are called income taxes. And yet here we have a capital gains tax and suddenly it's not an income tax? And then the state says, Well, we're the only state in the country that defines income as property, right? So it just dwindled - the entire argument dwindles into definitions and it just makes you feel insane while you're watching it, because it has nothing to do with this. It has little to do with the substance of the policy matter. So we just make it up anyway and decide - the entire law is based on language, which is quicksand, it's soup, it changes constantly. The definitions are made from language and so their meanings change over time, and yet we've got these clerics in robes pretending like they're mystical beings seeing the true intent of the law or whatever and just argue. It's just, it's witchery. But anyway, I just really - if you want to feel that, if you want to feel insane, I recommend going to TVW and watching the oral arguments. [00:26:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will stay tuned to what happens and await the upcoming some Thursday where we eventually hear what the fate of the capital gains tax is. Also this week, we heard from our new King County Prosecutor, Leesa Manion, about some of her plans for the office - the establishment of some new units focusing on gun violence, sexual assault, economic crimes, and others. How did you view this? [00:27:27] Rich Smith: Rearranging the office chairs? I don't know, right? Creating these units and - on the one hand, making it someone's job to focus on certain crimes does matter, right? It changes the focus and the thrust of the work that gets done on a daily basis. But I don't know to what degree that's going to fix the problems in the office. You're not really dealing with - it's not like we're still concentrating on "repeat property crime" which seems to be, what, a euphemism for graffiti, which is one of the - or, broken windows - which is one of City Attorney Ann Davison's big areas of focus as well as the mayor's office. But I don't - I'm not quite sure, really, how this rearrangement will impact the scope and work of the office. They don't expect it to help knock down the 4,000-case backlog that developed over the course of the pandemic. They're not really - there's some stuff to like in there in terms of focusing on diversion, which would be better than if we had Jim Ferrell in there, who was the hard right - or a conservative Democrat, I should say - running against her in the November elections last year, but I'm not sure. What's your take on it? [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: You know, I am reserving judgment. I'm willing to see how this turns out. It does actually matter - to create units where people are focusing, where they're able to share resources to investigate and - within our current system of both policing and among the prosecutor - investigation is an important thing. That's the meat of how we figure out who does stuff and especially if we want to stop playing whac-a-mole with people doing low-level crimes that are often the result of some other root cause. The ability to move further up the chain and address some of those systemic issues, or if they are actually targeting organized retail theft or domestic violence, intimate partner abuse - to really go after people who are doing that, or who are defrauding seniors, and going after wage theft - that requires focus and investigation and specialized resources and they're not going to get pulled away on to whatever the newfangled thing is that they're focusing on that week. And that's shown to have an impact and make a difference. I also recognize that this is one piece in the criminal legal system puzzle. And on that investigation issue, we still have issues with police who are doing the frontline work in this and not investigating many things. And having those who were in investigative roles moved out to patrol - because of their conversations on staffing and feeling that they need to do that. And then we wind up in situations where we aren't investigating sexual assault. And even when there's gun violence and a business owner has a bullet that they collected that went through their window, the police aren't showing up for days or weeks to pick that up and even process that. So it's like what can the prosecutor do if police are only focused on patrol, surveillance, low-level crime and not able to put the resources into investigation in order to address these issues. So it feels like everything's a mess systemically and they're trying to wade through that. But I do think that - we know that certain interventions with gun violence, we know that certain types of diversion, we know that focusing on crimes of abuse and manipulation and fraud make a difference. I was excited to actually see named - wage theft - which is one of the biggest crimes being perpetrated in the City, that so often doesn't get talked about because it is perpetrated by more wealthy people, business owners. But that also comes with a pause, because in the quote that I saw in the paper, it talked about, Hey, we - last year, we filed more charges against organized retail theft than any others before. The Stranger had done excellent reporting on what they call organized retail theft - sure does look the same as small-time petty theft. And so if we're laying out this big - saying we're focusing on wage theft and economic crimes and fraud and organized retail theft - but every focus, all the resources, and all of the energy is going towards this "organized retail theft" that looks like the same old theft that we've been dealing with that is not very organized. We'll have to see how this turns out. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt, see what happens, see what kind of an impact can be made, but I'm definitely waiting to see what the impact is. [00:33:23] Rich Smith: Yeah, could just - want to triple underline that. The categories look okay to me. It'll be, it'll just be telling to see where they put, or the prosecutors put, their emphasis. [00:33:34] Crystal Fincher: Okay. With that, also wanted to talk about Initiative 135 on the docket. There is an election coming up on Valentine's Day, February 14th, to decide whether Seattle is going to have social housing and The Stranger took a stance on it. What did you guys decide? [00:33:56] Rich Smith: The Stranger Election Control Board is Pro - we want you to vote Yes on Initiative 135 for social housing. It's not perfect, but it is good. And so it's worth, it's worth your time. It's worth your Yes vote. Certainly. [00:34:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely is. I was in a conversation yesterday - with Axios actually - and talking about what the prospects of this look like. But I also think this is an interesting time - with all of these tech layoffs that we're experiencing and talk of an economic recession, there've been some people who have been fortunate enough to be insulated from the worry and concern about being priced out of Seattle and feeling secure with income. And there are lots of conversations about the working class and whether different workers, or a different class of worker, not feeling the same kind of solidarity or vulnerability to some of the challenges that other people have been facing when it comes to trying to fight for their rights, for unionization, for recognizing that they could be a paycheck or two away from financial instability, poverty or homelessness. And there are a lot of new people contending with some of that insecurity. This is unfortunate wherever and however it happens - absolutely not rooting for anyone to lose their job - there's a lot of pain and struggle and uncertainty going on now. But I do think this is all part of this same conversation and crisis that we're facing - we have a whole new class of people wondering if they can afford to remain in Seattle. If they are upside down on their mortgages with the way things are right now, if they can afford rent - continue to afford rent if they lose their job and don't get another one very frequently - how we're going to weather this predicted recession that's coming. So it really does seem like the time for varied action, new action, different action, not letting perfect get in the way of the good, and do something here. And this seems like it has a track record elsewhere. The reasoning behind it is sound. And let's kick this off. And let's see if we can get this right. And if it needs fine tuning as we go along, let's do that. But it really seems like the time for some different decisive action is now. [00:36:39] Rich Smith: Yeah, one of the members in the SECB highlighted this initiative as optimistic. And it's something you can rally behind, it's something you can really organize around - not just to get it passed, but once it's implemented, and once they start going through the steps of actually creating the social housing - it is a site for organizing, a site for movement building. And that's just - there's so few exciting, actual things like that - having a public developer, which this initiative would create, to acquire and build housing for people between 0% and 120% of the area median income that the City would own and make affordable - that is lower than 30% of your income, if you're living in those buildings - forever, it's just exciting. And yeah, it's forward thinking. And as we argue in the endorsement, we suck at thinking for the future - Seattle does a horrible job of thinking ahead. And I think it's because a lot of people who are here don't want to. They have - a lot of people have their house, who have their little nautical village, like being in the corner of the country, have this identity of being away from it all and that's why we're out here in the first place - and just emotionally blocked out the 2010s, where people flooded into the city, into the area - because of how prosperous all the companies were, because of all these opportunities. And then just did nothing to build the infrastructure for it. And this has been a curse of this town going back decades. 1970 - we didn't get the trades, and so the trades went to Atlanta. In 1990, or '95, we settled for a much smaller light rail extension that we possibly could. We have made the mistake of not making room for people who want to move to this beautiful place time and time again. And it is the root cause of so much of the pain and struggle that we see outside. And this initiative comes along and says, Okay, let's have a 50-year plan. And let's start now. Let's add another tool to the housing toolbox that can - if we plant this seed, grow into thousands and thousands of affordable units built sustainably, with union labor, that can keep housing - a certain amount of housing stock - affordable forever. Not like affordable housing - government-subsidized housing - which can go back on the unaffordable market in 30 years most of the time. And not like the market rate housing, which nobody's been able to afford for as long as I've been alive. But permanently affordable housing. And, yeah, as we mentioned, and as the advocates for this initiative will mention, it's working in France, it's working in Vienna, Austria, it's working in Singapore, it's working all around the globe. And it can work here - granted, very different housing markets, very different tax structures - in those places. But we can do it here, and we should. Because as Representative Frank Chopp of all people, who has dedicated his public life to building affordable housing, said about the affordable housing system we have now - it doesn't work. We need to try something else. And this is that something else. So it's exciting, and people should vote for it. [00:40:36] Crystal Fincher: Also coming on a later ballot to you - in August, in the primary - will be a number of councilmembers vying for several open seats. We had several announcements so far, some new ones this week. Who's running for City Council? Who's not running for City Council? And what does it mean? [00:40:57] Rich Smith: Everybody is running for City Council, it seems like. Well, last week - was it? Kshama Sawant, who represents District 3, the central area of the City, announced her plans to leave. And this sort of spurred some people to announce, though others had done it around that time or a little before that time. But it's really motivating people to jump in. And so yeah, we've had a number of people jump in in that race, in that City Council race. Joy Hollingsworth - runs Hollingsworth Cannabis, Central District resident, comes from a lineage of civil rights organizers - and she's in, she announced on MLK Day. We've got Alex Hudson - just announced this week - who was the Executive Director of Transportation Choices and runs the neighborhood board over at First Hill. Andrew Ashiofu, the Co-Chair of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission, jumped in to the race. Hannah has got great profiles on all of these people - you should check them out at The Stranger. And just this morning, Sarah Reyneveld, who is a Assistant Attorney General - she's jumping into the King County race to replace Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who was on the King County Council in District 4, representing Ballard, Queen Anne, Belltown, South Lake Union, that kind of area, on the County Council. She was in that seat for two terms. So Reyneveld is trying to swoop in and keep her legacy going there. And yeah, we've got another ex-Amazon worker, who was legally fired, is jumping into the race to replace Lisa Herbold. She was not one of the ones reportedly recruited by Bruce Harrell - still waiting for that person, whoever he is, to jump in at some point. So yeah, a flurry of activity and many more to come, I'm sure, as the balance of the City Council is up for grabs this year. [00:43:21] Crystal Fincher: This is going to be interesting with so many open seats - Lisa Herbold, Kshama Sawant, Alex Pedersen are not running again. We're going to see a lot of turnover, the potential for a switch in the balance of power with the council. And as you said, there are great profiles in The Stranger about some of these candidates. I think Capitol Hill Seattle and The Urbanist also had a couple of profiles. We will continue to see what they say, but I will say - one, it's early. It's early - running for office is hard and people are starting to get this together. But I do hope to see overall a greater articulation of vision. And hearing what they actually want to do, what they want to accomplish for the City and for the residents of Seattle. I was struck - in a few different situations where - being asked about issues, policy, where do you stand on this, do you support social housing, do you support this or that? And - Well, I'm not sure. I'm interested in hearing more about it. I want to hear what the community has to say. I'm looking forward to bringing people together to discuss it. I support this, but don't know if I can commit to it before I hear more information. And this is a time where you are running and making the case that you are the person most qualified to make this change. And to bring about the change that a lot of people are frustrated that they haven't been seeing after hearing promises for so long. And so it really seems like a missed opportunity to not at least take a stand on some things, let people know where you're at - and that may be a differentiator for people in crowded primaries. If someone is willing to stand up with certainty on issues and others aren't, that's absolutely a differentiator. And this is across a variety of issues, a variety of candidates. This is not about one candidate - have seen this widespread. So I do hope we see a greater articulation and greater commitments on what they're going to be, because I do worry about people who are afraid of offending people this early in the game. Campaigns are hard - don't get me wrong - but they don't compare to governing and the type of pressure and accountability that's there. And so if you cannot commit here, what are we going to get when you're on the council? [00:46:02] Rich Smith: I'm trying to hold it in, Crystal - but yeah, I couldn't agree more. Why are you running for office? You decided to announce - you could control that decision. If you don't have definitive answers for where you're at on problems that have existed for years in this city, if you still need to learn more from the community, hear more from the community on hiking the JumpStart Tax to fill budget gaps, or where you're at on pedestrian improvements, or where you're at on this or that - then why did you decide to run? All you're telling me whenever you say that - when you say, I need to listen to the community more on this issue - is that you are running as a matter of course, because you want the power of the position, not that you have something that you want to do with that power. And saying, Ah, but how I will wield my power is to be a collaborator, or to listen, to bring the community together, bring everyone around the table - then you are saying that - that you suck. I don't know how to say it - that you're going to defer to whoever's interests seem to have the most sway over - I don't know. You don't have principles in that moment, right? You're just a funnel for other people to use. And as we've seen in the past, that means you're going to bend to big business, you're not going to stand up for stuff that you know is right. And that's, or at least that's what that signals, and it just boggles the mind. And then this little ouroboros of the community asked me to run - Okay, great. What are you going to do? I'm going to listen to community. Well, what did the community - why do they want you to run? Presumably they want you to run because they already agreed with you on stuff. And so just - trust your instincts, say what's right - and people will respond. I don't know why everyone's trying to not offend X. I know why - because they don't want to offend the money - because they need the money, and they need the endorsements, and they need the support in order to win. And so whatever - people aren't going to say what they actually believe. It's either that, or they actually don't believe anything and there's just a transparent grab for power on assumption that you've been working toward this, and so it is yours. It's disgusting to see, frankly. And I don't know - maybe I'm just getting over this, but I'm - it's, it's, I find - it sucks. It's offensive. [00:48:47] Crystal Fincher: I'm gonna choose to try and have a charitable interpretation of where they may be. It is early in the campaign. Maybe they haven't figured out the best way to articulate where they stand yet. But I do think they need to hurry up and get to it. Anyone - you don't have to be elected to bring people together and listen to community. The reason why you run for office is to have the power to make decisions. It's to make those decisions. We give you that authority through an election. And so we need to hear about what decisions you plan on making. We need to hear about the policy that you plan on crafting and passing in specificity. That is why you run. We are not trying to elect a convener here. We're not trying to elect a moderator for the community, someone to conduct listening sessions. We can do that any day of the week. We can pay other people for that. But only a few people can sit and make those decisions. And so hearing about those is really important. And to your point, Rich, we have heard that from people who have done nothing, from people who have gone back on their promises that they made while they were running, from people who did say - I'm different, money has no hold on me. But lo and behold, they wind up doing different things than they said when they were running. And it's exactly what their list of top donors wants. That's what we're used to seeing when we hear this. And so a red flag automatically pops up. Maybe that's not ultimately where these people are going to be coming from, maybe that's not their intent, maybe they're still working on that - I would encourage them to work on it quickly. [00:50:34] Rich Smith: Yeah. I agree. And that's - thinking of Sawant - that's part of what made her refreshing was - she was just like, she just tried to do what aligned with her principles. She had no power, so she ended up spending a lot of time just like dunking on her colleagues a lot in ways that were not particularly productive or whatever. But she was like, Okay, we want to protect abortion in Seattle. Let's pay for it all. Let's pay for all abortions. Here's a plan to pay for everybody's abortions every year. It costs $3.5 million. Sign it up. Oh, we got a $140 million budget hole. Let's raise the JumpStart Tax to fill it. Sure, we're going to have to fill it with something else in the meantime and then backfill with JumpStart, but let's do that. And so it's not hard to have a policy position and to try to do what you, try to hold onto that principle when you finally make it into office. And so I just wish people wouldn't hedge. And if you say something and then you change your mind later, you can just - you just do that. You could say I changed my mind for this reason or that reason. And then you won't have the - oh, broken promise mailer, or whatever that you're scared of. People just don't know how to be people on the campaign, and it's incredibly depressing. And it just takes so much time to parse. And I amplify your call and your hope that people will get better quickly on these issues. [00:52:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think it's going to be a competitive advantage for those - who do still have to hit all your campaign marks, do the things that get votes and connect with people. But the way to connect with people is to tell them concretely how you plan to improve their day-to-day life. And with that, we will wrap up today's Hacks & Wonks. Thank you so much for listening on this Friday, January 27th, 2023. I cannot believe the month of January just evaporated like that. How dare it. But we're almost to Black History Month. Anyway, Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [00:53:31] Rich Smith: Thanks - bye.

In this week's episode, I feature recently opened Feast & Fallow Café in the Oakridge neighbourhood. I feature The Vegan Chinese Kitchen cookbook by Hannah Che published by Appetite by Random House. I talk about the Planted Love Food Truck that opened this summer. I feature Mount Pleasant Vintage & Provisions that recently opened in the Mount Pleasant neighbourood. I feature Impostori Trattoria that opened this summer in the South Granville neighbour. I do a spotlight on Seattle featuring the new Astra Hotel in South Lake Union, Altitudes Rooftop Bar, Otium Greens & Grill, Café Ladro, Bourbon Steak, Cook Weaver and Ben Paris. Lastly, I feature my interview with Sebastian Cortez at his Sebastian's Fine Meats and we talk Thanksgiving Turkey as well as cuts of meat. Follow me on Instagram, TikTok and Twitter @Vanfoodster as well to visit VancouverFoodster.com for everything food in Vancouver and beyond.

In this episode of Inspired Design, we walk down a Lake Union dock to a fabulous floating home where we meet Atelier Drome Partner Architect Michelle Linden. The home owners have lived in this very spot for 40 years and were finally ready for a complete rebuild. This project was a labor of love, resulting in the perfect refuge to watch life on the lake.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Axios reporter Melissa Santos. They start off looking at the larger trends from this last week's primary, including why the predicted ‘red wave' didn't materialize. Next, they talk about Olgy Diaz's appointment to the Tacoma City council, discussing her impressive credentials and watershed status as the first Latina to serve on the Council. In Seattle City Council news, Crystal and Melissa look at the two recent abortion- and trans-related protections the council passed this week. For updates on public health, our hosts look at how Washington state is lifting most of its COVID emergency orders, where the state is at with its COVID response, and what our outlook is for MPV and its vaccine. After that, the two discuss the redistricting plans for the Seattle City Council, and different neighborhoods' responses to the proposed new district lines and close the show by looking at the state of behavioral health crisis response in our neighborhoods, discussing the county's plans for an emergency walk-in centers, the county's plans to improve its behavioral health response, and our lack of crisis response staff.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Our blue legislature bucks GOP trend” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/08/12/washington-state-blue-legislature-gop-trend    “Tacoma City Council selects its newest member. She's the first Latina to serve” by Liz Moomey from The News Tribune: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article264330356.html?taid=62f470bf1a1c2c0001b63754&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter    “Seattle passes protections for abortion and gender affirming care” by KUOW Staff from KUOW: https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-passes-protections-for-abortion-and-gender-affirming-care   “MPV cases doubling nearly every week in WA, as U.S. declares public health emergency” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/monkeypox-cases-doubling-nearly-every-week-in-wa-as-us-set-to-declare-public-health-emergency/   "US will stretch monkeypox vaccine supply with smaller doses" by Matthew Perrone from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/us-will-stretch-monkeypox-vaccine-supply-with-smaller-doses/   Washington state says goodbye to most COVID emergency orders” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/08/09/washington-end-most-covid-emergency-orders   "New map would redraw Seattle's City Council districts, with changes for Georgetown, Magnolia" by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-map-would-redraw-seattles-city-council-districts-with-changes-for-georgetown-magnolia/   “Racial Equity Advocates Like Seattle's Newly Proposed Political Boundaries. Magnolia Residents Do Not.” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/08/04/77339585/racial-equity-advocates-like-seattles-newly-proposed-political-boundaries-magnolia-residents-do-not   “County Plans Emergency Walk-In Centers for Behavioral Health Crises” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/08/11/county-plans-emergency-walk-in-centers-for-behavioral-health-crises/    "Local Leaders Announce New Coalition to Address Behavioral Health Crisis" by Will Casey from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/08/11/77680008/local-leaders-announce-new-coalition-to-address-behavioral-health-crisis   “Designated crisis responders, a ‘last resort' in mental health care, face overwhelming demand” by Esmy Jimenez from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/designated-crisis-responders-a-last-resort-in-mental-health-care-face-overwhelming-demand/   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. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review because it helps a lot. 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 today's cohost: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. [00:01:00] Melissa Santos: Hello, thanks for having me. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: Hey, thanks for being back. We always enjoy having you. So there were a number of things that happened this week. I think we'll start off just talking about the elections real quick. We got more results this week. Things are looking more conclusive - a couple of late-straggling races have been decided, including one of the congressional - two, really of the congressional district races. It looks like in the 47th Legislative District race that Republican Bill Boyce will be facing Democratic candidate Senator - former Senator - Claudia Kauffman. And that in the 47th House seat, that Democrat Shukri Olow and Democrat Chris Stearns will both be getting through and Republicans will actually not be making it in that seat, despite that race including three different Republicans - one the pick of the GOP that raised over $200,000, Carmen Goers, who actually finished in last place. So a number of things got settled, but overall, as you look at these elections, what are your takeaways, Melissa? [00:02:16] Melissa Santos: On the legislative side, really things look mostly similar to what they looked like on primary night, in the sense that a lot of the races that Republicans had hoped to pick up, I think Democrats still look really strong in. And that's in a lot of those swing districts in the suburbs - in Island County, the Democrats have pretty strong performances in some House races that I think Republicans have been eyeing for a pickup in the 10th District. The 28th Legislative District looks pretty much like the incumbent Democrats are in really good shape there - that's around Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Lakewood, University Place. And I think that the Republicans not having someone in that 47th District open seat is maybe not what people would've predicted when talking about a red wave coming this year, and that Democrats have been saying - we're just trying to defend what we have, we're not really planning to add seats here. But they look like they're in a pretty good position to defend the seats. The only place where things look like it'll be rough for Democrats are seats up in the 47th - sorry, the 42nd Legislative District in Whatcom County, I think, have some disappointing results for Democrats when it comes to trying to get the former - the State Senate seat formerly held by Republican Doug Ericksen. That's gonna be a tough race where it looks like the State House Democratic Rep who's running for it might have a really tough race to fight in November. She wants to pick up that seat for the Democrats. But again, Democrats were trying to just defend mostly this year. So I think they look like they're in a pretty good position to do that. One thing that's a little bit interesting is a lot of the fringier types in the Republican legislative caucus in the House are actually not going to be returning to the legislature next year. And some of that's just because they ran for Congress in some cases, like Brad Klippert. [00:04:15] Crystal Fincher: And Vicki Kraft. [00:04:16] Melissa Santos: Yes, and Vicki Kraft. So I'm interested to see how that plays out. There are some races where legislative candidates who are being accused of being RINOs [Republicans In Name Only] actually have advanced through the primary. And I am wondering if some Republicans - are they more moderate or just hoping that they beat the more Trumpy Republicans essentially. So that's something I'm watching actually going forward is - while we certainly have situations across the nation where Trump-endorsed Republicans are getting through - we see this in the 3rd Congressional District race, here in our state, where Jaime Herrera Beutler who voted to impeach Trump will not be getting through to the general - that was finalized this week. But locally in legislative races, I'm not sure that the more far-right candidates will win out in all these races in November. So I'm watching that - how does our state picture, when it comes to the Republican party, compare to what we're seeing nationally. And it's always interesting to see how Washington does 'cause we're a little bit different sometimes as a state in how we vote versus the rest of the country. [00:05:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that sets up an interesting dynamic for Republicans, I think, in that it is really helpful when - just from a campaign perspective - when everyone is consistent with the message that's being delivered for the party, what priorities are in terms of values. And so there have been - legislatively - some more moderate Republicans making it through. There are certainly some real extremists. And again, "moderate" is an interesting word for Republicans 'cause - when it is gonna come to some of these caucus votes, I think moderation is gonna effectively fly out of the window. Or being afraid to speak out on certain things that challenge some of the more extreme elements in the party, which essentially in my opinion, enables that element of the party. But with Joe Kent higher on the ticket and being so visible, being a frequent guest on Hannity, Trump-endorsed, and really vocal about a number of things like opposing aid to Ukraine, about wanting Jim Jordan - who is extremely problematic and has been accused of ignoring sexual assault allegations on his watch under his responsibility - wanting him to replace Kevin McCarthy as the leader of the party, certainly moving in a much more extreme direction. A number of those things are gonna be inconsistent, I think, with what some of the other Republicans, I think legislatively under JT Wilcox certainly, Republicans are gonna wanna be talking about. So there may be just a bit of a mismatched message there and it will be interesting to see how the party navigates that, but especially coming from a place where the extremism - you look at the primaries - certainly did not land. And some of, even the criticisms just legislatively, of Republicans who were on the message that they wanted to be on, did not turn out to be very effective at all - that presents a challenge for them in the general. [00:07:40] Melissa Santos: I think that was interesting in the Federal Way area. I think everyone, including Democrats, were saying - yeah, there's a lot of voters concerned about public safety there. I think everyone thought maybe the Democrats might be a little bit more vulnerable from attacks from Republicans in that area in South King County around Federal Way, with Republicans say - Hey, Democrats passed all these bills that hamstring police, so they can't keep you safe. I think everyone thought that line of argument might work better in some of those areas in South King County than it did. And so I'm wondering if Republicans will change their approach or not, or if they're just gonna stick with hammering Democrats on public safety. I think that maybe we'll see just more talk about economy and inflation and maybe a little less of the public safety attacks - possibly - based on those results. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: And they certainly hit hard on both of those. It is interesting to see - particularly - so you have Jamila Taylor, who is the incumbent representative there, there's another open House seat, and then Claire Wilson in the Senate seat. Jamila Taylor, who's the head of the Legislative Black Caucus, did play a leading role in passing a lot of, number of the police accountability reforms that police, a number of police unions, and people who are saying "Back the Blue" and these were problematic. She actually has a police officer running against her in that district. And also, the mayor of Federal Way, Jim Ferrell, is running for King County Prosecutor on a hard line, lock 'em up kind of message. They've been working overtime to blame legislators, primarily Jamila Taylor, for some of the crime that they've seen. And holding community meetings - really trying to ratchet up sentiment against Jamila Taylor - helping out both her challenger and Jim Ferrell was the plan. And again, that seemed to fall flat. Jamila Taylor finished with 54% in that race and the most votes out of any Democrat. You saw Democrats across the board, both Claire Wilson and Jamila Taylor, get 54% and 55% of the vote. In a primary, that is certainly where you would want to be and that's really a hard number to beat in the general. And then in the other open seat, you had two Democratic candidates combine for, I think, 55% of the vote. So it is - where they attempted to make that argument the hardest, it seemed to fall almost the flattest. And it goes to - we talked about this on the Post-Primary Recap a little bit - I think it goes to show that the conversation publicly - certainly the political conversation about public safety - I think is too flat and does not account for where the public actually is. I think people are absolutely concerned about crime and rightfully so - we have to attack gun violence, we have to attack property crime and violent crime. We have to do better than we're doing now. But I think people are recognizing that the things that we have been doing have not been successful. And we have been trying to lock people up and people see that there's a need for behavioral health interventions, for housing, for substance use treatment and that those things are absent. And that you can send a policeman to do that, but they don't have the tools to address that even if they were the appropriate responder. And there's a lot of people saying they aren't even the appropriate response for a number of these things. So I just think regular voters - regular people - just have a more nuanced and realistic view of what needs to happen. [00:11:42] Melissa Santos: I also think that message - we could talk about those races forever, probably - but I think that message might land especially flat in communities like South King County that are predominantly people of color in many of these communities. They want to address - well, okay, I should not group everyone together, let me back up here - but I think a lot of people see the effects of crime on their communities and their family members and want support, not just a crackdown. And I don't know if that - I don't know - I'm generalizing here and I shouldn't, but I think that maybe that - [00:12:09] Crystal Fincher: I think it's across the board. I feel like - we saw polling in Seattle where, even if you break it down by Seattle City Council district, whether it's North Seattle or West Seattle which are predominantly white areas, in addition to other areas with higher percentage of people of color - they're saying near universally - when given, asked the question - where would you allocate more of your tax dollars in the realm of public safety to make a difference? They start off by saying behavioral health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, treating root causes. And then "more officers" trails those things. So it's - and even before more officers, they're saying better training for officers so they do a better job of responding when they are called. So I just think that across the board, there's - Republicans have gotten far and have done a lot by talking about the problem. And I think what the primary showed is that you're gonna have to do a better job of articulating a logical and reasonable solution to the problem. 'Cause people have heard talk about the problem for a long time, this isn't new. They're ready for someone to do something about it and they want to hear something that sounds credible, with some evidence behind it, that'll make a difference. And I don't think Republicans articulated that at all. And I think Democrats are talking about things more in line with where voters are at. But certainly, we could talk about those election results forever, but we will move on to other news. Speaking of newly elected people, we have a new appointment of a person on the Tacoma City Council - Olgy Diaz was just unanimously appointed as the first Latina member of the Tacoma City Council last Tuesday night. She was one of 43 applicants to apply, ended up making the shortlist, and then was officially appointed on Tuesday night. What did you take away from this? You previously covered - based in Tacoma, covered Tacoma previously, worked at The News Tribune. What does Olgy bring to the Council? [00:14:41] Melissa Santos: Olgy is really experienced in politics, I want to say. For way back when - I think I started talking to Olgy years and years ago - she was, definitely in her role with leading One America, she's done a lot of policy work at the state level for a long time. She worked in the Legislature, so I talked to her in that capacity. And she brings a lot of experience to the table - I think more than a lot of people who apply for vacancies on city councils, for sure. But I honestly was also just - I was blown away to read - I didn't realize the Tacoma City Council has never had a Latina member before and that really blew my mind, given the diversity of Tacoma and given that that's a community where you have people who just weren't represented for such a long time. I worked in Tacoma for eight years at the paper and I didn't - I guess I didn't realize that was the case. So Olgy - separately - brings just a ton of experience. She leads the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington now as president and I talked to her for stories in that capacity, and she's always very knowledgeable and really thoughtful. But yeah, that's just - in terms of representation, she brings a lot to the Council that apparently it hasn't had - in terms of experience and lived experience as well. I didn't watch the whole appointment process every step of the way, but it seems like that is a very solid choice, given that you have someone coming in possibly that has way more, broader political knowledge than a lot of the sitting councilmembers in some cases. And that's not a knock on the sitting councilmembers, but you just have someone really, really versed in politics and policy in Washington State coming onto that city council. [00:16:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and an unusual amount of experience. I think, to your point, not a knock on anyone else. Olgy just has an unusual amount of experience on both the policy and political side. She's the Government Affairs Director for Forterra, she's president of the National Women's Political Caucus as you said, on the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition and Institute for a Democratic Future board. She's previously been on the city's Human Rights Commission. She just has so many, so much experience from within, working within the legislature and elsewhere. And if - full disclosure - Olgy Diaz is not just a friend, but also worked for Olgy as her consultant and love the woman. But just completely dynamic and if you know Olgy, you know she reps South Tacoma harder than anyone else just about that you've ever met. She deeply, deeply loves the city, particularly South Tacoma, and has been an advocate for the city in every role that she's had. So just really excited to see her appointed. In other local news - this week, Seattle, the Seattle City Council stood up and passed protections for abortion and gender affirming care. What did they do? [00:17:52] Melissa Santos: They passed something that makes it a misdemeanor for someone to interfere, intimidate, or try and threaten someone who is seeking an abortion and they also have some civil rights protections that they passed. Those are especially - you might not think that's necessarily an issue in Seattle all the time, but I think that - certainly the misdemeanors for trying to interfere for someone getting treatment or getting abortion care, I think that is something that could actually be used and called upon sometime in Seattle with certain individual cases. And I do think it's - not necessarily in a bad way - but a messaging bill on both of them - in a way saying - care is protected here. Even though in Washington State we do have some state law protections for abortion - better than in most states - I think it's partly about sending a message to people that your care will not be interfered with here. And maybe even a message to people in other states - that they can come - actually that is part of it - is that you can come to Seattle and get care and you will not, we will support you. And so that's part of why they're doing it - both on a practical level, but also sending a message that we will not tolerate people trying to dissuade, to discourage people who decided to get an abortion from getting the care that they are seeking. [00:19:18] Crystal Fincher: And I know Councilmember Tammy Morales has also said that she plans to introduce further legislation to prevent crisis pregnancy centers from misrepresenting the facts, misleading people - which has happened in other situations with pregnancy crisis centers, which sometimes bill themselves as abortion care providers. A person seeking an abortion finds them, goes, and unexpectedly is - in some situations - heavily pressured not to have an abortion. And there's been situations where they have been found to have been coerced into not having an abortion. And so that would just seek to make sure that everybody correctly represents themselves, and who they are, and what they are attempting to do. Lots of people do, to your point, look at Seattle and say - okay, but this - things were safe here anyway. I do think the first one - we see a lot of counter-protestors - of people making points in Seattle, going to Seattle to protest different things, because it has a reputation for being progressive, where progressive policy is. So it attacks people who really dislike those policies and moving in that direction. I think this is helpful for that. And it serves as model legislation. There are some very red areas here in the state. There are other localities - we may have neighboring states that - the right to abortion is coming to an end. And so having legislation like this that has passed in the region, that has passed nearby, that is in place, that survives legal challenges against them makes it easier for other localities to pass the same. And so I think that it is a very positive thing for Seattle to take the lead passing model legislation. Certainly aren't the first to pass, but having it in the region is very, very helpful. So glad to see that. Also this week - some challenging news. One - monkeypox, now referred to as MPV, cases have been doubling nearly every week in Washington and has been declared a public health emergency. Where do we stand here? [00:21:37] Melissa Santos: I think that right now, we have about 220 cases - and that's what I think I saw on the CDC website just earlier today. And last week, it was 70 fewer than that, at least - we have been seeing, especially early on, every week or so the cases were doubling in our state. And we remember how COVID started in a way - it was small at first and things just can really expand quickly. This isn't spread the same way COVID is - and I'm not saying it is - but we do definitely have a vaccine shortage here for this and that's a huge concern. I asked the State Department of Health - actually, I have not put this in the story yet, but I was like - how many people do you feel like you need to treat that are at high risk? And they said it's almost 80,000. And took me a long time to get that number, but I think we only have - we only are gonna have something like 20-something thousand vaccines doses coming in, maybe 25,000, through at least early September. So there's a lot of potential for this to spread before we get vaccines to treat the people who are most at risk. That's a big concern. And so I haven't checked in our state yet - this sort of decision that we can stretch these doses further by divvying them up and doing, making each dose into maybe five doses - that could really help here. So I need to check whether in our state we're going forward with that and if that meets the need or not. But we still need a second dose for everybody, even beyond that. So it looks like the math just doesn't work and we're still gonna be short. And in that time, how far will it spread? Because it's not just - it's not a sexually transmitted disease that only is going to spread among LGBT individuals - other people are getting it and will get it. So that is - and also that community needs as much support as they can get anyway, regardless. But this is not something that just affects someone else, for instance, if you're not a member of that community. It's something that can affect everybody, and it's - everyone's afraid of another situation like we had with COVID - could it spread before we get a handle on it? And I think it's still an unknown question right now. [00:23:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, big unknown question. And to your point, it was - the CDC just announced that the vaccine supply can be stretched by giving one-fifth of the normal dose, so stretched five times what we thought we previously had. But that was just announced, so our local plans for that are probably in progress and process and hopefully we'll hear more about that soon. But haven't yet as that information was just announced - I want to say yesterday, if not day before. With that, to your point, it is - some people are under the mistaken impression that this is a sexually transmitted infection. It is not. It can spread by just skin-to-skin contact. If two people are wearing shorts and at a concert, or have short-sleeve shirts and are rubbing against each other, it can be spread just by touching especially infected lesions, by surfaces if there's a high enough amount on a surface. It is pretty hardy - lasts a long time on a number of surfaces or clothes or different things like that. Certainly a lot of concern with kids going back into school, kids in daycare that we may see an increase particularly among children - just because they are around each other and touching each other and playing as they do and that is how this virus can spread. So certainly getting as many people, starting with the highest risk people, vaccinated is important. We are short - there are just no two ways about that and running behind. Testing capacity has also been a challenge. So hopefully with these emergency declarations that we've seen locally and nationally that we fast forward the response to that and get prepared pretty quickly, but we will say that. Also this week, most COVID emergency orders have been ended. What happened here? [00:26:08] Melissa Santos: Some of them are still getting phased out, but the governor just very recently announced in our state that he's going to be - he's ending 12 COVID emergency orders. And so I went - wait, how many are left then, 'cause I don't think we have that many. And the governor's office - there's only 10 - once these mostly healthcare, procedure-related orders are phased out, will only be 10 COVID emergency orders left. And honestly, some of those have even been scaled back from what they were. They're - one of the orders relates to practicing some safe distancing measures or certain precautions in schools - that's really a step back from having schools be completely closed, like we had at one point. So even those 10 aren't necessarily as stringent as the orders we were seeing earlier in the pandemic. What does that really signify? I think that the governor has said - because we have good treatment options available, it doesn't mean that COVID is no longer a threat, but we have better ways of dealing with it essentially. It's not like early in the pandemic when nobody was vaccinated. We have a fairly high vaccination rate in our state compared to some others. And we have some treatment options that are better. And at least right now - well, I say this - our hospitals aren't pushed completely beyond capacity. Although, however - this week Harborview actually is over capacity, so that's still a potential problem going forward. But we just have better ways of dealing with the virus than we did. It doesn't mean it's not a threat, it doesn't mean that people aren't still getting hospitalized and even dying - because they are. But we're moving to a different stage of this pandemic where we're just not going to have as many restrictions and we're going to approach the virus in a different way. [00:27:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Yeah, that pretty much covers it there. [00:27:56] Melissa Santos: The thing - I do think for public - I've asked the governor a couple times - what is your standard for lifting the underlying emergency order? 'Cause we still are in a state of emergency over COVID and that does give the governor, if something comes up, quick power to ban some activity or something. And if there's a public health risk, he could order, for instance, indoor mask wearing again if he wanted. He has not indicated he plans to, but it gives him a little more power. Republicans are still mad about that, but in effect, there aren't that many orders actually in place anymore. We're just not living under as many restrictions as we once were. [00:28:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. So the protections are going away - there are lots of people who are very concerned about this. This does not seem tethered to - earlier in the pandemic - in some situations when cases were spreading at a lower amount than they were in some areas then than they are today - they tied it to certain metrics and to hospital capacity and different things. So there seemed like there was an underlying data-based justification that would dictate what the appropriate health response was. This seems untethered from all of that. And I think a lot of people's criticisms of this are - the actions that are taken, or realistically the actions that are no longer being taken, the justification behind that seems to be driven by convenience or by a desire just to get back to normal or fatigue. And instead of what health precautions dictate would be wise. I think at the very minimum we would be a lot better off if - we were very late in, from the CDCs perspective, in acknowledging that this is an airborne virus. And so air quality, air purification, air turnover in indoor spaces is extremely important, especially given how helpful that is for wildfire air mitigation. We're having a higher, more low-quality air days than we have before. Focusing on indoor air purification - I wish there were more of a push for that, more awareness for that, more assistance for that. Because it just seems like - given this and monkeypox, which has evidence that it is spread also via airborne - [00:30:37] Melissa Santos: Or at least droplets in close - yeah, at least like close breathy, breathing-ey stuff. [00:30:44] Crystal Fincher: Yes - that air purification is important. And so I wish we would make a greater push because still - that's not really aggressively talked about by most of our public health entities. And there's just not an awareness because of that, by a lot of people who are not necessarily being, saying - no, I don't want to do that - but just don't understand the importance of that. And many businesses that could take steps, but just don't know that that's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's still here - well, we're sanitizing all of these surfaces, which is going to come in handy for monkeypox certainly, but is not really an effective mitigation for COVID when - hey, let's talk about air purification instead of you wiping down surfaces. Just interesting and this may ramp up again, depending on what happens with MPV infections and spread. So we'll see how that continues. [00:31:47] Melissa Santos: But this time we have a vaccine at least - there is a vaccine that exists. Remember the beginning of COVID - of course, everyone remembers - there was no vaccine. So this feels like - theoretically, we should be able to address it faster because we have a vaccine, but there's just a shortage nationwide of the vaccine. So that's, I think, an extra frustrating layer of the monkeypox problem - is that we have a tool, but we just don't have enough of it. In COVID, we just were all completely in the dark for months and months and months and months - and anyway. [00:32:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and unfortunately the effect on the ground of not having enough is the same as not having any. [00:32:23] Melissa Santos: Right. Yeah. [00:32:24] Crystal Fincher: And so people are left with greater exposure to the virus and to spreading the virus than there would be otherwise, because we don't have the adequate supply of it. Which they say they're working on, but of course those things - unless you are prepared beforehand and making an effort to be prepared beforehand, it takes a while to get that ramped up. I think they're saying the earliest we could anticipate additional supply would be in the September timeframe, and oftentimes that's when it starts to trickle. And so it could be October before we see a meaningful amount of additional supply or longer. Just stay on top of information, be aware out there, and we will see. Very important thing happening within the City of Seattle - is Seattle City Council district redistricting, and what's happening. There have been some good articles written recently - both in The Seattle Times, especially in The Stranger by Hannah Krieg - about racial equity advocates actually being happy about the newly proposed political boundaries for council districts. But some residents of Magnolia, the expensive and exclusive Magnolia community, who have been known to advocate against any type of growth, or development, or any change to their community, other people getting greater access to their community and the political power that comes with who they've been and their ability to have an outsized voice, realistically, in local politics. They're not that happy. What's happening here? [00:34:16] Melissa Santos: The proposal that at least is moving forward at this point would split Magnolia, right? So this is something that communities of color have argued as being - Hey, in other areas, our communities are split and that dilutes our voice. And now it's interesting that Magnolia, which is not historically an area where - that has been predominantly people of color - every district in Seattle is changing - safe to say that it's been a whiter area. They're saying - Hey, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa - wait, we're gonna get split, that's gonna dilute our voice. So it's an interesting dynamic there. And what's also interesting - and it makes sense because the same organizations have been working on city redistricting and state redistricting, to some degree - we're seeing this movement to really unite and ensure communities in South Seattle are not divided. So in this - this was something that they really were trying to do with congressional districts - is make sure that South Seattle communities of color have a coalition and aren't split. And especially having the - well, let's see, and at least in state redistricting - making sure the International District is connected in some way to other parts of South Seattle and Beacon Hill. That was a priority in one of the congressional district redistricting for some of these groups that are now working on Seattle redistricting. One of the things that it would do is put South Park and Georgetown in the same district, which is interesting because I think those two communities work together on a lot of issues that affect the Duwamish and affect - again, a lot of people of color that live in those districts - there are issues that really would affect both of them. And so putting them in the same district, I could see why that would make sense. And you also have - I want to make sure I have this right, but I think - making sure Beacon Hill and it is connected to South Seattle as well. I'm gonna check here - is it also the International District here we're talking as well? Oh, Yesler Terrace - that's right. [00:36:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so CID and Yesler Terrace will be in District 2 - kept them both in District 2 - that those were some really, really important considerations. And large percentages of those communities have talked about how important that is. You just talked about Georgetown and South Park being in that district. Looking at Lake City, Northgate, and Broadview in District 5. Also keeping growing renter populations together in South Lake Union and Downtown together there has been making a difference. Both communities of color and, as we talk in the larger redistricting conversation, communities of interest - and now with more than half of the City being renters - renters have been largely overlooked in terms of redistricting and City policy until now. And really what a number of these organizations are saying is - we've been overlooked, we have not been absent, but we've been ignored in this and communities and voices from places like Magnolia have been overrepresented and have been catered to this time. And there's a saying - when you're used to privilege, equity looks like oppression. And so Magnolia is saying - we're losing our voice - and kind of collectively, interests from the rest of the City are saying - no, what you're doing is losing the ability to speak over our voices. But now that we're all at the table and all have a voice, it's time for us to also be recognized as valid and important and worthy of preservation and continuity and representation and not have it broken up in favor of predominantly wealthy homeowners who are saying - well, we're a historically important community. Well, are you historically important and the change that the rest of the City has seen hasn't come to your district because you have fought so vehemently against it. And then turn around and say - and that's why you should cater to us and keep us together because we continue to fight against any kind of change. And realistically saying - hey, other districts have changed and boundaries need to change in those other areas to accommodate that. And so this does - certainly not all that advocates have asked for, but some meaningful progress and some promising boundaries, I think, for a lot of people in the City, for a lot of people who are not wealthy, for people who are renters no matter what the income is - because of the challenges that just the rental population is facing. And to your point, neighborhoods who have worked together and who share interests, who now have the opportunity to have that represented politically within the City? I think that's very helpful and I definitely hope people stay engaged. In this redistricting process. And as the voices from some of those communities who have had greater access to an ability to participate in these redistricting and City processes, and who've had the inside track and who have been listened to to a greater degree than others, that you add your voice to the conversation to make sure that it isn't drowned out by anyone else. Looking at a recent announcement - and kind of announcement is a better word than a new policy or a plan - because it is just announced and announced the intention to take action, but we have yet to see. There was a press conference yesterday about emergency walk-in centers for behavioral health cases, addressing our regional behavioral health crisis here. What was announced and what is the deal? [00:40:32] Melissa Santos: What exactly is going to happen remains a little bit unclear to me exactly, but basically King County Executive Dow Constantine announced a plan to just expand services for people who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. And it's going to be part of his 2023 budget proposal, which isn't coming out 'til next month. So the idea is having more short- and long-term treatment - so more walk-in treatment that's available and more places to send people who have acute mental health needs. He was talking about how the County's lost a third of its residential behavioral healthcare beds - Erica Barnett at PubliCola reported on this pretty extensively - and there's just a concern there just won't be enough. I was surprised by the stat that there's only one crisis stabilization unit in the County that's 16 beds - that's not very much, especially when we know people suffer mental health crises more frequently than that small number of beds might indicate. So what's interesting is we want to put more money in somewhere so people aren't getting treated in jails, that they have a better place to go, but we're not quite - we don't know exactly the scope of this, or how much money exactly we're talking about to put toward more beds. I guess there's some plans to do so - is what I got from the executive. [00:42:06] Crystal Fincher: Certainly from a regional perspective, we saw representation from the mayor's office for the City of Seattle, county executive certainly, county council, regional leaders in behavioral health treatment and homelessness - all saying that - Hey, we intend to take action to address this. Like you said, Dow said that he will be speaking more substantively to this in terms of details with his budget announcement and what he plans to do with that. Universal acknowledgement that this is a crisis, that they lack funding and resources in this area, and say that they intend to do better with a focus, like you said, on walk-in treatment and the ability to provide that. But we just don't know the details yet. We'll be excited to see that. And you covered this week, just the tall task ahead of them, because we've spoken about before and lots of people have talked about even in this press conference, a problem that we almost require that people - the only access that people can get to treatment sometimes is if they've been arrested, which is just a wildly inefficient way to address this, especially when it plays a role in creating some of the problems with crime and other things. But even with the newly rolled-out intervention system with an attempt to - if someone who previously would've called 911 now can call a dedicated kind of other crisis line to try and get an alternative response - but even that is severely underfunded. What's happening with that? [00:44:00] Melissa Santos: So with 988 - this is the three-digit number people can call when they have a mental health crisis and they'll be connected to a counselor who can help talk them through it. The idea is ultimately for that system to also be able to send trained crisis responders - largely instead of police in many, many cases - meet people in-person, not just talk to them on the phone. But we just don't have enough of these mobile crisis response teams. There's money in the state budget to add more over the next couple of years, especially in rural areas that just don't have the coverage right now. They just don't have enough teams to be able to get to people when they need it. That's something they want to expand so there's more of a response than - that isn't a police officer showing up at your door. So that's the ultimate vision for this new line you call - 988 - but it's not fully implemented right now. You still will get some support. And if you call, I'm not trying to say people should not call the line, but they don't necessarily have all the resources they want to be able to efficiently deploy people - I shouldn't say deploy, it sounds very military - but deploy civilian trained helpers to people who are experiencing a crisis. So that's where they want it to go and The Seattle Times had an article just about how some of those designated crisis responders right now are just stretched so thin and that's just not gonna change immediately, even with some new state money coming in to add more people to do those sorts of things. And designated crisis responders have other duties - they deal with actually to getting people to treatment - some involuntarily in certain cases. Again, it's different than a police response and right now there's just not enough of those folks. [00:45:55] Crystal Fincher: Which jeopardizes the willingness of people to continue to call. Certainly the possibility that a police response can ultimately happen from someone who was requesting a behavioral health or another type of intervention response. And that is still a possibility which some people find challenging or - hey, they expected to avoid that or have something different if they call this and that might not always be the case. But it's certainly a challenge and I think one of the things that was talked about yesterday, which kind of wraps this under a whole umbrella, is there needs to be a lot more done in terms of infrastructure and capacity from - with there being someone to call, someone appropriate to call for whatever the challenge is, an appropriate response. If that is a behavioral health trained person, a crisis intervener, someone like that - and places to take people. Someone does respond and then can connect that person to services that exist. We have problems in a number of areas saying - yeah, we offered services or services are available and they aren't, or they aren't appropriate for the crisis that's there. They don't meet the needs of the person and their situation. So certainly a lot to build out. I think it is a positive step that we're hearing acknowledgement of this and a unified plan to take action, but still need to see what actually results 'cause sometimes we hear big fanfare to start and don't get much substantive on the back end. Certainly I hope with a number of the people involved in this that we do get some substantive progress and I hope to see that, I would expect to see that - but I'm looking forward to it. With that, I think that wraps up this show today. Thank you so much for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 12th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng with assistance from Bryce Cannatelli - we have an incredible team here at Hacks & Wonks - just want to continue to say that it is not just me, it is completely our team and not possible without this full team. Our wonderful co-host today is Seattle Axios reporter Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Twitter @MelissaSantos1. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on the new Twitter account @HacksWonks, 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 and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show deliver 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 and Election 2022 resources at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

In this episode Jill Mangaliman and Edgar Franks from On the Front Lines join Liz Darrow for a conversation with filmmaker and creative director Tani Ikeda and artist Michelle Kumata about their project Emerging Radiance, which celebrates the untold stories of Nikkei farmers who lived in Bellevue from 1920–1942."Emerging Radiance: Honoring the Nikkei Farmers of Bellevue" will be on display as part of Augment Seattle at 9th & Thomas building in South Lake Union, 234 9th Ave N, Seattle, 98109. More info hereMore info on Emerging Radiance hereWatch the Day of Remembrance 80th Anniversary Virtual Program Honoring the Nikkei Farmers of Bellevue film hereFollow on Instagram: @emergingradiance @taniikeda @michellekumataSongs in this episode:Posing for Cars by Japanese BreakfastButterflies by Sen MorimotoPhoto credit: ARTXIVSupport the show

 What's Trending: The average price of gas is continuing to drop in Washington but it is still more expensive than the national average, Biden Admin is still pushing electric vehicles to solve the issue, Monkey Pox cases are slowly rising in western Washington, a homeless camp on private property is being cleared in South Lake Union after months of complaints, the hot weather is coming in and people are starting to complain, //  Big Local: a 10-year old girl in Tacoma was shot inside her house, the shots were fired from outside, the mother was shocked and compared it to a warzone, the girl was shot in the leg and is expected to recover, a puppy was inside of a shopping cart in the Mount Vernon Walmart during the shooting, owner has not come back for their pet, // a non-binary teacher read a book about pronouns and gender to her first grade class, one student came out as trans after being read this book See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A jury awarded $150 million to the victims and their families in the deadly 2019 crane collapse in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood.The jury found Northwest Tower Crane and Omega Morgan largely responsible, according to the attorney for one of the victim's families. The $150 million will be split among five victims and their families.LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3fs6dBUSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

After workers cleared out a large encampment in South Lake Union, which was notoriously known for its crime issues, KIRO 7 was told that a new problem with rats has been revealed.People in the area of Mercer and Dexter sent KIRO 7 video showing numerous rats in the area, after the large encampment was swept and cleared on Wednesday and outreach workers offered shelter and support.A resident said there have been waves of rats scattering out of the camp.LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3fs6dBUSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

On this midweek show, Ryan Packer, senior reporter at The Urbanist, stops by to cover the ins and outs of the $16 billion Move Ahead Washington transportation package currently moving through the State Legislature. Ryan and Crystal talk about revenue for the transportation budget, including interstate drama over a proposed fuel export tax. They then jump into details of what the package funds over the next 16 years in terms of public transit, pedestrian safety, free transit for youth, and highway expansion. 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 Ryan at @typewriteralley   Resources “Democrats Unveil Transformative ‘Move Ahead Washington' Transportation Package” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/09/democrats-unveil-transformative-move-ahead-washington-transportation-package/   “Proposed tax on WA fuel exports scorned by neighboring states” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/proposed-tax-on-wa-fuel-exports-scorned-by-neighboring-states/   “Top House democrat proposes removing fuel export tax from transportation package” by KING5 Staff from KING5: https://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/state-politics/fuel-export-tax-washington-house-jake-fey/281-592bd977-3174-428d-8b67-d2626de361d8   “Washington House jettisons exported fuel tax proposal that angered neighboring states” by Tom Banse from Northwest News Network: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/03/02/washington-state-house-exported-fuel-tax-proposal-neighboring-states/   Interstate Bridge Replacement Program: https://www.interstatebridge.org/   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, I'd like to welcome Ryan Packer to the program, who's a senior reporter at The Urbanist focused on transportation through the lens of safety and climate. Their work also appears in Seattle Bike Blog and Bike Portland. And so, we're going to be talking about the transportation package today. There's a lot in it, and we all need to get around at some point or another, and whether we're in cars and mad about traffic, or how inconvenient it may be sometimes to get from Point A to Point B, or we're riding the bus or the train or walking or biking or in a wheelchair or using an assisted device; the design of our transportation system, from our sidewalks to our roads, to bike facilities, impact how we all get around and the quality of our communities and how our communities look. So, we definitely are excited to have this conversation today. I just want to go over, before we get to this conversation, what is in this package, and we'll be talking about it in more detail. So, the transportation package that is currently being worked on and finalized is the Move Ahead Washington transportation package. It's a $16 billion proposal funding a suite of transportation projects intended to be completed over the next 16 years through 2038. It significantly increases the amount of state funding allocated toward transit, walking, and biking investments. It funds fare-free transit for people under 18 years old, invests a $150 million in advancing high speed rail investments, and active transportation investments total nearly $1.3 billion - and active transportation being walking or rolling. There's $146 million in grants for cities to remake existing streets to create space for people to walk and roll via the Complete Streets investments - that's if we're talking about things like Aurora Avenue or in the Kent Valley, connectivity for bikes and walking throughout the corridors - things like that are what those are funding. $50 million would go to Connecting Communities grants, those right there. Highway expansion projects received $4 billion, the largest expenditure being a $1 billion allocation to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project, which will expand I-5 and replace an aging bridge, but also expand it along a five-mile stretch on either side of the Oregon and Washington border. Transit investments include $30 million for three Community Transit Swift line expansions: the Silver Line, Gold Line, and an extension of the existing Green Line. $8 million for the King County Metro RapidRide I Line project, specifically for the segment in Auburn. $7 million for upgrades to King County Metro's RapidRide H Line project in Burien along Ambaum Boulevard, and $5 million for electrification at King County Metro's South Base. Ferries receive $1.5 billion, that's sorely needed. Highway maintenance and preservation receives $3 billion, and fish barrier removal gets a $2.4 billion allocation. That's a lot. We'll be talking about the details, but just wanted to tee that up to let you know what's in this package, and now we'll proceed with Ryan. Welcome. [00:04:03] Ryan Packer: So great to be here. [00:04:05] Crystal Fincher: If people are trying to inform themselves about transportation in the State of Washington, it is hard to do that without reading your work. You have some of the most comprehensive reporting and coverage in the state - consistently following meetings, whether it's Sound Transit, things happening in the legislature, locally. I have certainly been informed by your coverage for quite some time. It's an essential read, encourage everyone to make sure they're on it. What was your path to covering transportation? [00:04:38] Ryan Packer: Well, I think ultimately it was trying to get around Seattle and realizing the barriers that are invisible and very visible when you're trying to do that. It was the path of starting with, why is a bike lane design like this? Why can't our streets look differently? And that just took me on a path to going down the rabbit hole as I usually - it took me down a path of going down the rabbit hole of figuring out all of the aspects of the transportation ecosystem in Washington, the commissions and boards, and all the levels of government that play a small part in how everyone gets around every single day. [00:05:26] Crystal Fincher: It makes sense. There's a lot to it. And I read somewhere, I think it was a tweet sometime. They were like, "Nothing will radicalize you quicker than riding a bike as a form of transit." This is not an exaggeration - almost all of the people I know who bike regularly, especially those who are commuting, have been hit by a car before. Some extremely seriously injured, and some moderately injured. Really unsafe for people to be getting around in modes that are outside of cars, and a lot of work needing to be done in many areas to make our streets safe - for people who are walking, or rolling, or on their bikes, or getting to the bus stop in a safe way - is a challenging thing. And so, I appreciate your coverage on what has gone into the outcomes that we currently see, and what is going into the effort to hopefully change it, and what's holding those efforts back. There's a lot of that being talked about right now at the state level. As we're talking about this, this is Wednesday, March 2nd - probably be hearing this a little later. But the transportation package is really taking shape, leading up to the end of the legislative session on March 10th. So, what is in this package? I guess, an overview of it, and then we can talk about, in more detail, the different sections of it. [00:06:54] Ryan Packer: I think it helps to take a step back and think about what a transportation package is. It's a thing that I think exists in a lot of states, but in Washington it seems to get a lot of attention. But it's really a promise to build certain projects over a period of time. And what we always do in Washington is usually pair that with a raise in revenue. And so, you're passing a bill that raises revenue for the next 16 years in this case, which is the expected lifespan of this Move Ahead Washington package. And it's paired with a commitment by the legislature that, "This is what we're going to do with that money." And so, this package is pretty different than a lot of the packages that have been passed by the legislature in the past, namely that a big component of it is the Climate Commitment Act, which the legislature passed in 2021. And so, that is expected to raise around a little bit more than $5 billion through the middle of 2037, basically. So, over the next 16 years. And the requirement in that law was actually that that money had to be spent on things that decarbonize transportation, reduce transportation emissions. And so, they can't actually build new roads or use that money for preservation and maintenance of existing highways. It's already been set aside for things like active transportation, electrifying the ferry fleet, transit. And so, they already had that money coming. It was set to come in whether they passed a package or not, but this solidifies what they're going to actually spend that on. And then they come in and they add additional aspects to it. They have diverted $2 billion from the state's operating fund, which is a thing that hasn't really been done very much in the past. It's a pretty unprecedented diversion of money that could be spent on many other things in the budget. Traditionally, transportation projects have been paid for with transportation dollars, i.e., gas tax money, license fees, user fees as they're called. But this is an unprecedented diversion. Unlike when they usually do a transportation package and raise the gas tax - per the Washington State Constitution, all gas tax money has to be spent on highway purposes. But in this case, there's no such strings attached to the money. And so, that's a brief intro to sort of the revenue side. Because the legislature decided, and I say the legislature - I should say, Senate Democrats and House Democrats decided that they were not going to raise gas prices, given all that's happening in the country right now, via a increase in our gas tax, our 49 cent gas tax. They instead developed a plan to modify our export credit system, which would essentially amount to a 6 cent per gallon export tax on all fuel that leaves the state. About 40% of the fuel that's refined at the five refineries in Washington State leaves and it's not, as they say, captured by the transportation system in a way that in-state gas taxes are. And so, this was framed as a way to capture that revenue. It was also framed as a way to mitigate the impacts from those five refineries: Anacortes, Tacoma, which have really real impacts. [00:11:06] Crystal Fincher: And those are massive impacts. Certainly any conversation about addressing climate change in the long term, about reducing our carbon usage, has to involve those refineries, and at a minimum doing a better job of mitigating and fully accounting for the impact that they're all having, and mitigating that impact and hopefully working towards lessening that impact directly. [00:11:36] Ryan Packer: And so, that's a compelling argument in favor of charging exports on fuel more since most of it leaves the state. The problem is that there wasn't really a compelling nexus shown between the expected $2 billion that we raise by that fuel export tax over 16 years, and what is being done to actually mitigate those impacts. And so, I feel like that was one obvious gap in the logic for the fuel export tax. 90% of the fuel used in Oregon comes from Washington. And so, that became a huge point of contention. The Governor of Oregon, Oregon legislature is very upset about this - essentially describing it as a defacto increase in their gas tax. I just want to note that any state with a gas tax that's at Washington's level or higher wouldn't have paid any fuel tax. So, Oregon could have actually raised their gas tax to the same level and kept all of the money from the export tax, but that wasn't very much discussed either. And so, that was a lot of political pressure. Alaska, Idaho joined in on trying to pressure the House and Senate Democrats to remove that export tax. Last night, during their hours-long debate on the House floor, they ended up doing so. So, the House version of the bill which passed close to midnight last night didn't include it. It was replaced with a diversion from the Public Works Trust Fund, which does not really make a lot of people any more happy since that money is used to fund things like sewer and water projects and rural areas all around the state as a rotating loan program. And a lot of people, especially leaders in small cities and towns, are pretty unhappy about that swap and maybe would've preferred to keep the export tax. [00:13:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, a really interesting conversation there. I think sometimes a lot of people think, "Oh, it's a rural area. There are small towns. Totally, they're going to be against that tax." But I think people underestimate how far behind a number of those smaller cities and towns are in that infrastructure maintenance and improvement needs. Some of them, like critical water infrastructure that they're dealing with, other items, and that's long been a point of discussion with cities to the legislature and rural areas and towns with the legislature. So, I certainly hope that that is addressed because we do need a solution that works for the entire state. How has the conversation about gas taxes evolved to this point? I know previously the gas tax has been heavily relied on and thinking, "Well, this is the most appropriate method to fund all of our transportation needs. We're directly taxing a transportation item." But one of the things that's happening is as we are increasing reliance on electric vehicles, as more people continue to take transit around, there is less revenue coming from the gas tax because less gas is being used. So, that's a declining revenue stream in the long-term, not something that can be counted on to sustainably fund what we have. Has that been part of what's created the motivation to find alternative revenue structures like these other taxes? [00:15:30] Ryan Packer: I think in part, it definitely has, but just last session, both the House and the Senate were poised to raise the gas tax - the House version by quite a lot. So, I really think that primarily the move away from the gas tax has been driven by the national conversation, in addition to, like I said, that revenue that's becoming available through the Climate Commitment Act. There's also money from the federal infrastructure bill that's in this as well, and some COVID relief dollars as well. And so, I think ultimately it's just a question of the fact that we don't have to raise gas taxes in an election year when we have this revenue available, particularly again from the general fund, which is seeing a big turnaround in revenue projections. The transportation sector is, and the gas tax projections, are actually not rebounding anywhere near as quickly as the revenue sources that feed the general fund. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: In this negotiation, what do you see coming next? Does it look like this is in trouble? Does it look like the House version is going to prevail? Any ideas on what lies ahead? [00:16:52] Ryan Packer: I think the export tax is likely dead. The Public Works Trust Fund being its replacement seems fairly certain at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Senate Democrats try and find another source for that back filling. It's already going to leave a hole of around $500 million over that 16 years. And so with the House version having passed last night, they do have to go into conference and hash things out. But ultimately, I don't think there's going to be too many surprises before the end of the session next week, and most of the plan is now baked solid. [00:17:38] Crystal Fincher: In terms of what this is actually funding, what does it fund? What are people getting out of this package? [00:17:45] Ryan Packer: So, let's start with the Climate Commitment Act dollars I mentioned that have to go toward decarbonizing transportation. So, this is going to be the single largest infusion of dollars from the state level toward public transit in at least three decades. And so, that's pretty big for public transit advocates, people who like to get people onto transit, which I would put myself in that category. And so, the lion's share of that money is coming in the form of a new program called Transit Support Grants. Traditionally, the federal government and the state government haven't really funded the dollars to keep buses running. They often will give grants to bus companies, transit agencies to buy new buses or do a capital improvement that gives you a new transit corridor or that sort of thing; but they haven't really invested in the actual dollars to keep buses on the roads. And now we're at a point where the level of frequency of local bus service in Seattle is incredibly different than it is in Tacoma right now, with very few bus routes even running 15 minutes or better. So, that has been the legacy of Tim Eyman. I know you talked a little bit about this in your interview with Derek Young, it was very enlightening in terms of the history of disinvestment in public transit - relying on these local dollars that not every community is able to raise. And so, this is going to balance that a little bit. Like I said, the state really hasn't done this at all. And so, the level of state support that Washington currently gives to transit agencies around the entire state is around $100 million a year - fluctuates a little bit, but that's all that they get from the state. And this represents, if you divide the number of years for the $1.4 billion in the Transit Support Grants by the 16 years it's expected to be, you're going to get around $90. So, essentially it's a doubling of state support for transit, which is pretty huge. And it's especially going to be impactful for the smaller transit agencies. There's a stipulation in the bill that no agency can get over 35% of the grants. That's in order to prevent something like King County Metro - in 2019, King County Metro saw two out of every three bus rides in the entire state. And so, if you were going to divide it by ridership, King County would suck up all the money. And so, there's a lever that lets them only get 35% at max of the grants. Terry White, the GM of Metro, has said that they expect to get around $640 million over 16 years - that's about their operating budget for one year. But it's going to be a lot more for the smaller agencies. So, they're expecting to spend around $1.2 billion on things like pedestrian safety programs, Safe Routes to Schools, Complete Streets programs, and some specific projects that the legislature actually called out - notably a $50 million expenditure, just the single largest earmark in the whole program to remake Aurora Avenue in Seattle, one of the most deadly streets in the entire City. And so, that's great to see. But like I said, most of that money is coming in the form of grants. So since 2005, Washington has had a program where cities and towns can apply for either Safe Routes to School program projects, or bike and pedestrian focused safety projects, usually in the $500,000-$1,000,000 range of cost, maybe a little bit more sometimes. Since 2005, the state has had about $250 million available for that. And this essentially should around double that over the next 16 years, depending on how much the legislature decides to actually allocate. So, around 55% of all the cities and towns in Washington State have never received one of these grants. So, only 45% of the cities in the entire state, and only around half of the counties have ever actually either been able to apply or actually received an award. So, this will essentially allow a lot more cities to be able to access that money. [00:23:26] Crystal Fincher: What does this do for high speed rail? [00:23:30] Ryan Packer: So, the high speed rail money in the package includes some money right up front to keep the project alive, and then it also includes $150 million set-aside to be able to access any federal grants that might come our way. That's obviously a long way from construction of any projects, but it would be a big step if we were able to access that and unlock any federal dollars that could be able to be used for the project. But we're still a long way from really seeing what that money is actually going to be used for. [00:24:20] Crystal Fincher: Okay. And did I see that there is free transit for youth included in this bill? [00:24:27] Ryan Packer: Yes. Good question. So, the free transit is tied to those transit service grants that I mentioned. And so, that's one condition of receiving any state operating subsidy for transit is you have to make your fares free for riders under 18. If you're already providing free transit through a school district, or I know Seattle currently pays for high schoolers and middle schoolers to get free ORCA cards, and it's going to be a trade off because that money's actually going to be going away because there's no fares to be paid that way. But in Seattle, for example, that could actually free up those dollars to be spent on transit anyway, because it's the City spending that money. And it's going to be including ferries, Amtrak Cascades, basically any public transit in the entire state is going to be fare-free to riders under 18. We don't quite know exactly how that's going to work yet - assuming free passes for specific groups. [00:25:50] Crystal Fincher: So, now let's talk about highway expansion. What is going on in this project? How much is being invested in expanding highways, where's that going to be, and what is the conversation around it? [00:26:03] Ryan Packer: So, the package is proposing to backfill a bunch of highway projects that had been passed in 2015, essentially because costs are going up and things are more expensive now - labor's more expensive, and also delays from COVID just made costs go up. And so, it's backfilling the Puget Sound Gateway projects, which are the extension of SR-167 and 509 down by Port of Tacoma and South King County. So, that's about $430 million that's getting added to that project. It depends how you feel about that project - I know a lot of business groups love that project, it's going to make getting to the ports a lot easier. The Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma have been fully on board with that project, but it is creating a brand new highway. The last, I would say, highway that's going to bust through a urban area in central Puget Sound. So, it's not an insignificant impact. It's going to backfill the 520 project, because that project also ran out of money, on the west end in Seattle. The problem with calling that a highway expansion is there's a lot of really great aspects to the project that include bike access. There's a new transit lane that's going to get you from South Lake Union straight to the 520 bridge. Those are all add-ons. So, it's how a highway project should be - is oriented also toward different modes. But the problem is that if you cut that, it's going to leave a highway project. And so, has been hard to describe how that money has gone to be used. But ultimately, those elements are going to be great. It's just a matter of, should this be our priority? I mentioned that the bike and pedestrian and Safe Routes to School program had spent $250 million since 2005, when we're going to give 520 $406 million right now. So, it's this trade-off in terms of realizing how expensive these mega projects are. But then there's the new projects. And so, there's about $2.5 billion identified for brand new highway projects in the entire package. $1 billion of that is the "Interstate Bridge Replacement" program. And I'll put "bridge" in quotes because it does include, as planned, a replacement for the two bridges that currently go over the Columbia as I-5 between Portland and Vancouver, but it's also a 5-mile, 7-interchange highway expansion project. [00:29:26] Crystal Fincher: A huge highway expansion project that also is impacting housing and schools in the area, taking over a lot of land and property in that area, and is a behemoth project. [00:29:43] Ryan Packer: And so, environmental groups on both sides of the border have basically been pushing for what they call a right-sized IBR. I would say they really haven't been successful so far. There's only three designs that are actually on the table. All of them expand the highway to 10 lanes over the river and are going to include a lot of interchanges. There's been some renderings that show basically a brand new elevated highway right through downtown Vancouver. I think a lot of people agree that we need to have a replacement for that 100-year old bridge, but - one of the spans is 100 years old - but the question is, this is actually expected to be a $4-5 billion project. We're now putting in $1 billion just from Washington. There's going to be some Oregon match, federal money. It's being framed as a replacement project, but it's also going to massively expand the highway. So, there's that element. [00:30:53] Crystal Fincher: And this has been a long-standing fraught conversation. When I first learned about this project and went through it, toward it was 10 - gosh, I'm old - 12 years ago now. This has been a long-standing conversation between Washington and Oregon about what to replace it with, how much each state is going to be putting in, where those funds are coming from. And so, even with the other tax conversation about Oregon, some of that has implications for this bridge also. And there was some tense moments this past week in rhetoric - some heated words that in this conversation about the tax and some red lines drawn from the Oregon people and a harsh reaction from folks in our state, including Senator Liias, who I think said some words that ultimately he agreed were in haste and crossed the line, which he then apologized for. But this has been a contentious conversation for years, and we're getting close to the finish line, but a lot of these fissures are certainly showing at this point. [00:32:09] Ryan Packer: Correct, yeah. Last week, Oregon Republicans on the Bridge Committee basically threatened to leave the committee. I think a lot of environmental advocates were daring them to actually make good on that promise, since they're the ones that are pushing for the capacity constraints. But yeah, you mentioned this has been going on for a very long time. So yeah, in 2011 they were able to actually get a federal approval for that previous project. And that's part of the problem with this, is they're actually attempting to reuse that decision. So basically, get a rubber stamp to make some minor changes to that design, but ultimately keep it very similar. They considered adding climate directly to the project's purpose and need. Climate and equity considerations were considered to actually go right to the heart of the project. And they said, "No." They said they didn't want to do that because it would screw up the timeline and not allow them to start construction in 2025 like they want. But I don't know how you can spend a $4 or 5 billion project and not fully center climate and equity between our two supposed climate warrior states. [00:33:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. A lot of rhetoric there. Don't seem to be lining up, although this has been a chronic problem for the years leading up to now. And so, I hope there are more voices who are pushing on that in our legislature. We'll see if that trickles up to leadership, and as they're in conference about this package and see how that turns out, and if some of that gets carried through. As we're just looking at this package as a whole and where things are going now, what do you think we need to be looking out for? And I guess, what else is at the top of your mind as you consider the effect of this package? [00:34:17] Ryan Packer: I think this is a very important step, which is centering a transportation package not entirely around the needs of our highway system. But given the incredibly unique nature of this package, with those revenues that are urgently needing to be spent on carbon reduction programs, and the federal matches, and very unique infusion of cash from the general fund - I think we have to make sure that this isn't a one-off, and we don't quite go back to having a highway package that's focused on highways and "local projects." A lot of legislators and local leaders have been noting that the package doesn't include money for local projects, when it has all those grants I just mentioned - what they're talking about is money that they can get to rebuild roads. Obviously maintenance and preservation is really important. There's $3 billion for preservation and maintenance of the highway system in the package, which is more than we have really spent in the past two decades or so, but it's not the entire purpose of the package. It's to move us toward a different transportation future where it's not as focused around single occupancy vehicles. And so, I think there's a potential for us to sort of slip back, say we already did the climate transportation package in 2022, and then just move on to another package. But we need to fight for these investments to be in every single budget essentially, because traditionally decarbonizing transportation through investing in transit, biking, and walking has been a thing that's been really ignored, even by our governor who focuses a lot on climate action. So, I think we just can't let it slip off. [00:36:37] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Well, thank you so much for joining us today and we will keep our eye out and make sure everyone stays updated on what winds up in the package at the end of the day after the legislature adjourns. Thank you so much for joining us, Ryan. [00:36:53] Ryan Packer: Thanks so much for having me. [00:36:54] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast - just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. We'll talk to you next time.

We're excited to host Karl Kruger this month, an athlete and adventurer who inspires many to get on the water! In this talk, Karl draws on his experience paddling the 2017 Race to Alaska from Port Townsend to Ketchikan on his SUP to introduce his next adventure: paddling 2,000 miles through the Northwest Passage in the Arctic Ocean, from Tuktoyaktuk to Pond Inlet, Canada. Keep up with Karl and his journey at www.karlkrugerofficial.com. Visit us at www.cwb.org or at the Center for Wooden Boats on Seattle's South Lake Union and Cama Beach to sail, row or paddle, take a class, or volunteer. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/cwbheritage/message

HOUR 3 – 9pm :06  Times editorial warns against creating another South Lake Union in the U-district  GUESTS: Sam Heikell and Paxtyn Merten, two Seattle teen journalists who killed it at national conferences, talk about the future of news A UC Berkely student got kicked off a Southwest for speaking Arabic  Rantz is glad the St. Louis University baseball players who exchanged racist messages didn't get punished, not because he supports racism, but because people are allowed to be racist. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tim Soerens is a pastor and author of the new book Everywhere You Look: Discovering the Church Right Where You Are.  In this episode, hear Tim talk with Dayle Rounds about why he feels hopeful about the American church and what he thinks the church might be called to do in this particular season of the pandemic. They discuss how the church might come to see its purpose not as creating God's mission but joining it. Tim Soerens is the co-founding director of the Parish Collective, a growing network and global movement of Christians reimagining what it means to be the Church in, with, and for the neighborhood.  His latest book is called “Everywhere You Look: Discovering the Church, Right Where You Are”.  His co-authored first book “The New Parish: How Neighborhood Churches Transform Mission, Discipleship, and Community (Intervarsity Press, 2014) won multiple awards, including Christianity Today's award of merit. Tim has launched multiple sold-out conferences including the Inhabit Conference, New Parish Conference UK, Conspire Gathering, and Neighborhood Economics Conference. He also co-founded Neighborhood Economics to catalyze entrepreneurship as a path to wealth for marginalized communities which has helped to raise over 3 million dollars. A popular speaker, Tim has spoken to a broad cross-section of organizations and denominations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Closer to home, he and his wife are helping to start South Park Neighborhood Church and are co-founding owners of Resistencia Coffee, a neighborhood coffee shop, as well as the South Park Idea Lab. He lives in Seattle, WA with his wife Coté and their sons Lukas and Joaquín.Intro (00:00): What does it mean for us to be the church in this particular season? And what is the church for? In this episode, you will meet Tim Soerens, pastor and co-founder of The Parish Collective and author of the book *Everywhere You Look: Discovering the Church Right Where You Are*. Tim and I talk about new ways of understanding the purpose of the church and how the church might evolve in its calling -- not to create God's redeeming mission, but to join it. You are listening to The Distillery at Princeton Theological Seminary. Dayle (00:36): Tim, it's great to sit down and talk to you. It's been a while since we've been able to talk, and I'm really glad that you've joined me here today. Thanks for doing this. Tim (00:46): Thanks for having me, Dayle. It's so good to be here. Dayle (00:48): We're glad you're here. Your book. It's a profoundly hopeful text at a time when I think a lot of people feel... When a lot of news about the church does not feel so hopeful, right? So you've chosen to write a very hopeful book about the American church. And so the question I have is what sparked your desire to write this? And my second question is -- who did you write it for? Tim (01:14): Well, I really appreciate that question. That was definitely a longing, was to write a hopeful book and well, I'll maybe start with the second part of the question and then, and then go to the next. And that is for many years now, I have had the great privilege through working with The Parish Collective to walk in honestly hundreds of neighborhoods and with all kinds of congregations. And what I found is the closer that I'm able to literally like get on the street with people -- into homes or into pubs and ask, "What is God doing in this place?" -- there are small and large stories of hope that are just bursting at the seams all over the place. It seems almost like the closer you get to the ground, the more hopeful it is. And the more you zoom out and begin to get stuff from newspapers, on Facebook, and big national reports, the more depressing it is. Tim (02:15): And so, who I wrote the book for largely was for, especially, I'd say everyday people who still think and care and practice their faith with a lot of earnest motivation, but are beginning to ask questions about the church. You know, what is it for? Why church? I mean, it feels like the more and more people that I would talk to and have questions about the church, there are just all these different answers. So I really was trying to write this for everyday people. I had a chance to write another book with some, with two other colleagues called the new parish. That was a little bit more oriented towards church leaders. And in my experience at the congregational level, if there's not, you could say like the desire to see new things happen within, you know, some percentage of lay leadership, then it's really difficult to see any kind of culture change at the congregation level. Tim (03:19): So I kept, I kind of, I told her about this, but I was writing this honestly with my mom in mind, who is part of a delightful, evangelical church in a small town in Wisconsin. But I just kept thinking like, would my mom (A) want to keep reading this book? Like, am I keeping her attention? And (B) am I speaking to someone who's kind of in her lived experience? Like, would she read this book and want to pass it along to some of her friends that are in her Bible study, but you think about giving it to her pastor, but even if she didn't give it to her pastor, would she feel like, yes, this is, this is putting language to thoughts and hopes that I've had, that I haven't been able to put together myself. So it really was written for everyday people. Dayle (04:05): Can you tell one of those stories about how a local church or faith community expression is actually bearing witness to Christ and their community in a way? Tim (04:14): Sure. I mean, there are really so many, you know, one that I've just been thinking about is local here in Seattle. And they've been around for probably seven or eight years now, but it's, uh, a PCUSA church called Union Church. And they were sent off from a larger university Presbyterian church a handful of years ago into a very interesting neighborhood where I had spent some time; it's called South Lake Union. It's kind of the north part of downtown Seattle. And it's where amazon.com, which -- I'm from Seattle. Everyone's heard of amazon.com, but for many years they had office buildings scattered all over the region. Well, they consolidated and bought up literally a couple of million square feet of office real estate in this one neighborhood and Union was asking the question -- could we begin to form a faith community, a congregation right now in this rapidly changing neighborhood? Tim (05:16): And so they're led by an amazing couple, James B And Renée Notkin, and they have -- in some ways what they've done is not that crazy. Lots of other people have started enterprises like they have, but, you know, they have started a kind of a chocolate and coffee shop in the front. And then at the back, it's an event space. And so where they worship on Sunday is kind of a big minimalistic almost warehouse feel. But during the week they rent it out to kind of top dollar corporations for like big events. And they are also from that revenue able to turn it back around the neighborhood and say -- hey, can we host some of the most important conversations and gatherings for the things that matter most here? Dayle (06:05): They're using that money in support of the mission of the congregation. Tim (06:08): Exactly. And they're also, they are... How they have listened really intently to what God seems to be doing, and obviously who's there in this rapidly changing neighborhood, I think is really fascinating. Because you've got lots of obviously tech workers and more and more people that are moving into condos, but there's, you know, the cascade part of the neighborhood is arguably like the anarchist epicenter of Seattle, or at least it used to be. There are obviously issues with homelessness, which is a major issue in the city of Seattle. It's pretty diverse; the neighborhood changing dramatically. So they're consistently asking -- what does it mean for us to be faithful to what God is doing here and this really unique, rapidly changing urban environment. And, I just think they're really inspiring. Dayle (06:56): But that's -- I'm going to pick up on that. That's one of the main points you make in the book -- is that you talk about how the church needs to be attentive to what God is already doing in a community and then join in on that work. It reminds me decades ago, I read Eugene Peterson's *Contemplative Pastor*. He talks about this. He talks about how, I think it's been, I may get this wrong, but like when, when a pastor first enters a new congregation, often times the impulse is to want to ask what, what should I do? What should I do? Right. And I think he makes some reference about actually looking at the congregational terrain to see where God is already at work. And then ask the question, how can I get in on that? And it seems to me that that's the point you're trying to make. So tell me a little bit about that. Why is that important? And can you give some examples to folks as to where you've seen someone or seen a group of someones in a congregation functioning in that way? Tim (08:06): Yeah. I think this is a really significant question and a potential shift, and a lot of what animates it is that with the kind of quote-unquote decline of the church, or kind of, [inaudible] realities, there's lots of different language for it. There's actually, I'd say a veritable, you know, industry, that's afoot saying -- oh, the church is dead. What do we do? And that's understandable. Those are real questions, but they're almost all precipitated by asking church questions before God questions, if that makes sense. Dayle (08:42): Yep. Tim (08:43): And what I have seen both in my own life and certainly in being with all kinds of churches and neighborhoods, is that when the community really has dialed in, of kind of disciplining themselves to ask the God question first, namely, like you said, using Eugene Peterson, what is God up to here -- that you're up for an entirely different journey, than even you know, how do we be a successful church or how do we grow the church or how do we get, you know, young people to come back to our church or, you know, and then, you know, some of the questions can, frankly, devolve from there with carpet and music styles and things like that. Tim (09:27): But when the question is what actually is God up to, and you can ask that together within the context of an actual place, then I think that that sets us off on a whole new trajectory. And my experience has been when you ask that question and it's primary, if you're faithful to it, and then you begin to not on your own necessarily, but with even a small team of people, you begin to try things and take on different experiments and practices and you literally, you know, make the path by walking. And I think that's just the nature of the church right now -- that we need to make the path by walking. And I think what sets us off on that journey is this question about what God's up to. Tim (10:14): It's been really beautiful here. I live in a neighborhood now called South Park, which is on the south end of Seattle, four miles from downtown. And I had been really inspired actually by a bunch of neighbors, but honestly, especially my wife who is taking the lead in helping to start a new faith community here in partnership with United Methodist Church. And we have, even amongst all the chaos of COVID, to continually ask, what is God up to and how do we join in. I mean, that's -- it's made all kinds of things possible, whether that be connecting with neighbors who are doing a mutual aid society, particularly around food security, or if it's around opening up our coffee shop in different creative ways. If it's thinking through and wrestling with our neighborhood -- like, a lot in Seattle is getting more and more expensive. How do we think about coming alongside our neighbors that are in danger of being forced out, especially now? I mean, these are all questions that for us are very theologically motivated -- what is God up to here? And having the opportunity to join in with neighbors, and then frankly doing some, both theological reflection on that, as well as practical questions about, well, what does it mean for us to be the church then with this reality? So what are the practices that we need to inhabit in this particular season? How do we do this on our own? How do we do this together? How do we care well for our neighbors, how do we both live out and articulate our faith practice amongst our community -- these are all questions that we're constantly asking, but I feel like they're really powerful generative questions. Dayle (12:02): Now the timing of this is that you wrote this book before the pandemic, right. And it came out, I think, early on in it or in the middle of it. So I think the question that's on everybody's mind now is like, well, what about the pandemic and post-pandemic church? So with the emphasis on looking at your community and seeing where God is at work and with neighbors, how has the pandemic been influencing that and where have you seen --because God's still working in the middle of a pandemic, right? So where have you seen it work sort of in spite of all of this that's going on? Speaker 2 (12:41): Well, Dayle, I don't know if you'd agree with this, but I feel like the pandemic amongst many other things has been apocalyptic for the church in the sense of -- it has uncovered and revealed things that probably wouldn't have ever been uncovered or revealed -- or at least not so quickly. It would have been much longer. And to be honest, while I'm not excited at all about COVID or any of the horrific realities around health or finances or anything like that, I do think that there might be a hidden gift for the church, in that, the things that have been uncovered and revealed are things that I actually think God's probably been trying to get our attention on for quite some time. So, one of the things that it has revealed, I think is that -- most people would all say, well, the church of course is people. It's not the programs, it's not the building. It's not even Sunday worship, as important as that is. But when it was taken from us, there does seem to be a sense of like, well, wait, now, what are we, right? I mean, and that's a different -- that's, that's very contextual, literally to the congregation, to different neighborhoods in different regions and different countries. But I think that there is a hidden gift in the sense of, we could say, well, how do we not just, you know, go to church or create church programs? How do we, in our everyday life, in our actual lives, in our actual neighborhoods and cities, how do we try and be the church, 24/7 on some level, you know, prompting -- what does it mean for us to be the church on Tuesday afternoon or Thursday night? I mean, I think this is a really healthy question. Tim (14:29): And, as to what it's going to look like -- you know, most of us have been really stationary in our homes and in our... like sometimes for some of us, not even neighborhoods, like, on our block for a year, and as hard as that has been, I think it's going to shift our posture potentially quite dramatically over the next couple of years and decades. Because a premise of this book project, and certainly I'd say of the broader kind of Parish Collective work that I'm up to is that, before we change anything that we do, we need to change how we see, and this pandemic has forced us to look at things differently. So I don't have any magic bullet for, well, let's just say everything is opening up and by say fall, you know, things begin to feel a little bit more normal. And of course, I hope they do. The big question that I'm asking and asking with lots of friends all over the country is, well, what does this look like now as we come back? What are the new questions that we need to be asking ourselves? Tim (15:40): And here's a guess, and this will be interesting to keep asking of listeners. And that is, I think, more than not, the pastors, lay leaders, everyday Christians, who were kind of on the fence pre-pandemic as to -- I think there's a different way. I think there's a better way to be the church. I think there's -- I think God has bigger stories for us. I think it's going to tip. I really do. And I also think there's going to be a percentage of leadership that just kind of doubles down on the demonstrable. It's just like, okay, we're back, we're back to normal. Let's go. And maybe there's a place for that. I'm actually pretty excited about the church that God is going to be knitting together, honestly, all over the world, because this has been such a global phenomenon. Dayle (16:33): And, maybe this, you can tie these two things together. What you were just saying within the third chapter of the book you bring up Charles Taylor, when he writes -- in the secular age, we are still haunted by the sacred and that in the context of paying attention to the Spirit already at work in our communities. How does your thinking, how does what you've written in your book illuminate Taylor's words, and what does it mean? What does it mean to you to be haunted by the sacred? And maybe, how are you seeing that now during the pandemic? Tim (17:09): Well, I think that's such a powerful idea that Taylor brings us, that, you know, in this postmodern age, however, we might think of that, that regardless of how enlightened we might be, that we feel haunted by this idea of the sacred. And I think haunted is actually quite both poetic and beautiful because it's not just like delighted or thrilled or made happy. I feel like part of what I believe the Spirit of God is doing is a sense of... not foreboding at all, but of provoking us, at a very deep level, what's actually going on here? What actually matters? And so for me, this idea of being haunted by the sacred is very much about how do we pay attention? And here's the thing that's honestly, still very difficult for me and maybe a lot of listeners. And that is -- how do we name how the Spirit is at work? I mean, most of us would say, yeah, the Spirit is at work. Our task is to try and pay attention to it more, and more of us are saying that, but how did that -- how do we name that? And this is a place where, you know, I grew up in a delightful Christian home. I got a seminary degree. I should, I feel like I, you know, amongst other people, I should know how do this and Both (18:34): [crosstalk] Tim (18:37): Well, is that the Spirit, or is that not the Spirit, or how do we name it? And, you know, I think it has to go beyond kind of a feeling. And I certainly believe it does, but I think this is a big question for us right now. How do we name it, and how do we increasingly name it with confidence? Like, I actually think that the Spirit is doing this and we are compelled, it begins to be like a -- almost an ethical issue of whether or not we join in this or not, like we're increasingly convicted. But this is a big opportunity, I think, for our collective spiritual formation. How do we discern it and how do we name it and how do we step into it? And, I think is a really exciting new era for the church when this is becoming more and more of a central question. Tim (19:21): And yet, you know, those were not the primary questions that certainly I, that I was brought up in. And I think they're becoming more and more fundamental. But here's the question: I don't always know. You know, there's scripture, there's intuition, there's the witness of other people. There are some just obvious, you know, ethical realities. But I feel like this is where, you know, the discerning of a community I think is really, really important. So there are different traditions that maybe have accentuated that gift over church history more than not. Quaker brothers and sisters, certainly the kind of global Pentecostal church. Yeah. I think this has been a central theme of different Mennonite traditions for sure. But, so maybe they... Maybe they've got a decade or two on us, but it's not... It's as much art or more art than science. So I don't have a... I don't have a technique for how to do it. I just feel more and more conviction that this is really, really important. Dayle (20:26): Yeah. Yeah. To watch and to look. I'm going to flip around a little bit, kind of jumping around in the chapters of the book, but early on, you -- and this... It's making me think about the questions that people are raising. As we're trying to figure out what's the church going to do, you know, they've been trying to figure out -- how do we be the church in the midst of a pandemic, and now where's it going? And you raised two questions that people often ask about the church. One, which is often debated, is what is the church? Right? And I think that's something the pandemic has made people ask again -- well, what is it, right? If I can't gather, what is the church? But the question that you raise as being maybe more important, or at least that we need to ask both, is what is the church for? Right? And so I'm actually wondering if that might be the more helpful question coming out of the pandemic, which you already raised as sort of the most helpful question that maybe even more so it might even be what you've written. It might even be more helpful to people at this point. Like, what is the church for as we come out, which might help us figure out how to reshape it? Speaker 2 (21:37): I do -- first of all --, I do think the question of "what is the church for" is the slightly more important question now. And maybe always. Where it came from for me is that I am really, you know, geeky about those more philosophical, theological, you could say, even ontological questions about what is the church. Those matter a lot. And tomes and tomes have been written about "what is the church" and there are lots of disagreements, all throughout history. But, I feel like the question that is in the mind of most Christians is not so much, what is the church, whether it's said or unsaid, I think it is far more, what is the church for? I actually think that is most of the reason, or if not most, a significant reason that there has been a pretty significant decline in church, church attendance or church belonging, particularly on younger generations over the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Tim (22:41): There are all kinds of reasons for that, of course. But practically, if after a while, you can't with fairly clear language, say what something is for, then it's going to lose your attention. I mean, just on a very practical level, like, we crave clarity and I think there is absolutely no consensus about what the church is for right now, or perhaps even the church is. And as a result, it's just really confusing and maybe that's really good, but I think for lots of everyday Christians, they're just saying, honestly, maybe I grew up with this kind of tradition, and I'm not quite sure about that, but I just don't know what it's for anymore. And so I'm still down with Jesus. My faith still matters to me, but the church it's just, I don't know, you know? And so getting clear on what the church is for and why it matters so much. I think we need to see -- I'm hoping and dreaming and longing for a resurgence of that question being answered, both with words, but also with our lives and where people could see it, like this is what the church is for. And, I just think that's massive. I mean, and to answer it, I think, well, this is also part, this is in the book, but it was a bit of... you know, sometimes when you're like either reading a book, or in this case I was watching a Ted Talk at lunch, but I watched that Ted Talk called Start With Why by Simon Sinek. Some listeners have probably seen this. It became then a book called Start With Why; it's one of the kinds of viral Ted Talks. And he has this really elegant formulation where he says, basically, people don't buy what you're selling, if he's talking to companies. They buy, actually, why you're selling it. Like, the "why" matters more than "what," always. And if you don't get clear on your why, you're never going to be a great business, organization, movement, et cetera. And when I heard that, and then as I've been reflecting on that book, to me, it was a bit of a wake-up call of like -- maybe this is a big part of it, is that we have not been clear about our "why" as a church or arguably got obsessed with our "what," what we do, our programs, our budgets, our buildings, our even distinctives. Here's what makes us so unique. And I don't know if people care that much, but when we say here is why we exist, I think that's really compelling and frankly, more needed now than ever. Like, the local church -- I feel like is more needed now than ever before in these consistently fragmented and polarized times. So yeah, I think it's massive. Dayle (25:35): So you... I mean, you are part of -- founding part of -- a thing called The Parish Collective, and you talk about the parish in the book. And so the word 'parish' means (people will come to that term with some preconceived ideas, right?) Can you explain what you mean by parish and why it's so important for effectively participating in God's work in the world? Tim (25:59): Yeah, well, so I borrowed the definition that we had used in this earlier book called The New Parish. And the definition that we came up with has held pretty well. And it is -- a geographic area that's large enough to live a lot of your life -- so kind of live, work, play -- but small enough to be known as a character within the story of that place. Okay. And so, what we found is that -- and that is not, you know, that's not Rome's definition per se. I don't know that this would be the definition, even from something like the Episcopal church or, you know, Lutheran church, or certainly an Anglican church in England, exactly. But, I feel like it's really, really helpful right now and for a whole number of reasons. But maybe most importantly is that if we're going to ask the question of what God is doing, I feel like we need a context to ask that. We are embodied, created creatures. We have limits, which is actually a gift. Like, you know, when I throw my hand up, doesn't just hit the ceiling. And in the same way that we, as creatures, which have bodies, which have limits, I think that it's a really healthy gift for churches and congregations to begin to wrestle through -- what is a geographic area where we are going to try and limit our attention at some level, so that we can better pay attention, so that we can better be a part of the story of that place, so that we can better be present and become known, become loved, to give -- both give and receive. And, there's a whole host of reasons why I feel like the church, at least in North America has been pretty consistently disembodied and displaced. There's a whole host of reasons for that, but I am seeing a really interesting kind of movement of recovering this idea of -- could we begin down the path of discerning, what is a common kind of broader ecosystem to where we're going to pay attention? Tim (28:17): And that's what's so interesting about it, because it's big enough for a lot of life. It's not just like, okay, lineup the three houses around you, or the three blocks around you. That's purely residential and that's all of it. Well, no, that's probably too small. There's not enough of life that's lived there. And -- but the reverse is true too. If it's just -- we're about the whole city and it's a hundred thousand people or 500,000 people, well, you're probably not going to be able to be known very well there. The giving and receiving that's so critical to the life of a healthy community is going to be really, really difficult. And without that kind of limitation... this is maybe the last thing I'd say -- is it tends to force congregations to try and discern not so much what God is up to in a particular place, but how do we get people to come to our program or our worship service or our building? Tim (29:13): It's a fair question. And even it would be a fair desire, and frankly, I think that's going to get even more complicated with COVID. As people have literally been like tuning in on zoom worship services from all over the world. And frankly, if you're a pastor of a church of say a hundred people, and for whatever reason, now you have 200 people -- because, you know, your friends from college are now... who live in Minnesota and you're in New Jersey and your parents are now, you know, listening to your service. Instead, this is going to be complicated. And frankly, it feels good to move from a hundred people to 200 people. It feels good. And yet, if we think about the big mission of the church of joining in God's reconciling, redeeming mission, those distributed 200 people all over the country are going to have a much harder time actually being a team unless they can figure out how to focus in. Tim (30:11): And so this is a big tension, I think that we're in right now, but I think it's a real gift, the idea of the parish. I think it's not so much a new technique. Like -- oh, here's a new model to try on. I think it's a dare to faithfulness. I think it's a dare to be asking these sometimes scary questions and what God is up to, and I think it's also an invitation to a lot of the innovation that we're longing to see within congregations, because as any artist will tell you, I need some limits. Like if you just said to even students write an essay on whatever you want, as long as you want, you know? Dayle (30:56): Yeah. They have a hard time getting started, right? They need some boundaries, some parameters. Tim (31:01): It's hard, right? Right. If it's not like to talk about, you know, Karl Barth's response to the Holocaust in 500 words, okay, well now we can get going. That's a whole different task. And I think that geographic limitation is a real gift there. And then the other thing is once you're embedded within a given place and to become known as a character, two amazing things happen. One, you find out that your ideas and experiments probably both work and don't work because you get real time feedback. You know? You find out what neighbors actually think of what you're referring to. You skin your knees a little bit. You also are, you know, surprised by the everyday heroes that pop out. The other thing is that once you're, you know, pretty committed to a particular place, you find that any other faith community, any other Christian community, any other folks who are also trying to actually love God and their actual neighborhoods at the same time are just like -- you just wanna hang out with them. It's like, what are you doing? How are you, how are you getting by? What are you doing? Because, it's difficult. It's not an idea; it's real life. And so the pure wisdom and innovation and connection and belonging that can happen from place to place. I think that's really quite powerful as well. Dayle (32:19): Have you seen some of that happen in an area -- seen different congregations working together in ways that maybe in your earlier years, you didn't see them doing quite so much? Tim (32:29): Absolutely. I think it's happening both at the neighborhood level where congregations are beginning to... If we're asking that question, I mean... To be honest, the church question of how do we make our church better is arguably a competitive question because it's like, you know, better than who? Well, these other congregations. If we are asking what is God up to, and how do we join in, that's a big, blue ocean question, and frankly you need as many friends as possible asking that question. And so at the neighborhood level, you find all kinds of collaborative opportunities and frankly it forces differentiation. It forces us to say, well, here's our tradition. Here's the gifts that we bring or here are the assets that we have. We've got a building, you don't have a building, we've got an endowment. You don't have endowment, we've got XYZ. Tim (33:18): I think that's all really healthy. And then from neighborhood to neighborhood, I think it's really powerful because even at the parish or neighborhood level, of course, we all have blind spots. And so, whether that has to do with racial makeup of a neighborhood, whether it has to do with class, whether it has to do with any number of differences, once we're embedded someplace, then I think it's really valuable for us to say, well, how do you see it? What's going on there? I mean, a very dear friend of mine -- who's now our board chair of The Parish Collective -- Jonathan Brooks is in the Southside of Chicago in Englewood. And it's, you know, 98% African-American, he is deeply rooted in the black church experience. I grew up in Wisconsin in a white evangelical, you know, small town -- pretty different places that we grew up. And frankly, South Park is a little bit more like Englewood. We live in pretty different worlds. And yet the things I'm learning from him and he's teaching us is profound and he's got things to learn as well. And so, there are blind spots that we all have, even if we're kind of very embedded within a practice within a place. And so, learning from each other and uncovering that together, I think it's really powerful and needed right now. Dayle (34:39): That's great. So the book is called Everywhere You Look, and it's very, very practical, which is really nice. And you've said that you've written it for everyday people, which I think is why it's so practical. But for the listeners who lead churches and organizations, what piece of advice would you offer to them as we're situated in this unique season of ministry? Anything you can pull from the book that you might reinterpret for today, or just sort of as a last few thoughts. Tim (35:14): Yeah. Two things. One is, there's a section in the book where I kind of borrow from some of the language of asset-based community development, which is a whole philosophy that in some ways contrasts with a more needs-based approach. Yeah. And so I think one profound practice that every pastor, leadership team can be thinking about now is, within our given area of ministry -- and I think that's really powerful, a kind of geographic context as we were just talking about. But I think it's a really great practice to begin to literally map the assets, the associations, the people, the buildings, the restaurants, the small businesses, anything that might have any kind of redemptive hope for that place, because -- pay attention to that and literally creatively writing it down, whether it's in a spreadsheet or a storyboard, or I think that's a really powerful practice to be doing together because as we begin to hopefully come out of this pandemic season, I think having the frame of not so much what's wrong, but, to borrow a phrase from a friend, what's strong is starting off on the right foot. Speaker 2 (36:30): And then, at more of a congregational change level, I think -- and this is more for I'd say clergy -- I would, if possible, begin to identify either one team or a handful of small teams, you know, eight to 10 people probably, and maybe they have a common geography, maybe not, but, if they could begin to do this together and begin to discern some practices and some way of life. I mean, very simple things like maybe they're going to walk around and pray. Maybe they're going to just meet up for prayer and ask God, what are you doing on Tuesday mornings? Maybe they're going to just share what things have been like as, you know, over this past couple of months and begin to chart out God's hopeful future. I think smaller groups that are paying attention well are going to get us where we need to go. Tim (37:24): And so that's already true within lots of congregations, it's already always broken down into smaller groups of 10, 12, 40 people. But I think that's a key leadership opportunity right now for clergy to do that either differently or do it again, is to begin to discern -- okay, again, with the perspective of asset and gift and abundance, who cares about what, what are they doing and how do I help mobilize their longing to seek God's kingdom break forth in this place and how do I be the connective tissue and bring them together and try and get them tools and resources that they can get about it. I think that helps create the momentum that we're all gonna need. Dayle (38:07): Thank you, Tim. New Speaker (38:09): Thank you, Dayle. It's good to be here. Dayle (38:13): You've been listening to The Distillery. Interviews are conducted by me, Dayle Rounds. Sushama (38:17): And me, Sushama Austin-Connor Shari (38:20): And I'm Shari Oosting. Amar (38:22): I'm Amar Peterman and I am in charge of production. New Speaker (38:25): Like what you're hearing? Subscribe at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast app. The Distillery is a production of Princeton Theological Seminary's Office of Continuing Education. You can find out more at thedistillery.ptsem.edu. Thanks for listening.  

The conversation covers:  An overview of Ravi's role as an evangelist — an often misunderstood, but important technology enabler.  Balancing organizational versus individual needs when making decisions. Some of the core motivations that are driving cloud native migrations today.  Why Ravi believes it in empowering engineers to make business decisions.  Some of the top misconceptions about cloud native. Ravi also provides his own definition of cloud native. How cloud native architectures are forcing developers to “shift left.” Links https://harness.io/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/ravilach Harness community: https://community.harness.io/ Harness Slack: https://harnesscommunity.slack.com/ TranscriptEmily: Hi everyone. I'm Emily Omier, your host, and my day job is helping companies position themselves in the cloud-native ecosystem so that their product's value is obvious to end-users. I started this podcast because organizations embark on the cloud naive journey for business reasons, but in general, the industry doesn't talk about them. Instead, we talk a lot about technical reasons. I'm hoping that with this podcast, we focus more on the business goals and business motivations that lead organizations to adopt cloud-native and Kubernetes. I hope you'll join me.Welcome to The Business of Cloud Native, I am your host Emily Omier. And today I'm chatting with Ravi Lachhman. Ravi, I want to always start out with, first of all, saying thank you—Ravi: Sure, excited to be here.Emily: —and second of all, I like to have you introduce yourself, in your own words. What do you do? Where do you work?Ravi: Yes, sure. I'm an evangelist for Harness. So, what an evangelist does, I focus on the ecosystem, and I always like the joke, I marry people with software because when people think of evangelists, they think of a televangelist. Or at least that's what I told my mother and she believes me still. I focus on the ecosystem Harness plays in. And so, Harness is a continuous delivery as a service company. So, what that means, all of the confidence-building steps that you need to get software into production, such as approvals, test orchestration, Harness, how to do that with lots of convention, and as a service.Emily: So, when you start your day, walk me through what you're actually doing on a typical day?Ravi: a typical day—dude, I wish there was a typical day because we wear so many hats as a start-up here, but kind of a typical day for me and a typical day for my team, I ended up reading a lot. I probably read about two hours a day, at least during the business day. Now, for some people that might not be a lot, but for me, that's a lot. So, I'll usually catch up with a lot of technology news and news in general. They kind of see how certain things are playing out. So, a big fan of The New Stack big fan of InfoQ. I also like reading Hacker News for more emotional reading. The big orange angry site, I call Hacker News. And then really just interacting with the community and teams at large. So, I'm the person I used to make fun of, you know, quote-unquote, “thought leader.” I used to not understand what they do, then I became one that was like, “Oh, boy.” [laughs]. And so just providing guidance for some of our field teams, some of the marketing teams around the cloud-native ecosystem, what I'm seeing, what I'm hearing, my opinion on it. And that's pretty much it. And I get to do fun stuff like this, talking on podcasts, always excited to talk to folks and talk to the public. And then kind of just a mix of, say, making some sort of demos, or writing scaffolding code, just exploring new technologies. I'm pretty fortunate in my day to day activities.Emily: And tell me a little bit more about marrying people with software. Are you the matchmaker? Are you the priest, what role?Ravi: I can play all parts of the marrying lifecycle. Sometimes I'm the groom, sometimes I'm the priest. But I'm really helping folks make technical decisions. So, it's go a joke because I get the opportunity to take a look at a wide swath of technology. And so just helping folks make technical decisions. Oh, is this new technology hot? Does this technology make sense? Does this project fatality? What do you think? I just play, kind of, masters of ceremony on folks who are making technology decisions.Emily: What are some common decisions that you help people with, and common questions that they have?Ravi: Lot of times it comes around common questions about technology. It's always finding rationale. Why are you leveraging a certain piece of technology? The ‘why' question is always important. Let's say that you're a forward-thinking engineer or a forward-thinking technology leader. They also read a lot, and so if they come across, let's say a new hot technology, or if they're on Twitter, seeing, yeah, this particular project's getting a lot of retweets, or they go in GitHub and see oh, this project has little stars, or forks. What does that mean? So, part of my role when talking to people is actually to kind of help slow that roll down, saying, “Hey, what's the business rationale behind you making a change? Why do you actually want to go about leveraging a certain, let's say, technology?” I'm just taking more of a generic approach, saying, “Hey, what's the shiny penny today might not be the shiny penny tomorrow.” And also just providing some sort of guidance like, “Hey, let's take a look at project vitality. Let's take a look at some other metrics that projects have, like defect close ratio—you know, how often it's updates happening, what's your security posture?” And so just walking through a more, I would say the non-fun tasks or non-functional tasks, and also looking about how to operationalize something like, “Hey, given you want to make sure you're maintaining innovation, and making sure that you're maintaining business controls, what are some best operational practices?” You know, want to go for gold, or don't boil the ocean, it's helping people make decisive decisions.Emily: What do you see as sort of the common threads that connect to the conversations that you have?Ravi: Yeah, so I think a lot of the common threads are usually like people say, “Oh, we have to have it. We're going to fall behind if you don't use XYZ technology.” And when you really start getting to talking to them, it's like, let's try to line up some sort of technical debt or business problem that you have, and how about are you going to solve these particular technical challenges? It's something that, of the space I play into, which is ironic, it's the double-edged sword, I call it ‘chasing conference tech.' So, sometimes people see a really hot project, if my team implements this, I can go speak at a conference about a certain piece of technology. And it's like, eh, is that a really rational reason? Maybe. It kind of goes into taking the conversation slightly somewhere else. One of the biggest challenges I think, let's say if you're kind of climbing the engineering ranks—and this is something that I had to do as I went from a junior to a staff to a principal engineer in my roles—with that it's always having some sort of portfolio. So, if you speak at a conference, you have a portfolio, people can Google your name, funny pictures of you are not the only things that come up, but some sort of technical knowledge, and sometimes that's what people are chasing. So, it's really trying to have to balance that emotional decision with what's best for the firm, what's best for you, and just what's best for the team.Emily: That's actually a really interesting question is sometimes what's best for the individual engineer is not what's best for the organization. And when I say individual engineer, maybe it's not one individual, but five, or the team. How do you sort of help piece together and help people understand here's the business reason, that's organization-wide, but here's my personal motivation, and how do I reconcile these, and is there a way even to get both?Ravi: There actually is a way to get both. I call it the 75/25 percent rule. And let's take all the experience away from the engineers, to start with a blank slate. It has to do with the organization. An organization needs to set up engineers to be successful in being innovative. And so if we take the timeline or the scale all the way back to hiring, so when I like to hire folks, I always like to look at—my ratio is a little bit different than 75/25. I'm more of a 50/50. You bring 50 percent of the skills, and you'll learn 50 percent of the skills, versus more conservative organizations would say, “You know what? You have 75 percent of the skills, if you can learn 25 percent of the skills, this job would be interesting to you.” Versus if you have to learn 80 percent, it's going to be frustrating for the individual. And so having that kind of leeway to make decisions, and also knowing that technical change can take a lot of time, I think, as an engineer, as an engineer—as talking software engineering professions as a whole, how do you build your value? So, your value is usually calculated in two parts. It's calculated in your business domain experience and your technical skills. And so when you go project to project—and this is what might be more of, hey, if you're facing too big of a climb, you'll usually change roles. Nobody is in their position for a decade. Gone are the days that you're a lifetime engineer on one project or one product. It's kind of a given that you'll change around that because you're building your repertoire in two places: you're building domain experience, and you're building technical experience. And so knowing when to pick your battles, as cliche as that sounds, oh, you know what, this particular technology, this shiny penny came out. I seen a lot of it when Kubernetes came out, like, “Oh, we have to have it.” But—or even a lot of the cloud-native and container-based and all the ‘et cetera accessories' as I call it, as those projects get steam surrounding it. It's, “We have to have it.” It's like, eh. It's good for resume building, but there's your things to do on your own also to learn it. I think we live in a day of open source. And so as an engineer, if I want to learn a new skill, I don't necessarily have to wait for my organization to implement it. I could go and play, something like Katacoda, I can go do things on my own, I can learn and then say, “You know what, this is a good fit. I can make a bigger play to help implement it in the organization than just me wanting to learn it.” Because a lot of the learning is free these days, which I think it's amazing. I know that was a long-winded answer. But I think you can kind of quench the thirst of knowledge with playing it on your own, and that if it makes sense, you can make a much better case to the business or to technology leadership to make change.Emily: And what do you think the core business motivations are for most of the organizations that you end up talking to?Ravi: Yeah, [unintelligible] core motivation to leveraging cloud-native technology, it really depends on organization to organization. I'm pretty fortunate that I get to span, I think, a wide swath of organization—so from startups to pretty established enterprises—I kind of talk about the pretty established enterprises. A lot of the business justification, it might not be a technical justification, but there's a pseudo technical business reason, a lot of times, though, I when I talk to folks, they're big concern is portability. And so, like, hey, if you take a look at the dollar and cents rationale behind certain things, the big play there is portability. So, if you're leveraging—we can get into the definition of what cloud-native resources are, but a big draw to that is being portable—and so, hopefully, you're not tied down to a single provider, or single purveyor, and you have the ability to move. Now, that also ties into agility. Supposedly, if you're able to use ubiquitous hardware or semi-ubiquitous software, you were able to move a little bit faster. But again, what I usually see is folk's main concern is portability. And then also with that is [unintelligible] up against scale. And so as—looking at ways of reducing resources, if you could use generics, you're able to shop around a little bit better, either internally or externally, and help provide scale for a softer or lesser cost.Emily: And how frequently do you think the engineers that you talked to are aware of those core business motivations?Ravi: Hmm, it really depends on—I'm always giving you the ‘depends' answer because talking to a wide swath of folks—where I see there's more emotion involved in a good way if there's closer alignment to the business—which is something hard to do. I think it is slowly eroding and chipping away. I've definitely seen this during my career. It's the old stodgy business first technology argument, right. Like, modern teams, they're very well [unintelligible] together. So, it's not a us versus them or cat versus dog argument, “Oh, why do these engineers want to take their sweet time?” versus, “Why does the business want us to act so fast?” So, having the engineers empowered to make decisions, and have them looked at instead of being a cost center, as the center of innovation is fairly key. And so having that type of rationale, like, hey, allowing the engineers to give input into feature development, even requirement development is something I've seen changed throughout my career. It used to be a very special thing to do requirements building, versus most of the projects that I've worked on now—as an engineer, we're very, very well attuned to the requirements with the business.Emily: Do you think there's anything that gets lost in translation?Ravi: Oh, absolutely. As people, we're emotional. And so if we're all sum total of our experiences—so let's say if someone asked, Emily, you and I a question, we would probably have four different answers for that person, just because maybe we have differences in opinions, differences of sum totals of experience. And I might say, “Hey, try this or this,” and then you might say, “Try that or that.” So, it really depends. Being lost in translation is always—it's been a fundamental problem in requirements gathering and it's continued to be a fundamental problem. I think just taking that question a step further, is how you go about combating that? I think having very shortened feedback cycles are very important. So, if you have to make any sort of adjustments, gone are the days I think when I started my career, waterfall was becoming unpopular, but the first project or two I was on was very waterfall-ish just because of the size of the project we worked on, we had to agree on lots of things; we were building something for six months. Versus, if you look at today, modern development methodologies like Agile, or Scaled Agile, a lot of the feedback happens pretty regularly, which can be exhausting, but decisions are made all the time.Emily: Do you think in addition to mistranslations, do you think there are any misconceptions? And I'm talking about sort of on both sides of this equation, you know, business leaders or business motivations, and then also technologists, and let's refocus back to talk about cloud-native in particular. What sort of misconceptions do you think are sort of floating out there about cloud-native and what it means?Ravi: Yeah, so what cloud-native means—it means something different to everybody. So, you listen to your podcasts for a couple episodes, if you asked any one of the guests the question, we all would give you a different answer. So, in my definition of cloud-native—and then I'll get back to what some of the misconceptions are—I have a very basic definition: cloud-native means two pillars. It means your architecture, or your platform needs to be ephemeral, and it needs to be [indibited]. So, it needs to be able to be short-lived, and be consistent, which are two things that are at odds with each other. But if you kind of talk to folks that, hey, they might be a little more slighted towards the business, they have this idea that cloud-native will solve all your problems. So, it reminds me a lot of big data back in the day. “Oh, if you have a Hadoop cluster, it will solve all of our logistics and shipping problems.” No. That's the technology. If you have Kubernetes, it will solve all of our problems. No. That's the technology. It's just a conduit of helping you make changes. And so just making sure that understand that hey, cloud-native doesn't mean that you get the checkmark that, “Oh, you know what? We're stable. We're robust. We can scale by using all cloud-native technologies,” because cloud-native technologies are actually quite complicated. If you're introducing a lot of complexity to your architecture, does it make sense? Does that make sense? Does it give you the value you're looking for? Because at the end of the day, and this is kind of something, the older I get, the more I believe it, is that your customers don't care how you did something; they care what the result is. So, if your web application's up, they don't care if you're running a simple LAMP stack, they just care that the application is up, versus using the latest Kubernetes stack, but using some sort of cloud-native NoSQL database, and we're using [Istio], and we're using, pick your flavor du jour of cloud-native technology, your end customer actually doesn't care how you did it. They care what happened.Emily: We can talk about misconceptions that other people have, but is there anything that continues to surprise you?Ravi: Yeah, I think the biggest misconception is that there's very limited choice. And so I'll play devil's advocate, I think the CNCF, the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, there's lots of projects, I've seen the CNCF, they have something called the CNCF Landscape, and I seen it grow from 200 cards, it was 1200 cards at KubeCon, I guess, end of last year in San Diego, and it's hovering around 1500 cards. So, these cards means there's projects or vendors that play in this space. Having that much choice—this is usually surprising to people because they—if you're thinking of cloud-native, it's like saying Kleenex today, and you think of Kubernetes or other auxiliary product or project that surrounds that. And a lot of misconception would be it's helping solve for complexity. It's the quintessential computer science argument. All you do in computer science is move complexity around like an abacus. We move it left to right. We're just shifting it around, and so by leveraging certain technologies there's a lot of complication, a lot of burden that's brought in. For example, if you want to leverage, let's say, a service Istio, Istio will not solve all your networking problems. In fact, it's going to introduce a whole set of problems. And I could talk about my biggest outage, and one of the things I see with cloud-native is a lot of skills are getting shifted left because you're codifying areas that were not codified before. But that's something I would love to talk about.Emily: Tell me about your biggest outage that sounds interesting.Ravi: Yeah, I didn't know how it would manifest itself. It's ways, I think, until, like, years later that I didn't have the aha moment. I used to think it was me, it probably still is me, but—so the year was 2013, and I was working for a client, and we were—it's actually a large news site—and so we were in the midst of modernizing their application, or their streaming application. And so I was one of the first applications to actually go to AWS. And so my background is in Java, so I have a Java software engineer or J2ED or JEE engineer, and having to start working more in infrastructure was kind of a new thing, so I was very fortunate up until 2013-ish up until this point that I didn't really touch the infrastructure. I was immune to that. And now being more, kind of becoming a more senior engineer was in charge of the infrastructure for the application—which is kind of odd—but what ended up happening that—this is going to be kind of funny—since I was one of the first teams to go to AWS, the networking team wouldn't touch the configurations. So, when we were testing things, and [unintelligible] environments, we had our VPC CIDR rules—so the traffic rules—wide open. And then as we were going into production, there were rules that we had to limit traffic due to a CIDR so up until 2013, I thought a C-I-D-R like a CIDR was something you drink. I was like, “What? Like apple cider?” So, this shows you how much I know. So, basically, I had to configure the VPC or Virtual Private Cloud networking rules. Finally, when we deployed the application, unknowing to myself, CIDR calculation is a significant digit calculation. So, the larger the number you divide by, the more IPs you let in. And so instead of dividing by 16, I divided by 8. I was like, “Oh, you'll have a bigger number if you divide by a smaller number.” I end up cutting off half the traffic of the internet when we deployed to production. So, that was a very not smooth way of doing something. But how did this manifest itself? So, the experts, who would have been the networking team, refused to look at my configuration because it was a public cloud. “Nope, you don't have a slot in our data center, we look at it.” And poor me, as a JEE or J2EE engineer, I had very little experience networking. Now, if you fast forward to what this means today, a lot of the cloud-native stack, are again, slicing and dicing these CNCF cards, a lot of this, you're exposing different, let's say verticals or dimensions to engineers that they haven't really seen before. A lot of its networking related a lot of it can be storage related. And so, as a software engineer, these are verticals that I'd never had to deal with before. Now, it's kind of ironic that in 2020, hey, yes, you will be dealing with certain configurations because, hey, it's code. So, it's shifting the burden left towards the developer that, “Oh, you know what, you know networking—” or, “You do need to know your app, so here's some Istio rules that you need to include in your packaging of your application.” Which folks might scratch your head. So, yeah, again, it's like shifting complexity away from folks that have traditional expertise towards the developer. Now, times are changing. I seen a lot of this in years gone by, “Oh, no. These are pieces of code. We don't want to touch it.” Being more traditional or legacy operations team, versus today, everybody—it's kind of the merging of the two worlds. The going joke is all developers are becoming infrastructure engineers, and infrastructure engineers are becoming software engineers. So, it's the perfect blend of two worlds coming together.Emily: That's interesting. And I now think I understand what you mean by skills shifting left. Developers have to know more, and more, and more. But I'm also curious, there's also people who talk about how Kubernetes, one of its failures is that it forces this shift left of skills and that the ideal world is that developers don't need to interact with it at all. That's just a platform team. What do you think about that?Ravi: These are awesome questions. These are things I'm very passionate about. I definitely seen the evolution. So, I've been pretty fortunate that I was jumping on the application infrastructure shift around 2014, 2015, so right when Kubernetes was coming of age. So, most of my background was in distributed systems. So, I'm making very large distributed Java applications. And so when Kubernetes came out, the teams that I worked on, the applications that were deployed to Kubernetes were actually owned by the app dev team. The infrastructure team wouldn't even touch the Kubernetes cluster. It was like, “Oh, this is a development tool. This is not a platform tool.” The platform teams that I were interacting with 2015, 2016, as Kubernetes became more popular than ever, they were the legacy—well, hate to say legacy because it's kind of my background too—they were the remaining middleware engineers. We maintained a web server cluster, we maintained the message broker cluster, we maintained XYZ distributed Java infrastructure cluster. And so when looking at a tool like Kubernetes, or even there were different platforming services, so the paths I've leveraged early, or mid-2010s was Red Hat OpenShift, before and after the Kubernetes migration inside of OpenShift. And so looking at a different—how teams are set up, it used to be, “Oh, this is an app dev item. This is what houses your application.” Versus today, because the workloads are so critical that are going on to say platforms such as Kubernetes, it was that you really need that system engineering bubble of expertise. You really need those platform engineers to understand how to best scale, how to best purvey, and maintain a platform like Kubernetes. Also, one of the odd things are—going back to your point, Emily, like, hey, why things were tossed over either to the development team or going back to a developing software engineer myself, do we care what the end system is?So, it used to be, I'll talk about Java-land here for a minute, give you kind of long-winded answer of back in Java land, we really used to care about the target system, not necessarily for an application that have one node, but if we had to develop a clustered application. So, we have more than one node talking to each other, or a stateful application, we really had start developing to a specific target system. Okay, I know how JBoss WildFly clusters or I know how IBM WebSphere or WebLogic clusters. And so when we're designing our applications, we had to make sure that we play well into those clustering mechanisms. With Kubernetes, since it's generic, you don't necessarily have to play into those clustering mechanisms because there's a basic understanding. But that's been the biggest Achilles heel in Kubernetes. It wasn't designed for those type of workloads, stateful workloads that don't like dying very often. That's kind of been the push or pull. It's just a tool, there's a lot of generic, so you can assume that the target platform will handle a certain way. And you're slowly start backing off the case that you're building to a specific target platform. But as Kubernetes has evolved, especially with the operator framework, you actually are starting to build to Kubernetes in 2018, 2019, 2020.Emily: It actually brought up a question for me that, at risk of sounding naive myself, I feel like I never meet anybody who introduces themselves as a platform engineer. I meet all these developers, everyone's a developer evangelist, for example, or their background is as a developer, I feel like maybe once or twice, someone has introduced themselves as, “I'm a platform engineer,” or, “I'm an operations specialist.” I mean, is that just me? Is that a real thing?Ravi: They're very real jobs. I think… it's like saying DevOps engineer, it means something else to who you talk to you. So, I'll harp on, like ‘platform engineer.' so kind of like, the evolution of the platform engineer, if you would have talked to me in 2013, 2014, “Hey, I'm a platform engineer,” I would think that you're a software engineer focused on platform tools. Like, “Hey, I focus on authentication, authorization.” You're building—let's say we had a dozen people on this call and we're working for Acme Incorporated, there's modules that transcend every one of our teams. Let's say logging, or let's say login, or let's say, some sort of look and feel. So, the platform engineer or the platform engineering development focused platform engineering team would make common reusable modules throughout. Now, with the great rise of platforms as a service, like PCF, and OpenShift, and DCOS, they became kind of like a shift. The middleware engineers that were maintaining the message broker clusters, maintaining your web application server clusters, they're kind of shifting towards one of those platforms. Even today, Kubernetes, pick your provider du jour of Kubernetes. And so those are where the platform engineers are today. “Hey, I'm a platform engineer. I focus on OpenShift and Kubernetes.” Usually, they're very vertically focused on one or more specific platforms. And operations folks can ride very big gamut. Usually, if you put, “operations” in quotes, usually they're systems or infrastructure engineers that are very focused on the infrastructure where the platform's run.Emily: I'm obviously a words person, and it just seems like there's this vocabulary issue where everybody knows what a developer is, and so it's easy to say, “Oh, I'm a developer.” But then everything else that's related to engineering, there's not quite as much specificity, precisely because you said everybody has a slightly different understanding. It's kind of interesting.Ravi: Yeah, it's like, I think as a engineer, we're not one for titles. So, I think a engineer is a engineer. I think if you asked most engineers, it's like, “Yeah, I'm a engineer.” It's so funny, a good example of that is Tim Berners-Lee, the person who created WWW, the World Wide Web. If you looked at his LinkedIn, he just says he's a web developer. And he invented WWW. So, usually engineering-level folks, you're not—at least for myself—is not one for title.Emily: The example that you gave regarding the biggest outage of your career was basically a skills problem. Do you think that there's still a skills or knowledge issue in the cloud-native world?Ravi: Oh, absolutely. We work for incentivization. You know, my mortgage is with PNC, and they require a payment every month, unfortunately. So, I do work for an employer. Incentivization is key. So, kind of resume chasing, conference chasing there's been some of that in the cloud-native world, but what ends up happening more often than not is that we're continuously shifting left. A talk I like to give is called, “The Engineering Burden is on the Rise.” And taking a look at what, let's say, a software engineer was required to do in 2010 versus what a software engineer is required to do today in 2020. And there's a lot more burden in infrastructure that, as a software engineer you didn't have to deal with. Now, this has to do with two things, or actually one particular movement. There's a movie company, or a video company in Los Gatos, California, and there's a book company in South Lake Union in Seattle. And so these two particular companies given the rise of what's called a full lifecycle developer. Basically, if you run it, or if you operate—you operate what you run, or if you write it, you run it. So, that means that if you write a piece of code, you're in charge of the operations. You have support, you're in charge of the SLAs, SLOs, SLIs. You're ultimately responsible if a customer has a problem. And can you imagine the number of people, the amount of skill set that requires? There's this concept of a T-shaped skill that you have to have experience in so many different platforms, that it becomes a very big burden. As an engineer, I don't envy anybody entering a team that's leveraging a lot of cloud-native technology because most likely a lot of that onus will fall on the software engineer to create the deployable, to create how you build it, to fly [unintelligible] in your CI stack, write the configuration that builds it, write the configuration deploys it, write the networking rules, write how you test it, write the login interceptors. So, there's a lot going on.Emily: Is there anything else that you want to add about your experience with cloud-native that I haven't really thought to ask, yet?Ravi: It's not all doom and gloom. I'm very positive on cloud-native technologies. I think it's a great equalizer. You're kind of going back—this might be a more intrinsic, like a 30-second answer here. If you taking back that I wanted to learn certain skills in 2010, I basically had to be working for a firm. So, 2010, I was working for IBM. So, there's certain distributed Java problems I wanted to solve. I basically had to be working for a firm because the software licensing costs were so expensive, and that technology wasn't very democratized. Looking at cloud-native technology today, there's a big, big push for open source, which open source is R&D methodology. That's what open source is, it helps alleviate some sort of acquisition—but not necessarily adoption—problems. And you can learn a lot. Hey, you could pick up any project and just try to learn, try to run it. Pick up these particular distributed system skills that were very guarded, I would say, a decade ago, it's being opened up to the masses. And so there's a lot to drink from, but you can drink as much as you want from the CNCF or the cloud-native garden hose.Emily: Do you have a software engineering tool that you cannot live without?Ravi: Recently, because I deal in a lot of YAML, I need a YAML linter. So, YAML is a space-separated language. As a human, I can't tell you what spaces are. Like, you know, if you have three spaces, and the next line you have four spaces. So, I use a YAML linter. It puts periods for me, so I can count them because it's been multiple times that my demo is not syntactically correct because I missed a space and I can't see it on my screen.Emily: And how can listeners connect with you?Ravi: Oh, yeah. You can hit me up on Twitter @ravilach, R-A-V-I-L-A-C-H. Or come visit us at Harness at www.harness.io. I run the Harness community, so community.harness.io. We have a Slack channel and a Discourse, and always excited to interact with people.Emily: Thanks for listening. I hope you've learned just a little bit more about the business of cloud-native. If you'd like to connect with me or learn more about my positioning services, look me up on LinkedIn: I'm Emily Omier, that's O-M-I-E-R, or visit my website which is emilyomier.com. Thank you, and until next time.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Dan Kanivas is a true Renaissance man. As an Army Airborne Ranger, he spent time as an artillery officer near the DMZ on the Korean peninsula and later worked closely with Iraqi officers during the Iraq War, where he trained a 130-soldier Iraqi Army unit while serving as a strategic advisor to senior Iraqi Army officers. He has since shifted his sights toward both public investing and angel investing with Triple Summit Advisors, all while prepping to summit Mount Rainier. Show Notes Triple Summit Advisors WeWork's Veterans in Residence Program, Powered by Bunker Labs Follow Dan on LinkedIn Theme music by: Ruel Morales Episode remastered by: Pascual Marquez Audio Transcript Brian Schoenborn 0:01 Hello, Hello, everyone. Our guest today is a true Renaissance man. As an Army Airborne Ranger, he spent time as an artillery officer near the DMZ on the Korean peninsula. And he shifted his sights toward both public investing and angel investing while prepping to summit Mount Rainier. Give it up to my friend, Dan Kanivas. Brian Schoenborn 0:25 My name is Brian Schoenborn. I'm an explorer of people, places and culture. In my travels, spanning over 20 countries across four continents, I've had the pleasure of engaging in authentic conversations with amazingly interesting people. These are their stories, on-location and unfiltered. Presented by 8B Media, this is Half the City. Brian Schoenborn 0:52 So what's up, Dan, thanks for coming out. Appreciate it. Dan Kanivas 0:55 Yeah, thanks for having me on the show, Brian. It's great to be here. Brian Schoenborn 0:57 Awesome. You know I've always had a respect for Airborne, Rangers, right? Stuff like that, you know, you're watching the movies, the 101st Airborne, you know, dropping down from the skies on like D-day or whatever else. You know, Hollywood's done a really good job, kind of, I don't wanna say romanticizing, but like maybe, you know, telling your story anyways. Right? Dan Kanivas 1:24 Right. Brian Schoenborn 1:26 And when you told me the other day that you've done both Airborne School and Ranger School, I was like, wow, this guy is legit. And you never would guess because he is one of the most calm, cool and collected dudes. I think that I know anyways. Dan Kanivas 1:40 I appreciate that. Brian Schoenborn 1:43 So, um, so why don't you tell me a little bit about like, you know how you made that decision to join the Army. How you made the decision to move towards Airborne School, Ranger School. I'd love to hear about you know the challenges of each. Dan Kanivas 2:02 Yeah. Alright, so let's start. That's a, that's a multi part question. So let's, let's start with the decision join the military. So I grew up in Scarsdale, New York, which really nice suburban community in the suburbs of New York. I was very lucky, as were other members of the community, to have the resources, whether it's great school, safe neighborhood, very great public services, etc. Caring community where children were put first, and students were put first. And so as a result, we had every opportunity available to us. And I was very grateful for that. And I felt like a system and a country that could produce something like that was worth defending. I wanted to give back and show my gratitude for it. Dan Kanivas 2:45 There are a lot of ways to get back, whether it's public service, volunteering, whatever it might be. In my case, I'd always had some interest in military history and I was athletic enough. I said, Okay, I wanted to give back by serving. I felt like that was my way where I could show my gratitude and then continue with the rest of my life. Luckily for me, that's basically how it worked out. And I did four and a half years of service and active duty as a field artillery officer in the US Army. Brian Schoenborn 3:15 So for those listening, you know, For the uninitiated artillery is what? The big guns? Dan Kanivas 3:21 The big guns, that's right. Brian Schoenborn 3:22 Like the cannons, Dan Kanivas 3:23 and the rockets, etc. And so I had the privilege of serving there with some fantastic soldiers, fantastic leaders. And I had overall a great time in the military and there'd be very few things I trade it for. For me, my path towards Ranger and Airborne School started with my initial training as an artillery officer. So at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, we got the option while we're doing our officer basic course for artillery. We got the option of trying out for Ranger School. Dan Kanivas 3:59 And what that entails is showing up in the morning to do a lot of PT physical training, a lot of exercise with the instructors that we had. So I was a lieutenant of time and there was a captain who was an instructor who, at the artillery school who also happened to be Ranger qualified so he had gone to Ranger School. This is back in 2005. Dan Kanivas 4:24 The instructor and instructors, there were multiple of them by the end of it, would lead us through training just to get us familiarized with some basic things that would be required of the, required of us at Ranger School, but mainly it was a lot of physical training. And so the first day of the training, maybe half the class showed up and on purpose just like they do in other military schools, the instructors, to use the military terminology, smoked the hell out of you. Right. Brian Schoenborn 4:54 They're trying to separate the men from the boys. Dan Kanivas 4:56 They purposely make it difficult in the first day because they want to see who wants to come back the next day. So, yeah, so the I had a pretty big class at the officer basics course. And I want to say we had class with 120 or 130. Somewhere around those lines. So maybe 60 people showed up the first day. Brian Schoenborn 5:14 And it was all officers? Dan Kanivas 5:15 It was all officers, all lieutenants. Yeah. And then the next day, 30 people showed up. And so the, the group of people who are training for Ranger School was cut back quickly. And we did this for the whole entire five or six months that we were there. And I think in the end, we ended up sending somewhere between 12 to 15 people who made it through that pre-Ranger prep program. Brian Schoenborn 5:39 So you're talking like 10% ish, of the original, like 120 that showed up for the for that signed up for it. Dan Kanivas 5:47 Yeah, maybe 60 people showed up the first day, so maybe 20% of them, or so made it and made it through them and 25% and then I think we ended up graduating from Ranger School, those 12 or so people who went, I think we end up graduating maybe six, seven or eight, something like that. I know at least one guy I was friends with, couldn't make it through at that time or have to drop out but then he subsequently went back and so good for him. I think he's still in the reserves actually. Dan Kanivas 6:17 But anyways, yeah, that was the process of, of getting there of starting it. And in my case, it was never a gigantic goal of mine. Some people were gunning for it and they had to do it. Brian Schoenborn 6:30 Yeah sure. Dan Kanivas 6:31 You know, the kind of the two leaders in our class who I'm still friends with today, who are, you know, corralling us all, encouraging us all to, to do this pre-Ranger prep. They they were gunning for they they knew that this is what they wanted to do. In my case, I just put one foot in from the other. And a lot of it's just about not giving up, right? At Ranger School, they they call someone who quits not, they don't say it, it's you quit because you couldn't, you know, handle the technical aspects of it or something like that, or because your muscles were too weak or something. They say you quit because you are an LOM: lack of motivation. Brian Schoenborn 7:09 There you go. Dan Kanivas 7:09 Right? And so you put one foot in front of the other, you're not guaranteed to succeed and graduate. Definitely not. But it is the main part, in my opinion of being able to graduate from Ranger School is putting one foot in front of the other. Brian Schoenborn 7:23 Yeah, you know, I kind of relate it to my own experience, right? Like I was a marine. And, and there's statistics somewhere, like, I heard this before I joined maybe it changed in the last 20 years. But before I joined, I remember seeing or hearing a statistic, talking about, like, one in five recruits that enter boot camp don't make it. Brian Schoenborn 7:47 right. Brian Schoenborn 7:49 And for the Marines, you know, it's one of those things where, you know, you'll be able to do the physical stuff. Dan Kanivas 7:56 Right. Brian Schoenborn 7:56 As long as you can pass the minimum physical fitness tests. Which is like three pull ups, you know, 60 crunches in a second, like a five k in like less than 20 minutes or something. It's not like extreme. As long as you can pass those minimum PFT requirements, you know, it's really more mental than anything. Dan Kanivas 8:15 Sure. Yeah, absolutely. I think a lot of a lot of military training military schools are very mental, very psychological. And that's intentional. that's intentional. You do leave Ranger School, and this is not a new sentiment that I'm expressing other people express this too, you do leave Ranger School, if you pass it feeling like you're fairly impervious to things that life can throw at you. Brian Schoenborn 8:41 Oh know, for sure. It's the same with the Marines. Dan Kanivas 8:45 Put it lightly right Brian Schoenborn 8:46 You get through there and you're just like, “I could do anything. I'm Superman!” Dan Kanivas 8:50 Exactly. Exactly. And so that that is the whole intent. That's the whole intent, right, of any Military School. And so… Brian Schoenborn 9:02 Last thing you want is somebody going into, you know, going into fire potentially with any sort of self-doubt. Dan Kanivas 9:09 Right, right. Brian Schoenborn 9:10 Hesitation will kill you. Dan Kanivas 9:11 Right. That's completely the idea and the military, US military is fantastic at training people to be able to do those sorts of things. To act against your basic instinct of self-preservation and do things that are essential for the survival of the team, the accomplishment of the mission. Brian Schoenborn 9:30 Absolutely. Dan Kanivas 9:31 So anyways, that was me at Ranger School, which took me a little while to get through. I didn't get through it right away. I didn't I wasn't a true blue just pass every phase the first time ago. took me a little while but I got through. Brian Schoenborn 9:45 And that's perseverance and resilience. Dan Kanivas 9:46 There you go there. Yeah, that's right. Brian Schoenborn 9:49 There's a lot of bunch of character. Dan Kanivas 9:50 There you go. That is one way to look at it. Dan Kanivas 9:53 And then for airborne school, a lot of people go to Ranger School already Airborne qualified meaning they've successfully passed Airborne School, but in my case I didn't. I got sent to Ranger School first. Brian Schoenborn 10:05 Okay. Dan Kanivas 10:06 Basically once you pass Ranger School, you're already at Fort Benning when you when you finish up which is the home of the infantry and also the home and Airborne School, and they're going to give you — the the people who are responsible for processing you — give you orders Airborne School after that, because oftentimes those two things go together. The Airborne Ranger, you know, the missions go together. And, they generally had extra slots to give right there at Fort Benning, and so I just got a slot for the next one. Dan Kanivas 10:37 And so, typically every school certainly is an intense school, you're jumping out of airplanes, right? And safety is paramount and taking care of, of your buddies your teammates is paramount and certainly the instructors there are not, not kind about any any infractions, right? Brian Schoenborn 10:55 I'm sure. Dan Kanivas 10:56 But given the experience, I just previously gone through Ranger School, Airborne School was relatively easy. And so I I use it as mainly a three-week vacation. Brian Schoenborn 11:08 So you got your Ranger School and you're just like, “Yeah, I'm good. I'll just breeze right through here, chill on the beach.” Dan Kanivas 11:13 Yeah, I wouldn't have felt that way that I'm not just been through that experience, but because I had it felt that way to me. It's all about relative intensity. Brian Schoenborn 11:22 You're seeing these guys struggling and you're like, psh! Dan Kanivas 11:25 Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. We're still, I still out there in the you know, the in the Georgia heat and in June, but yeah, Brian Schoenborn 11:33 I mean, all due respect to everybody. Dan Kanivas 11:34 Yes, of course. Brian Schoenborn 11:36 Of course, you know, it's all relative, like you said. Dan Kanivas 11:38 That's right. It's all relative. It just happened to be that I was coming out of… Brian Schoenborn 11:42 of a different situations. Dan Kanivas 11:43 Yeah, right. Exactly. So and yeah, and that was the that was my training in the military. It took a year for me to get through six months of my Artillery School and then Ranger School and Airborne School and there's some kind of downtime in between all these things. So yeah, I spent a year and training. And then they sent me off my first actual duty station, which was Korea where, again, the privilege of serving for two years. Brian Schoenborn 12:09 So we're so so this was near the DMZ, right? Dan Kanivas 12:12 Yes. So at the time, the I'm not sure where where everyone's stationed now. But at the time I was stationed north of Seoul, but not quite the DMZ. At two different bases, Camp Red Cloud and Camp Casey, who my dog's name after, by the way. At those two duty stations, I served with the second Infantry Division the whole time, but specifically the artillery unit that I was with at Camp Casey was 138 field artillery, which has rocket launchers. MLRS, multiple launch rocket system, rocket launchers as its primary weapon system. Brian Schoenborn 12:54 So were, I'm just trying to get an understanding of like, where about you? I mean, you said you're near the DMZ, But like, can you maybe show me on a map? Dan Kanivas 13:02 So yeah, sure. So… Brian Schoenborn 13:03 So audience listening at home, you could just just kind of visualize it. Dan Kanivas 13:06 So if you pull up Google Maps and zoom in on Seoul, which is towards the northwest of South Korea. Brian Schoenborn 13:13 Yeah, I'm looking at it as it's I mean, I've been to Seoul yet. So it's it's literally like, what 20 miles or something? Dan Kanivas 13:19 Yeah, from from the border. Brian Schoenborn 13:20 From the border, from the North Korea border? Dan Kanivas 13:22 And Seoul is well within artillery range of the North Korean artillery. That's near the border. And as a result, that means all the American troops and ROK, Republic of Korea troops, who are north of Seoul, also within archery range of the North Korean guns, and so… Brian Schoenborn 13:40 …and that's what, the 49th parallel? Dan Kanivas 13:43 I think so i think so. Brian Schoenborn 13:44 49 or 47th, something like that. Dan Kanivas 13:45 I think so. Yeah. And so you see this Wejunboo here? Brian Schoenborn 13:48 Yep. Dan Kanivas 13:49 That was,that is where Camp Red Cloud is located. And so I was stationed there for a little bit and then further north in Tongduchun there is where Camp Casey's located where I was stationed for my second year. Brian Schoenborn 13:59 Huh, yeah, so that's literally I mean, that was like, probably no more than like 20 miles. Dan Kanivas 14:05 Yeah, it's it's pretty short. It's it's not a lot of distance. And while you're stationed in Korea, you also had the opportunity to do the JSA tour, if you saw these…the JSA stands for Joint Security Area. If you saw the news footage about Donald Trump crossing into North Korea. That's exactly where you where you do it. And so you can as a US service member, go and visit there and take a tour and you know, the US service members and Korean service members who are there, both maintaining the area and protecting the area will take you on a tour of the area. Brian Schoenborn 14:41 So do they allow you to cross the border? Dan Kanivas 14:43 Technically, I've crossed into North Korea technically, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 14:46 Wow. Dan Kanivas 14:46 What they do is there's these buildings, which again, you can see in the footage with Donald Trump. They're these buildings where the negotiations between the two sides have historically happened. These buildings are bisected by the border, by the actual border. Brian Schoenborn 15:00 So like, is there, like, a demarcation line or something like that? Dan Kanivas 15:04 There is. If you look at any pictures of it, you can see there's a line. And so what the on the tour, what they'll do is they'll take you on the tour, and they'll go, one of the Korean guards will go and check the building and go lock the far side door that's in North Korean territory. And then you go inside the building, and when you're inside the building, you can see all around the building and technically cross into North Korea. Brian Schoenborn 15:27 You know, it's interesting, because I've heard so many stories of like, you know, North Koreans trying to defect and crossing the border and right, you know, getting shot or something like that. Dan Kanivas 15:37 Right. Brian Schoenborn 15:37 So like, you know, so everything that I've heard throughout the years is like, the DMZ, like that line border is like the most dangerous border in the world, because there's never officially the war has never officially ended. Dan Kanivas 15:49 Right. It's still under an armistice. And so it is they're there. It's a heavily guarded border. You wouldn't cross there at the JSA because there's a lot of attention at that location, but I imagine there are other points along the border where there the defenses are softer. It's less monitored at any given time. Also, defectors go through China as well as Russia. Because both of those countries border North Korea. Brian Schoenborn 16:18 Well, I've heard there's actually a whole like, almost like an underground railroad to us like an American historical reference. Dan Kanivas 16:24 Yes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 16:24 But there's you know, there's like this whole network of people that like help get people through. The northern border. Through China. And and yeah, maybe down to like Southeast Asia or something like that. Back to the south. Dan Kanivas 16:35 Exactly. Yeah, exactly. That's that's exactly how that underground railroad works. Brian Schoenborn 16:41 Yeah, in essence, right? Pretty much the same thing? Dan Kanivas 16:43 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 16:45 I wonder like, so so you cross over the border. Dan Kanivas 16:48 Right. Brian Schoenborn 16:51 And…how do I say this? So what was the experience like? You said heavily heavily guarded is it also like, you know, let me put it this way. When I was living in China, all right? I was in Beijing. I've got a lot of friends that have visited North Korea. Americans, English, other expats. Americans can only fly in. Dan Kanivas 17:19 Okay. Brian Schoenborn 17:19 For example. Dan Kanivas 17:19 Okay, they can't drive into the Chinese border? Brian Schoenborn 17:22 They can't take the train through the Chinese border. Dan Kanivas 17:23 Right. Brian Schoenborn 17:24 I forget the name of the city, Dongdan or something. Dan Kanivas 17:27 Okay. Brian Schoenborn 17:28 But if you're if you're English, you can take the train. Dan Kanivas 17:31 Okay. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 17:32 If you're American, you have to fly in. And from what I understand, like it's the most eye opening like, surreal experiences they've ever had. Dan Kanivas 17:42 Yeah, that's what everyone says. Yeah. Right. Brian Schoenborn 17:44 You know, like, it's one of those things where you can only go the tour group. Dan Kanivas 17:48 Yep. Brian Schoenborn 17:49 And you do absolutely everything. Dan Kanivas 17:53 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 17:54 That they tell you to. Dan Kanivas 17:54 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 17:55 You don't do anything else. Dan Kanivas 17:56 Right. Brian Schoenborn 17:57 I've got some friends at ran the Pyongyang marathon. Dan Kanivas 18:00 Wow. Brian Schoenborn 18:00 Right? Which they've done every year for the last, I don't know, five years at least, something like that. Dan Kanivas 18:05 Okay. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 18:06 But it's one of those things where the North Koreans run first. Dan Kanivas 18:10 Okay. Brian Schoenborn 18:10 So that way they Dan Kanivas 18:11 So they win…Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 18:15 North Koreans get the head start. Um, but I've got friends that have done that and I've got a, I've actually got a friend, I think he's still in Beijing, but he owns and operates this tour group in North Korea. In fact, he actually he was the tour group operator that was heading this group in which Otto Warmbier was arrested… Dan Kanivas 18:46 Right, for potentially doing…he was accused of… Brian Schoenborn 18:49 Apparently apparently what happened is he tried to steal a poster or something. Like, apprently a propaganda poster or something. Dan Kanivas 18:55 Right, right. Right. Brian Schoenborn 18:56 We don't need to get into all that, like it's just kind of a, I know some people that have significant experience in North Korea, that's the point that I'm making. So when I hear that it's like a surreal experience, you know, I'm just kind of curious if you've had anything similar like that in your experience crossing the border, even though it may have been limited since you're in this building. Dan Kanivas 19:17 No, no, I did not have any experiences like that every. I think most people who have that JSA Joint Security Area experience is going to be very similar to mine. Brian Schoenborn 19:26 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 19:27 It's very scripted. Designed to be that way. Brian Schoenborn 19:33 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 19:34 It's still a singular experience a unique experience, because there's not too many other places in the world where… Brian Schoenborn 19:44 I don't know if there's any place in the world that's like that. Dan Kanivas 19:45 Exactly, right. There may be not there may not be right. But it's not anything like actually going to Pyongyang and running a marathon there. That's, I can't imagine what that's like. Brian Schoenborn 19:55 Well, maybe even something like that, like from what I hear from what I've heard, um like, as soon as you land or arrive in North Korea, the police or the guards, whatever. They'll take your phone and they'll go through all your photos. Dan Kanivas 20:08 Yeah, I'm sure. Brian Schoenborn 20:09 And makes sure that there's nothing that's like wouldn't be in line with the North Korea's values. Dan Kanivas 20:14 Yeah, I'm sure. Brian Schoenborn 20:15 And I guess they check your footagae, you cameras, and all that stuff as you're leaving. Dan Kanivas 20:18 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 20:19 Make sure you're not you know, it makes you like there's there's apparently there's only one way you can take pictures of the dear leaders. Dan Kanivas 20:24 Okay. Brian Schoenborn 20:25 Right? Things like that, so so if you're like, even veering off from that a little bit, you're screwed. Dan Kanivas 20:30 Yeah, yeah. I, this is not a level of risk that I would be comfortable taking, but more power to the people who want that sort of adventure in their lives. Brian Schoenborn 20:40 You know what's funny is, a couple of my friends were like, yo, let's do the Pyongyang marathon. And I'm like, Oh, that sounds sweet. Let's do it. Like, I'll fall in line and do absolutely everything that you know, not color out of the lines. Dan Kanivas 20:52 Sure. Brian Schoenborn 20:53 Right? And I put a message on Facebook. I was like, I think I'm gonna go to North Korea and my mom and my older sister were freaking out, dude. Dan Kanivas 21:02 Yeah, sure. Brian Schoenborn 21:03 They're like, Oh my god, Brian, you've done some like, you know, you've done some crazy things in your life, but please don't do this. Dan Kanivas 21:09 Right. Right. Brian Schoenborn 21:11 So I buckled in our didn't go. Dan Kanivas 21:13 Yeah, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 21:15 So what do you think you're kind of bringing back to this this DMZ thing? You mentioned? You know, Donald Trump stepped over? Dan Kanivas 21:22 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 21:24 What do you kind of make of all of that sort of curiosity? Dan Kanivas 21:28 I don't have much an opinion on it. I'm not a Trump supporter. Brian Schoenborn 21:33 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 21:34 And so… Brian Schoenborn 21:35 I'm not trying to be too political, but it is a historical moment. Dan Kanivas 21:39 Yeah. I don't know. How much intention was behind it. I don't know generally what his strategy or lack thereof is with North Korea. Brian Schoenborn 21:49 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 21:50 All I know is I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form. Brian Schoenborn 21:54 Yeah, no, I mean, same here. You know, I feel like he's he ramped up this crisis unnecessarily, in my opinion. Dan Kanivas 22:04 Sure. Brian Schoenborn 22:06 And now he's going to try to find a way to put it back the way it was before. And, like, claim the victory. Dan Kanivas 22:11 Sure. Brian Schoenborn 22:13 Like he's done with so many other just like, Jesus, dude. Sorry, anyways, we can we can move on from that. What other stuff did you do as an artie officer? Like where like, were you, were you other places as well, or..? So you mentioned you're there for like two years? Dan Kanivas 22:29 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 22:29 How long were you in the service overall? Dan Kanivas 22:30 So four and a half years in active duty. So I mentioned one year and training two years in Korea, where most of the time not the whole time I was actually doing an artillery job. I was also a general's aide for a little bit. And then after that, I got orders to go to Iraq on a military transition team and what those what those teams are, MIT teams for short. Acronyms for everything in military, of course. On the MIT team, we were responsible for training Iraqi security forces, be they Army, be the police, so that we could eventually pull out. Brian Schoenborn 23:06 Right. Dan Kanivas 23:06 And they can be self sufficient. And so this was back in 2008. I got I got the orders 2007, but I deployed in 2008, after some training at Fort Riley, Kansas. And while…you have a question? Brian Schoenborn 23:20 Yeah, well, I'm just thinking like 2008 we're were we with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts? Was that during like the counterinsurgency plan, or…? Dan Kanivas 23:30 Yes, it was, it was during the surge, and so the unit I relieved, the MIT team that I relieved, was just coming down off the surge. They'd been there for the surge, and I was relieving them. And so luckily, I think history will show this to be true. It certainly felt that way to me over there, the surge worked, it worked. The additional deployment of troops and also more importantly the deployment of a strategy to solve the root problem of, or help solve the root problem, or trap the root problem of what was going on in Iraq at the time, which is that there are a lot of unemployed, underemployed, especially males, young and otherwise. Brian Schoenborn 24:20 Desperation. Dan Kanivas 24:21 Right, who couldn't feed their families because previously they had a source of patronage that the US took away. The US restored a lot of that patronage, hired the Sons of Iraq and things like that, to pay them essentially to not attack not just us, but also their fellow countrymen and provide some light security duties. And that in conjunction with additional US troop deployment, actually did the trick. And so when I got to Iraq in 2008, I spent the year in 2008-2009, doing training for two different Iraqi Army units. One didn't really need us anymore, the mission was essentially considered more or less accomplished, they were trained. And so we spent about six months down before I was sent up further up north east to a brand new unit in Kirku. Dan Kanivas 25:09 And this is where I most of my experience I remember, most of my experience there, it's more vivid there, where we're trying to help stand up a brand new unit. And try to help them do simple things like get concertina wire to string around their perimeter. Brian Schoenborn 25:25 And what is concertina wire? Dan Kanivas 25:27 So is barbed wire, the military version of barbed wire. Brian Schoenborn 25:31 It's like the spiral? Dan Kanivas 25:32 Yeah, the spiral with with the barbs on it. And it's much more intense than…well, it's what you see above prison, a chainlink fence in prison. Brian Schoenborn 25:42 That's right. Dan Kanivas 25:43 So more intense than you'd see perhaps in a pasture. So getting concertina wire around the perimeter, getting their soldiers to get the proper uniforms, getting their soldiers to learn how to put on the proper uniform, so it's like that. Brian Schoenborn 25:54 Essentially setting them up for success. So they can be self-sustaining. Dan Kanivas 25:58 Right, so basic things like that. I'll say a few things about this, the Iraqi officers that we worked with, who almost by definition, to the last man had served under Saddam. Almost by definition, not everybody, but almost all of them, because in order to be that senior, had the experience, they had to have served under Saddam. They were very professional in general. Some of them, you know, had less experience and they were more political appointees, had less, were perhaps less professional that way. Dan Kanivas 26:27 Most of them were very professional. They generally knew what they were doing under their own system. But like all bureaucracies they never could get all the supplies they needed. They could never get all the ammo they needed, the training they needed. The manpower, the money. Brian Schoenborn 26:41 Basically various extremely important choke points, bottlenecks. Dan Kanivas 26:45 Exactly. So we made due with what what we had. Luckily, again, at the time, the surge, I was a beneficiary of the surge having worked out pretty well. So my time in Iraq, generally, was pretty peaceful. Generally. Brian Schoenborn 27:00 Let me ask you, kind of in general, about the Iraqi people. Dan Kanivas 27:04 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 27:04 Right? So like, I didn't go. I was medically discharged or, you know, whatever you can listen to RELENTLESS and hear that whole story. But I was discharged one week before my unit went to Iraq. Post 911. My unit was the first to go to Iraq, we fought they fought in Fallujah. Dan Kanivas 27:23 Yeah, right. Brian Schoenborn 27:24 It was fucking crazy. Dan Kanivas 27:26 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 27:26 But I never got my I never got the opportunity to I was never there. Dan Kanivas 27:32 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 27:32 Right? Let's put it that way. So I'm just wondering, you know, like you hear on the news all the time about like, the terrorists and like, you knows, which ties in with like anti-muslim sentiment and stuff like that. I'm just curious, like, you know, you spent like, a year and a half over there or something like that? Dan Kanivas 27:49 A year. Yeah. Dan Kanivas 27:50 A year? Okay. Brian Schoenborn 27:50 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 27:51 So you spent a year over there, um, any work with some of these generals and high ranking officers. I imagine you probably interacted with some of the people, like, the everyday civilians as well, a little bit or no? Dan Kanivas 28:03 Not as much, sometimes we did, but not not too too much. My job wasn't that I wasn't on patrols trying to learn about what was going on at the village chief's house or something like that. Brian Schoenborn 28:17 Well, I guess I mean, I'm not necessarily saying that I'm kind of thinking more like, you know, what was your general impression of like the culture and like the people like at their core, even you know, even if they were some of Saddam Hussein's henchmen or whatever you want to call them, right hands. I'm just kind of curious, like, what the, the, the the, the overall feeling? Dan Kanivas 28:39 I suspect that it would be the overall feeling that you would have in a lot of other countries that are foreign to you. Brian Schoenborn 28:49 Sure. Dan Kanivas 28:50 So people will keep to themselves that they don't have any particular business to be dealing with you. I mean, I was rolling around in heavily-armored via with machine guns. Brian Schoenborn 29:01 So you stood out a little bit. Dan Kanivas 29:02 Yeah, right. So, but that's dead. I can't remember single instance where I did interact with people and folks were angry at me or there's a mob yelling at me or something like that, that that never happened. I remember one time we broke down in the middle of a small village, small town that was along the roads that the road that we often traveled through, and we broke down. So we had to perform recovery operations to get our vehicle moving again, we essentially towed one of the back to the base. No one gathered around us and started anything, they just left us alone. Dan Kanivas 29:42 And I think generally that is the attitude that most people would take, because there's not a lot of advantage, I think. to be gained by interacting with heavily-armed people unless you're trying to harm them or otherwise have a mission related to that. People just want to be left in peace, they want to take care of their families. Right? And they want the same things for their families that that we would want for ours. Brian Schoenborn 30:08 You know, it's curious that you mentioned that, you know, with your experience during more time, right? You know, like, I'm always curious about this stuff, because in my travels, you know, like I've been to I traveled through Vietnam, for example. Dan Kanivas 30:23 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 30:23 Three weeks backpacking Vietnam. Dan Kanivas 30:25 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 30:26 I lived in China for over three and a half years. Dan Kanivas 30:28 Right. Brian Schoenborn 30:29 Right? And one of the things that surprised me most about Vietnam was how friendly, how genuine the people were, and and how much they love Americans. Dan Kanivas 30:41 Right. Brian Schoenborn 30:42 Or just people in general. You know? They're a very warm welcome, people. Dan Kanivas 30:46 Right. Brian Schoenborn 30:46 And then like in China, I remember when I first came back home like six months after staying in China. I ran across this lady that I grew up with in church or whatever. And she goes, “Brian, what are you doing?” And I go, “Oh yeah, I'm living in China or whatever.” She goes, “China? China? Brian, what are you doing there? I'm so scared. China's communist, like, are you okay?” Dan Kanivas 31:08 Right. Brian Schoenborn 31:09 And I go, “I fucking love it there. You know like the government's, yes CCP, all that stuff, right, authoritarian, whatever you want to call it. Dan Kanivas 31:17 Right. Brian Schoenborn 31:18 But most people don't really pay attention to it. Dan Kanivas 31:20 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 31:23 Most people in general are very welcoming, you know, they want to share their culture with you. Dan Kanivas 31:30 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 31:30 Right? They wanna share their food. Dan Kanivas 31:32 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 31:32 They want to drink with you. Dan Kanivas 31:33 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 31:34 China's a heavily smoking country. Dan Kanivas 31:35 Oh yeah. Brian Schoenborn 31:36 They want to they want you to try their regional cigarettes. That's why smoke again. It's ridiculous but you know, like this very warm, welcoming people. Dan Kanivas 31:45 Right. Brian Schoenborn 31:46 And essentially what it what it sounds like you're telling me is like you know, place in Iraq, even with all the propaganda that we receive, right? People, pretty much anywhere you go, whether it's an enemy or whether it's a country that we've fought before, or whether it's a people that were fighting at that moment? Dan Kanivas 32:06 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 32:07 You know, people are essentially people. They all want the same stuff. Dan Kanivas 32:10 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 32:10 Right? They have to they want to be able to provide for their family. Dan Kanivas 32:13 Right. Brian Schoenborn 32:14 Right? They want to live in a safe environment. Dan Kanivas 32:17 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 32:19 And they want to, you know, and they want to have a small little group of family and friends, like people can be successful, right, like people want to have some sort of value, right? Dan Kanivas 32:28 Yes, absolutely. 100% I think it's human nature. Brian Schoenborn 32:32 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 32:33 Cultures affect the expression of that. But ultimately, that's human nature, and it's going to be universal. I didn't have the good fortune of interacting as much with the average Iraqi while I was over there, because my mission just didn't take me there. But the Iraqis I did interact with, whether they were military, or they were soldiers that I was serving with, advising, or otherwise helping, or our interpreters who were with us. I generally had a good experience with them. And I have, you know, nothing. I have nothing negative to say about that interaction. Brian Schoenborn 33:16 And I think that's really, um, I think that's poignant. Because when you're fighting in different you know, when you're when you're at war with another side easy for all that stuff to get lost. Dan Kanivas 33:28 Sure, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 33:28 Because what whichever side you're on, you know, they're they're propagating to turn this turn this group of people into an enemy or whatever. Dan Kanivas 33:35 Right. Brian Schoenborn 33:35 And dehumanise them. Dan Kanivas 33:36 Sure, sure. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 33:37 You know, and, you know, you may you may have disagreements on like fundamental beliefs. Dan Kanivas 33:42 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 33:43 But at the core, we're all the fucking same. Dan Kanivas 33:45 Yeah, and part of my mission was to do the exact opposite, that not dehumanize but understand that we were fighting the same fight on the same side, of most people anyways. And that we had shared interests and shared values they gave us, the military gave us, a fair amount of cultural training before we went. I, I can, not today, but at the time, I tried to conduct as much of my conversations with my counterparts, my Iraqi counterparts in Arabic as possible. I always had an interpreter with me, obviously, I don't speak Arabic. But I tried to pick up phrases here and there. Brian Schoenborn 34:27 Yeah, sure. Dan Kanivas 34:28 That would be helpful. Brian Schoenborn 34:30 And that goes a long way too, right? Dan Kanivas 34:31 Oh, yeah, it goes a long way. It goes a long way. A long way. Brian Schoenborn 34:34 When I was in China, like, I took one lesson. But everything else I picked up. You know, the emergency Chinese, survival Chinese, that sort of thing. But even if I could just say “hello” in Chinese, there like, “Oh, my God, you know, you get us.” Dan Kanivas 34:48 Yeah. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 34:50 It goes a long way, man. Um, yeah, I think that's I think that's pretty interesting. I think that's pretty interesting. But I do want to move on to some other stuff. Dan Kanivas 34:58 Okay, yes, absolutely. Let's do it. Brian Schoenborn 35:00 We could talk about that and get as deep as we want them off that as long as humanly possible. But I think the biggest point for me on that is, you know, it's pretty interesting shit, and you know, something that you've realized is that people are people are people. Dan Kanivas 35:17 Yep. 100%. Brian Schoenborn 35:19 And I think that needs to be made more known. Dan Kanivas 35:21 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 35:24 When you've got people like our current president threatening to wipe Afghanistan off the face of the map. Dan Kanivas 35:29 I did not catch him say that. But if he did say that, that's very wrong. Brian Schoenborn 35:33 So he was meeting with the leader of Pakistan. I think his name is Mohammad Sharaf or something. Dan Kanivas 35:38 Okay. Brian Schoenborn 35:39 I forget his name, exactly. They were in the White House or Oval Office with the camera opportunity. Like he's been doing where he's got this leader, but he's really just talking about his own stupid agenda. Dan Kanivas 35:50 Of course. Brian Schoenborn 35:50 Right? And he, someone asked him about Afghanistan, and he goes, “Look, I have all sorts of options with Afghanistan. If I want to, I can wipe Afghanistan off the face of the map.” He's like, “I don't want to kill 10 million people. But if I had to, I could do it.” Dan Kanivas 36:09 Awful just, awful. Brian Schoenborn 36:10 And so Afghanistan comes back and they're like, “Fuck you, dude, how could you possibly say that?” Dan Kanivas 36:15 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 36:15 And everybody else do like, seriously. You know, it's called soft power. Dan Kanivas 36:20 Incredibly bad. Incredibly bad. Brian Schoenborn 36:22 Obviously we can do that, but you don't talk about it. Dan Kanivas 36:25 Incredibly bad but that's but it's unfortunately par for the course here. Brian Schoenborn 36:31 I know. It's not fair. Why? Dan Kanivas 36:37 You know, the scary thing too is that there's a lot of writing, articles, etc, from news sources that are typically considered liberal that are saying that Trump will probably win reelection, which is just scary to think about. Brian Schoenborn 36:56 Well, I think right now. Again, without getting too political or topical, but I think right now, the democratic field is so big. Dan Kanivas 37:07 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 37:08 That it's hard for that base. To really consolidate around one person. Dan Kanivas 37:15 Right. I agree. I agree with you. Brian Schoenborn 37:19 So I think as various candidates drop off, you know, that will consolidate itself a little bit more. And, you know, hopefully, hopefully that madman is dethroned. Dan Kanivas 37:34 Oh, I I thoroughly hope so. Brian Schoenborn 37:36 You know? Cuz I think he's setting us back a long way. Dan Kanivas 37:41 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 37:43 But, you know, we'll have to wait to see you know, like, last last cycle, or last presidential cycle. You know, everyone thought that Hillary was gonna kill it. Dan Kanivas 37:51 Yeah, right. I remember where it was that night on election night. 2016. And I remember exactly what it was. was like and what it felt like in the depths of depression that we all went through then. So yeah. Brian Schoenborn 38:05 Yeah. I remember I was sitting in Beijing watching this thing going, “I'm not coming for the next four years, maybe eight.” Dan Kanivas 38:15 Yeah, I contrast that with how I felt, I was in Iraq in November in 2008, and I remember being in the dining facility at the time. We got news that Obama had won. And wow, the feeling of excitement then, was great. Brian Schoenborn 38:34 Yeah. You know, what's weird is like, I actually I was a registered Republican for like, 10 years. I was always like, fiscally conservative, socially liberal kind of guy. Not that any of this matters, but I voted for Romney and McCain. Dan Kanivas 38:51 Sure. Brian Schoenborn 38:51 Right, so I didn't vote for Obama either time, but I've since dropped my affiliation. But I also believe that Barack Obama is probably the best president we've had in our generation. Dan Kanivas 39:06 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 39:07 I think hands down. Dan Kanivas 39:08 I agree with that. Brian Schoenborn 39:09 Yeah, I mean, you know, there's there's positives and negatives that you can say about anybody, but that's kind of how I feel. Dan Kanivas 39:15 Yep. Brian Schoenborn 39:15 Um, so I want to move out, move on, like move out of military stuff a little bit. Because I know you're up to some really cool stuff. Dan Kanivas 39:21 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 39:22 I mean, you've managed to maintain your, your physical endurance activities, that kind of stuff. Dan Kanivas 39:30 Trying to, trying to, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 39:32 I know, you mentioned something about Mount Rainier. Can you tell me like what you're planning to do? And like how this whole thing came about? Dan Kanivas 39:39 Yeah, sure. So last year, one of my friends texts me and says, “Hey, Dan, do you want to climb Mount Rainier?” And I said, “Okay, I'm interested. What What does that entail?” He's like, “Well, we can go with guides and they'll take us through it. It's a four-day program. It would be next August, but you have to decide now. And you have to decide, like right now basically today.” And I said, “Okay, let me go ask my wife.” And so I said, she said, sure, that sounds good. And I said, “Okay, all right, I'm in.” Dan Kanivas 40:18 I had no idea what it entailed. I had zero idea would entail. So my friend who, who, who asked me to do this was my friend from the Army who was in Korea. He just recently got out of the Army. So he's in much better shape than I have than I am. Than I am. I've been out for almost 10 years now. But we've been training. We've been training for trying to summit Mount Rainier next month. So actually, tomorrow, we are headed out to Mount St. Helens, again for the second time this season, to do our last big training hike before Rainier, when we attempt that, and so that is something I'm definitely looking forward to. Come, you know, one way or the other is going to it's all going to culminate here in a few weeks. Dan Kanivas 41:06 I'm looking forward to that. Of course, I hope I'm successful. Of course, I hope the weather cooperates and I have the endurance and the fitness and the ability to, to make the summit and all that stuff. But ultimately, I'm looking for just the general experience. Brian Schoenborn 41:22 Nice. Well, so let me let me clarify for our listeners right now. So we're currently in the city of Seattle. Dan Kanivas 41:30 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 41:30 Right. So Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier. Those are the two of the those are the biggest peaks, right? Dan Kanivas 41:37 Rainier is the tallest one here in the state of Washington. St. Helens. I don't know where it ranks, but it's up there. Brian Schoenborn 41:43 It's up there, right? Dan Kanivas 41:43 It's up there. Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 41:44 So like how, and they're not far, they're like an hour, two, or three something like that. Dan Kanivas 41:48 You can drive north-south througn the state of Washington, you know, comfortably within hours, not two hours, but they're all within driving distance of Seattle, yes. Brian Schoenborn 42:01 Okay yeah um so so they're close by but they're like huge. Dan Kanivas 42:05 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 42:05 You can see them on the horizon and see at least Rainier. Do you have an idea like how like how tall these are like their peaks or whatever? Dan Kanivas 42:16 Yeah I don't know St. Helens off the top of my head. Brian Schoenborn 42:19 Is it like a 10er, 10,000 foot-ish? Dan Kanivas 42:21 I want to say it's like eight or nine something like that, but Rainier is over 14,000. Brian Schoenborn 42:26 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 42:26 Yeah, so it's it's definitely tall. It's some serious altitude. When you do it, I've been told that, I haven't done it yet that you do feel the effects of altitude sickness. Yeah, so it's, it's definitely going to be a challenge. Brian Schoenborn 42:44 So Mt. St. Helens is a pretty good prepper. Dan Kanivas 42:46 Yeah, I think it's it's definitely on the training plan for a lot of folks and Mount St. Helens. Because it is popular for people to hike and climb, you have to get permits during the season in order to be able to hike it. So, I'm going with some other friends of, same group of people who I'm training for Mount Rainier plus, we're adding on a few more to do Mount St. Helens again in two days. Brian Schoenborn 43:10 Oh cool. Two days? Dan Kanivas 43:12 Yeah so Saturday is what we do is we will take off tomorrow afternoon from Seattle head down their, bed down for a little bit, and then start alpine start two am, something like that, so that we can start start headed up to the top of St. Helens while still while it's still dark out. Still cool out. And then if we're lucky, depending on conditions we might get to glacade down St. Helens. Brian Schoenborn 43:38 What is that? Dan Kanivas 43:38 So yes, this is the funnest part of and the payoff for climbing. So you get to the top and there's snow. And what people have done rather than walk back down is you ride the snow back down. Brian Schoenborn 43:54 Dude that sounds so awesome! Dan Kanivas 43:56 Yeah. So so that that I'm excited for Hopefully that will happen. That's what we did last time, but we also went May when I suspect there was a lot more snow. This time, there should still be plenty of snow to glacade down, but I don't actually know. Brian Schoenborn 44:11 How are you? How are you sliding down on this? Like snowboards, toboggans, just like the little $5 plastic sleds, like the saucer slows? What do you, uh, what's going on there? Dan Kanivas 44:20 All of the above. Some people bring their snowboards, some people bring their skis. You can just do it in hardshell pants. You can even take, and this is what I did last time, you take a trash bag and just ride down on a trash bag. Brian Schoenborn 44:32 Dude, that's sweet. Dan Kanivas 44:33 It works. And it's sure as hell beats walking down. Brian Schoenborn 44:39 I bet. Dan Kanivas 44:40 You don't want to walk anymore after you reach the top. So yeah, glacading down is is pretty fantastic. Brian Schoenborn 44:46 But that reminds me of, I'm doing these Nicaragua stories right now. That reminds me this time I summitted a, it was a short volcano. Dan Kanivas 44:55 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 44:56 Right. But it waas an active volcano. Dan Kanivas 44:58 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 44:58 One of the world's youngest volcanoes. Dan Kanivas 45:00 Okay, yeah. So it's millions and millions of year old, but it's one of the world's youngest. Brian Schoenborn 45:05 No, no, it's only like 150. Dan Kanivas 45:06 Oh really? Brian Schoenborn 45:07 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 45:07 Oh wow. Brian Schoenborn 45:08 Okay, it actually sprung up out of the cornfield in like the 1800s. Dan Kanivas 45:11 Oh, it's a 150 years old? Not a 150,000? 150 years old? Brian Schoenborn 45:18 Yeah, and apparently it blows up, it blows like every 15 years or something like that. Dan Kanivas 45:21 Oh okay. Brian Schoenborn 45:22 And when I was there it was around 15 years I don't know if it's it didn't blow up when I was there but it was definitely active. Dan Kanivas 45:28 Sure, sure, sure, yes. You see gasses and… Brian Schoenborn 45:30 At the summite could see a little, in the crater. And you could see gasses coming up out of the ground. Dan Kanivas 45:35 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 45:36 So we went to the top of it. Brian Schoenborn 45:38 Yeah. And we had a fast way down too. Yeah, we we with with the tour group. They gave us this backpack. And you can choose between a snowboard-looking thing. And like a mini toboggan-looking Dan Kanivas 45:51 Yeah, nice. Brian Schoenborn 45:52 And we volcano surfed. Dan Kanivas 45:55 Yeah, that's fantastic. Yeah. I like the outdoors a lot. I generally don't say no when people want to do outdoorsy things but I almost never wake up and say to myself, “I really need to get outdoors today.” Brian Schoenborn 46:10 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 46:11 I for better for worse live in my head a lot. I love to read. I love strategy games, things like that. Right? So I don't feel compelled to go and get outdoors. However, I'm almost never, I almost never regret it. Because there's so much fun to be had outdoors, including volcano surfing. That's awesome. Brian Schoenborn 46:32 You know, like, like, well glacading or volcano surfing. I mean, what else can you do that is there's only so many volcanoes. It's not like they're everywhere. I mean, they're they're all over the world. Yeah, but they're only in very specific locations. Dan Kanivas 46:46 Yeah, they're very, they're very cool experiences. A lot of people I've talked to about, you know, our pending Mt. Rainier adventure here are very curious about it because they do realize that, okay, yeah, there's not a lot of other ways to kind of express this sort of desire to experience nature and experience your own backyard, your own environments in a very in a unique and very singular sort of way. And so you just got to go out there and do it right and you have which is fantastic. Brian Schoenborn 47:25 I'll never forget that. That sounds fucking awesome. I'm super looking forward to hearing about all of it. Dan Kanivas 47:31 Yeah, fingers crossed it all goes well, so yeah. Brian Schoenborn 47:33 I got a pretty good feeling about it. You mentioned something about strategy stuff? You do strategy games? That kind of caught my attention. Dan Kanivas 47:44 Yeah, yeah, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 47:44 Can you dive into that? What do you what kind of games you into like? Like for me, me and my brothers and my dad. We have a tradition every time we go home for the holidays, we play Risk. And we get super into it. Dan Kanivas 47:56 Yeah, sure. Brian Schoenborn 47:57 Like we used to like pretty much be out for blood for each other. Dan Kanivas 48:00 Oh, sure. Yeah, sure. Brian Schoenborn 48:01 Um, I think there might have been some fistfights. At one point where my mom was like she took it away, and she banned us from playing Risk for like 5 years. But I'm just curious, like, what can I hear the strategy stuff? What are the strategy games and other, you know, tell me like what kind of stuff to do. Dan Kanivas 48:17 So, growing up, definitely my favorite type of video game, for example, was role playing games. So RPGs, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, that sort of thing. And if I had more time now I still play them because there's no shortage. There's no shortage of fantastic stories that are told through these through these media, right? Through those mediums, right. And they get you so invested and they know how to get you invested. These game designers know how to get invested. In college I played a lot of poker for various reasons: socially, also to try to attempt to win money mainly to lose it, but that things like that was a large part of my college experience. Dan Kanivas 49:04 And also as a kid, 12 years old, 11 years old that that sort of timeframe. It was around 94, 95, 96. So Magic the Gathering has just come out. Brian Schoenborn 49:16 Magic the Gathering? Dan Kanivas 49:17 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 49:18 You know, I've heard of that game. I think I'm a little bit older than you. I was, you know, I was active duty in the Marines in 2000, 2002. So I'm fucking old. Dan Kanivas 49:26 I was born in 1983. Brian Schoenborn 49:27 Oh I'm two years, about two years then. I remember, I think it was early in high school, you said seventh or eighth grade? Dan Kanivas 49:36 Yes. Brian Schoenborn 49:36 So that would put me in high school. Right? So I remember hearing about magic together. But I was kind of at that point where it was, I don't know, I just, I wasn't. I wasn't there at that point. Dan Kanivas 49:46 Yeah. Oh, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 49:46 You know, yeah, it was a different spot. Dan Kanivas 49:48 Oh, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 49:48 But my younger brother. He was born in 83. Dan Kanivas 49:50 Oh, yeah. Brian Schoenborn 49:52 Huge into Magic the Gathering. Shout out to Dave. Dan Kanivas 50:00 Being born at a certain time or being a certain age, in that timeframe, made all the difference. If I was actually a if I were actually a year older or two years older, it may have worked out that, you know, I may missed it just like you. Or I could have gotten in on even a little sooner. And had I done that then some of those cards from those era, from that era, which I missed by just about a year are invaluable now. Brian Schoenborn 50:31 Really? Dan Kanivas 50:32 They're quite, they're quite expensive. Yeah. Because it becomes collector's, collector's items. Brian Schoenborn 50:36 They're what, like baseball cards or something? Dan Kanivas 50:37 Yeah, that that idea that they're not being made anymore. So anyways, so I played for a little bit back in those days, as a middle schooler, and, you know, as the nerdy kid who was looking for something that was popular to do the time, well, mainly with other boys. This was, you know, spoke to me strategy games and the the fantasy portion of it, you know, dragons and, and demons and angels and stuff like that. That's pretty cool. Like, that was that kept us interested, but life moved in other directions. I got involved in sports, became more active socially, especially with the fairer sex. Brian Schoenborn 50:39 Sure, of course. Dan Kanivas 50:40 And so, you know, Magic disappeared from my life. Brian Schoenborn 51:22 And that's where I was at but just out of curiosity, do you recall like playing the game? Like, can you can you, cause, I don't know anything about it. Like, can you kind of give me like a high level, like the highest level overview like how it works? Dan Kanivas 51:40 Yes, sure. So it's a card game, that you take a set of cards and you build decks with them. And the idea is that you and your opponent is typically played one on one. Typically. You and our opponent are both powerful wizards, and you cast spells to try to defeat each other. The game was actually created by a grad student, I believe UPenn, a mathematics grad student at UPenn who had a lifelong fascination and love for games. And though, his name is Richard Garfield, though he's brilliant, this is going to be his legacy on Earth. Brian Schoenborn 52:24 Yeah. Dan Kanivas 52:24 So not mathematics or anything else. Most likely it's going to be this game, which is going to be very, very popular. Brian Schoenborn 52:30 It's pretty impressive legacy. Dan Kanivas 52:31 Yeah, absolutely. And he's still active in making games and things like that. But anyways, so that's the basic gist. You can use these cards, cast spells to try and defeat each other. And you know the game, though I left the game a long time ago, it grew and grew and grew and grew. And in 2018, last year, one of my friends who I worked with right out of business school, turned out that he has some cards. I talked to him about He's like, “Hey, Dan, did you know there's an online platform for this now that it's pretty nifty?” Brian Schoenborn 53:05 No way. Dan Kanivas 53:06 Yeah. And, you know… Brian Schoenborn 53:09 So like 15 years. Dan Kanivas 53:10 Yeah. 20 years. Brian Schoenborn 53:11 20 years? Dan Kanivas 53:12 Yeah 20 years. Had I not had that conversation? I don't think I would have rediscovered it but now it's 100% my guilty pleasure to play Magic the Gathering Arena Online. And it takes away a lot of the issues of having to play with paper cards, not that I don't like to play with them, I do. But it's one of these things where you don't have to do it in a room full of other people. You can do it from your bed, or from your desk, or on a train, right? Just on your laptop. Dan Kanivas 53:44 And what I thought I liked before about the game, the you know, the again, the fantastical aspects of it, right, the the dragons and stuff, actually turned out not to be the exciting part of the game for me. What I thought the game is how deep strategically it goes. It combines the the deep strategy of a game like Risk or Chess or Settlers of Catan, things like that, right? Where each choice you make really matters. It combines that with randomness. Again, that's, that's involved in Risk or Poker, right, where the top card of your deck that you don't know what it is, will change the outcome of the game. Dan Kanivas 54:32 And so the combination of those two things, the skill and the luck, the roll of the dice in Risk keeps people coming back for more, because it makes every game you play different. Which is really really cool. And it goes very, very deep. So I'm, I am a newly, newly reintegrated player. Brian Schoenborn 54:55 That's interesting you know, I've heard I've heard some people have been kind of resurging with like Dungeons and Dragons and stuff like that too. I dabbled with it, but I was never really like that into again that was my brother's sort of thing. Dan Kanivas 55:06 Yeah. Brian Schoenborn 55:08 But I've heard that a lot of people like kind of our age, have been getting back into these things. So it must be, must be interesting to play against these people with that new perspective and that level of knowledge and experience that you've gained. The thought process and all that. Got to be pretty cool, bet you can get some, like, if you were to play if you had some buddies that like are in the area, and they have like a deck of cards it would probably be pretty cool to have like a dude night a dude Magic the Gathering — a person, a friend night I guess — I don't want to be gender bias or whatever. Dan Kanivas 55:42 For for better, for worse, and this is actually a big topic of discussion within the community. Not just Magic, but gaming generally. Right? And gaming is gigantic, it's exploded. And my wife works for a gaming company, like it's everywhere. Brian Schoenborn 55:55 Oh cool. Yeah. Dan Kanivas 55:56 And so yeah, gaming is, unfortunately, very biased towards males. And as a result, oftentimes, there are people in the community slash the companies and the, you know, the policies that inadvertently get set up, I don't think it's intentional, at least from a company standpoint, are exclusive unfortunately, right? And they're not not always integrative and not always inclusive. Brian Schoenborn 56:27 Right. Dan Kanivas 56:27 And so there's actually to Magic's credit, they really do try to be inclusive, you see it in the artwork, you see it in their messaging, you see it in how they treat people who are not inclusive. Which is great. Brian Schoenborn 56:44 I think that's fantastic, you know, because like I tripped up and said, “Oh, dude, you know, it's a dude thing”, but it's finally not, and it shouldn't be you know? It's games you're having fun, it's strategy. Like, you're using you're using your mind, you have little bit of a social environment. Like that's not. Dan Kanivas 56:59 Yeah, I don't I don't picked up at all, I think this is a real issue. And it's something that the community has to figure out. If you if you go have a boardgame night with friends, which like you said, it's kind of you're seeing a resurgence of people around our age doing this. I think there's several reasons for it. One, it's if people have families, it's a pretty low-key way to get together and… Brian Schoenborn 57:22 You're not going crazy. Dan Kanivas 57:23 Exactly. Brian Schoenborn 57:24 You're not getting super wasted playing Magic the Gathering, maybe a casual beer. Dan Kanivas 57:27 We're not going to Coachella because we have kids. Right? Brian Schoenborn 57:29 Exactly. Dan Kanivas 57:30 Exactly. Right. So you know that that's a great way to get together and like I just played actually last weekend. Settlers of Catan with I have friends around here. While we're out in Walla Walla, you know, on a wine country trip. It was great. It was one of the highlights of the trip. It's always fun playing with them. And so, you know, it's a very enjoyable, easy to get into, and social thing to do. I think this is

In this episode, we talk with Renee and James B Notkin who are co-Pastors of Union Church in Seattle. Union Church is a church plant located in the South Lake Union Neighborhood in Seattle. In planting Union Church, the Notkins were looking to develop a missional church model that would provide weekly opportunities for three basic discipleship commitments:· Remain in me· Love one another· Go into the worldThis led them to a pattern of life together in which the format for their Sunday gathering followed a regular four week rotation of worship, small groups, and service.In living into this vision, what Renee and James B didn't expect was that the neighborhood would experience cataclysmic transformation. A decade ago, South Lake Union was an underdeveloped semi industrial stretch of land nestled between the Seattle Center and Lake Union. And then Amazon decided to locate their headquarters there. Seemingly overnight, their church was a few blocks away from the busiest intersection in Seattle.In this conversation, we discuss how Renee and James B look for opportunities to find points of connection with their new neighbors, to care for those who might be overlooked in a time of economic growth, and to continue to provide vital programs for the congregation.Access more Show Notes with pictures and resources related to this episode.More information about this podcast and helpful church and urbanism resources can be found on The Embedded Church website.Related ResourcesUnion Church SeattleMissional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America by Daryl GruderFind these Key Terms on The Embedded Church website:- Missional Theology- Third PlaceShow CreditsHosted and Produced by Eric O. Jacobsen and Sara Joy ProppeEdited by Adam Higgins | Odd Dad Out Voice ProductionsTheme Music by Jacob ShafferArtwork by Lance Kagey | Rotator Creative

Our guest this month is Corporate Executive Chef Wayne Johnson of Farestart to fill us in on a little more about the recent donation of 25,000 square feet in South Lake Union by Amazon.com. The show kicks off with Connie pondering what people really want when they go out to eat. Then it's off to Newsbytes for all the latest tidbits and the latest events we see on the horizon. We unearth a reader favorite from our AI file that goes all the way back to 1999 – see if you can pick it out.

Connie Adams kicks off the first Seattle DINING! internet broadcast together with SD! publisher, Tom Mehren. Featured: Uli's Famous Sausage, Salty's on Alki, Canlis, Toulous Pettite, Plaka, Shanik, South Lake Union, Kaspers, Brian Carter Cellars, Boat Street Café, Cellars, Jason Stratton, Spinasse, Artusi, Vespolina, Mio Sushi, Wild Fin, Japonessa, Heathman Hotel, Trellis, Grub on Queen Anne, Boyds Coffee, Rocks District AVA, Ray's Boathouse, Paul Duncan, Bellevue Bouban Bash, Thirsty Fish, Serafina, Dusted Valley, Fado Irish Pub, Sweet Nicky's, Russell's, Barolo, Tillikum Place Café, Andaluca, Fireside. Port Ludlow Inn, Ponti, Biscuit Box, Reidel, Wustoff, El Porton – Zillah, Seattle Food and Wine Event, SWFE, Quintanna Roo Mexicatessen, Glo, Fairmount Pacific Rim, Local 360, Kitsilano Brunch Crawl.