Podcasts about south seattle emerald

Outro dia o Afonso Roitman, da novela Vale Tudo, apareceu numa cena contando que as pessoas consomem 5 gramas de plástico por semana — o equivalente a um cartão de crédito. Essa informação tá ERRADA, preciso dizer logo de cara. Esse foi apenas um dos muitos casos em que o mito do cartão de crédito proliferou nas nossas vidas, e está longe de ser o mais grave. Em incontáveis reportagens, estudos, relatórios de governos e agências de relevância mundial, uma das maiores fake news das nossas vidas adultas não para de se espalhar.Não tenho a pretensão de dar fim a ela (quem sou eu, afinal?), mas decidi contar como e por que tanta gente acredita e repassa a informação equivocada de que todo mundo ingere essa quantidade enorme de plástico. Obs.: Não sou negacionista, apenas quis contar uma história importante! Bjs!============================APRENDA EM 5 MINUTOS é o podcast sobre coisas que você nem sabia que queria saber. Os episódios são roteirizados e apresentados por Alvaro Leme. Jornalista, mestre e doutorando em Ciências da Comunicação na ECA-USP e criador de conteúdo há vinte anos, ele traz episódios sobre curiosidades dos mais variados tipos. São episódios curtos, quase sempre com 5 minutos — mas alguns passam disso, porque tem tema que precisa mesmo de mais um tempinho.Edição dos episódios em vídeo: André Glasnerhttp://instagram.com/andreglasnerDireção de arte: Dorien Barrettohttps://www.instagram.com/dorienbarretto66/Fotografia: Daniela Tovianskyhttps://www.instagram.com/dtoviansky/Siga o APRENDA no Instagram: http://instagram.com/aprendapodcasthttp://instagram.com/alvarolemeComercial e parcerias: contato@alvaroleme.com.br======================Quer saber mais? Confira as fontes que consultei enquanto criava o episódio- How Much Microplastics Are We Ingesting?: Estimation of the Mass of Microplastics IngestedUniversidade de Newcastle, Austrália- Ingested microplastics: Do humans eat one credit card per week?Martin Pletz,Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters- Microplastics are bad, but ignoring science is worseMark Jones, R&D World - You do not inhale a credit card's worth of microplastic every weekFull Fact- How Much Plastic Do We Ingest?Kevin Schofield, South Seattle Emerald

Guest host Brian Callanan discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, former state Representative and Senator Bill Finkbeiner, and Seattle Times David Kroman.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a “voice of God” moment in 2012, Vee Hua set about making their first film—a process that has taken years.  Vee Hua 華婷婷 (they/them) is a writer, filmmaker, and organizer. They're currently the Editor-in-Chief of REDEFINE, a Co-Chair of the Seattle Arts Commission, and until recently, the Interim Managing Editor of the South Seattle Emerald. Prior to that, they were the Executive Director of the interdisciplinary community hub, Northwest Film Forum, where they played a role in making the space more welcoming and accessible for diverse audiences.  Their latest short film, Reckless Spirits (2022), is a metaphysical, multi-lingual POC buddy comedy; the feature film version is slated for production in 2025. Vee is also in post-production on a short documentary film about Hunt's Trading Post in Southern Utah, just outside of the Navajo and Ute Nations. c89.5's Podcast Club Advisor Gavin Reub joined Vee to explore the experience of filmmaking in a town like Seattle, the connection between cultural spaces and community mental health, and how their status as a second generation American has impacted their approach to art making, politics, and expression.  Co-presented by 4Culture, Coping 101's Artist Mental Health Stories amplify voices from King County's cultural sector to empower individual artists, uplift the creative community and destigmatize mental health from a teen's perspective. No matter our age or background we all face challenges, and there are many healthy ways to find balance. Get started with more episodes and resources hosted at c895.org/coping101 more about Reckless Spirits more about Vee: https://vivianhua.com/about-vee/ 4Culture - 4culture.org

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, Seattle Channel's Brian Callanan, and Earth Finance founder Reuven Carlyle.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In America today, reports show that food insecurity is a pressing issue for over 35 million people. With rising grocery prices, inflation, and the lasting impacts of the pandemic—understanding the complexities of hunger has never been more imperative. Mariana Chilton explores this issue in the book, The Painful Truth about Hunger in America: Why We Must Unlearn Everything We Think We Know—and Start Again with some new insights and perspectives. Mariana Chilton is an author, professor, and founder of the Drexel University — Center for Hunger-Free Communities. In The Painful Truth About Hunger in America, Chilton takes a radical and urgent new approach to addressing hunger and poverty in the US. Where traditionally researchers, policymakers, and advocates have approached providing food through donations or non-profit organizations, Chilton focuses on the fundamental structures which she asserts have a keen interest in maintaining food stratification. Chilton suggests that the solution to food insecurity lies beyond providing food itself and will have to take both a political and spiritual approach in fixing this crisis. Drawing on 25 years of research, programming, and advocacy efforts, Chilton argues that food insecurity is created and maintained by those in power. To demonstrate her point, Chilton calls back to the original wounds suffered in this country — through a history of colonization, genocide, and enslavement. Drawing on intimate interviews she has conducted with many Black and Brown women, Chilton sheds light on the experience of hunger as linked with trauma and gender-based violence, violence with the natural world, and with ourselves. The Painful Truth about Hunger in America not only reinvigorates our commitment to uprooting the causes of poverty and discrimination but also points to a more generative and humane world where everyone can be nourished. Mariana Chilton, PhD, MPH, is a Professor at Drexel University's Dornsife School of Public Health and Director of the Center for Hunger-Free Communities, a research and advocacy center focused on addressing hunger and economic insecurity. She founded Witnesses to Hunger, a movement amplifying women's voices in the fight against poverty, and leads the Building Wealth and Health Network, which promotes entrepreneurship in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Her work on food insecurity, trauma, and human rights has influenced national policies, and she has advised Congress, Sesame Street, and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Chilton's research has been featured in major media outlets, including The Washington Post and CBS News. Agueda Pacheco Flores is a Seattle-based freelancer with a focus on culture, arts, Southend communities, and the Latinx diaspora. Her work has been featured in The Seattle Times, The South Seattle Emerald, Remezcla, and more. You can find her on X @AguedaPachecOH. Buy the Book The Painful Truth about Hunger in America: Why We Must Unlearn Everything We Think We Know--and Start Again Elliott Bay Book Company

This budget cycle, the city is bracing for what could be a contentious debate over how to fund essential services and set priorities for the coming year.  With an estimated $251 million dollar budget shortfall looming, how it will address that gap has become a pressing concern. Early last week, Mayor Bruce Harrell unveiled his office's plan to tackle the large budget shortfall. Guests: Kevin Schofield, founder of SCC Insights and author of Weekend Reads in the South Seattle Emerald. Schofield is also a member of KUOW's board of directors, which does not make any editorial decisions or work directly with KUOW's newsroom. Relevant Links: Post Alley:  Mayor Harrell's New Budget and Windfall Revenue Provoke Big QuestionsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dynamic dishes, rich backgrounds, and a legacy of flavor are all on the menu in Marisel Salazar's debut cookbook Latin-ish: More Than 100 Recipes Celebrating American Latino Cuisines. Building on her heritage with years of research and travel, Salazar takes fellow cooks and food enthusiasts on a flavor-packed journey through the Latine diaspora. This collection of recipes draws from a wide range of community-driven cooking and immigrant experience, translated into the kitchens of today. Latin-ish is a unique deep dive into regional Latine food influences across the geography of the United States – from Floribbean to Tex-Mex, from Alta California to NYC Latine, and more. Latin-ish combines lively origin stories with step-by-step directions and vibrant photography to guide readers in putting together playful plates of food and history. Thoughtfully organized and contextualized, Salazar aims to provide a little something for every craving – day or night. Dig into indulgent breakfasts like Guava Cream Cheese Cinnamon Rolls, boost your snack game by crunching into a Mango Chamoy Salad or Yuca Fries with Cilantro Lime Aioli, warm your dinner guests up with Arkansas Tamales or Cuban Pizza, and treat yourself at the end of a long day with a slice of Plantain Upside-Down Cake or a Oaxaca Old-Fashioned. The recipes of Latin-ish raise a glass to a diverse spread of Latine roots while leaving ample room to grow in an ever-evolving corner of the modern American culinary landscape. Marisel Salazar is a writer, cook, recipe developer, and host with a focus on cultural context in the food world. She is the creator of the column Eating Off Duty for the Michelin Guide. Her writing, recipes, and on-camera work has been featured on platforms such as Zagat, Infatuation, Food & Wine, NYT Cooking, The Spruce Eats, and Thrillist. She is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Newswomen's Press Club of New York, and the International Association of Culinary Professionals. Agueda Pacheco Flores is a journalist in Seattle with a focus on Latinx culture and Mexican American identity. She was previously an arts and culture writer at Crosscut where she enjoyed writing about Chicano galleries, Cumbia in the Pacific Northwest as well as shining a light on emerging Latinx artists. Before Crosscut, she worked for The Seattle Times, where she was a general assignment reporter covering breaking news, crime, and federal courts. Originally from Queretaro, Mexico, Pacheco Flores is inspired by her own bicultural upbringing as an undocumented immigrant and proud Washingtonian. Her work has appeared in The Seattle Globalist, Seattle Weekly, The Daily, and the South Seattle Emerald. Buy the Book Latin-Ish: More Than 100 Recipes Celebrating American Latino Cuisines Book Larder

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with Republican strategist and media commentator Randy Pepple, South Seattle Emerald writer and reporter Lauryn Bray, and Seattle Times senior investigative reporter Patrick Malone.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over the past decade, charitable crowdfunding has exploded in popularity across the globe. Sites such as GoFundMe, which now boasts a “global community of over 100 million” users, have transformed the ways we seek and offer help. When faced with crises—especially medical ones—Americans are turning to online platforms that promise to connect them to the charity of the crowd. What does this new phenomenon reveal about the changing ways we seek and provide healthcare? In Crowded Out, Nora Kenworthy examines how charitable crowdfunding so quickly overtook public life, where it is taking us, and who gets left behind by this new platformed economy. Although crowdfunding has become ubiquitous in our lives, it is often misunderstood: rather than a friendly free market “powered by the kindness” of strangers, crowdfunding is powerfully reinforcing inequalities and changing the way Americans think about and access healthcare. Drawing on extensive research and rich storytelling, Crowded Out demonstrates how crowdfunding for health is fueled by—and further reinforces—financial and moral “toxicities” in market-based healthcare systems. It offers a unique and distressing look beneath the surface of some of the most popular charitable platforms and helps to foster thoughtful discussions of how we can better respond to healthcare crises both small and large. Nora Kenworthy is Associate Professor at the University of Washington Bothell. She is the author and editor of several books, and her writing has appeared in the American Journal of Public Health, Social Science and Medicine, PLOS One, Scientific American, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Marcus Harrison Green is a columnist for The Seattle Times. A long-time Seattle native, he is the founder of the South Seattle Emerald, which focuses on telling the stories of South Seattle and its residents. Buy the Book Crowded Out: The True Costs of Crowdfunding Healthcare The Elliott Bay Book Company

Growing up in the mountains of Utah, Cory Richards was constantly surrounded by the outdoors and was taught how to ski, climb, mountaineer, and survive in the wild. Despite a seemingly idyllic childhood, the Richards home was fraught with violence, grief, and mental illness. After being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and dropping out of high school, Richards subsumed himself in the worlds of photography and climbing, seeking out the farthest reaches of the world to escape the darkness. Then, in the midst of a wildly successful career in adventure photography, a catastrophic avalanche changed everything, forcing Richards to confront the trauma of his past, evaluate his own mental health, and learn to rewrite his story. In his new book, The Color of Everything, Richards recounts his adventures of climbing and the thrill of chasing summits, as well as his tumultuous life off the mountains. Accompanied by photos from his career, Richards' memoir captures the musings of an unquiet mind grappling with success, the cost of fame and addiction, and what it takes to excavate the roots of trauma and climb out. Cory Richards is an internationally renowned photographer, filmmaker, and author of the memoir The Color of Everything. He is the first and only American to climb one of the world's 8000m peaks in winter. His documentation of the climb and aftermath of the experience was made into the award-winning documentary COLD and appeared on the cover of the 125th anniversary issue of National Geographic. Richards is a National Geographic Adventurer of the Year, Photographer Fellow, and a two-time recipient of an Explorers Grant. He has photographed twelve feature assignments for the magazine. He has an active speaking career, in which he speaks about conservation, mental health, leadership, and vulnerability. Marcus Harrison Green is a columnist for The Seattle Times. A long-time Seattle resident, he is the founder of the South Seattle Emerald, which focuses on telling the stories of South Seattle and its residents. Buy the Book The Color of Everything: A Journey to Quiet the Chaos Within Third Place Books

Erratic weather, blistering drought, rising seas, and ecosystem collapse now affect every inch of the globe. Increasingly, we no longer look to stop climate change, choosing instead to adapt to it. Academics call it maladaptation; simply, it's about solutions that backfire. In his new book, Over the Seawall, Stephen Robert Miller tells us the stories behind these unintended consequences and the fixes that can do more harm than good. From seawalls in coastal Japan to the reengineered waters in the Ganges River Delta, to the artificial ribbon of water supporting both farms and urban centers in arid Arizona, Miller traces the histories of engineering marvels that were once deemed too smart and too big to fail. In each story, Miller takes us into the land and culture, seeking out locals and experts to better understand how complicated, grandiose schemes led instead to failure, and to find answers to the technological holes we've dug ourselves into; urging us to take a hard look at the fortifications we build and how they've fared in the past. Miller embraces humanity's penchant for problem-solving but argues that if we are to adapt successfully to climate change, we must recognize that working with nature is not surrender but the only way to assure a secure future. Stephen Robert Miller is an award-winning independent journalist, author, and editor who covers climate change, environmental conservation and agriculture from his home in rural Colorado. His work appears in National Geographic, Discover Magazine, Audubon, The Guardian, and many others. Stephen was a 2018-2019 Ted Scripps Fellow. His new book, Over the Seawall, takes a global perspective on natural hazards and the challenges of adaptation to climate change. He has reported from across the U.S. and Canada, Southeast Asia, and the Arctic. He graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Arizona and was previously senior editor of environmental justice for YES! Magazine, as well as editor of a Seattle-based weekly newspaper. Marcus Harrison Green is a columnist for The Seattle Times. A long-time Seattle native, he is the founder of the South Seattle Emerald, which focuses on telling the stories of South Seattle and its residents. Buy the Book Over the Seawall: Tsunamis, Cyclones, Drought, and the Delusion of Controlling Nature Ada's Technical Books

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with the Co-host of Too Beautiful to Live podcast Andrew Walsh, South Seattle Emerald reporter and writer Lauryn Bray, and the founder and President of Gamoran Legal Consulting Saul Gamoran. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week… Turns out The King County Office of Equity, Racial and Social Justice ignored civil rights complaints for almost two years. The Downtown Seattle Association wants to put 30 advertising kiosks across downtown. And Mariners fans are taking advantage of some unique promotions, including free tickets in exchange for a buzzcut. The South Seattle Emerald's Marcus Harrison Green and KUOW's Zaki Hamid are here to break down the week. NAAM Juneteenth Programming: https://www.naamnw.org/juneteenth We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/donate/seattlenow And we want to hear from you! Follow us on Instagram at SeattleNowPod, or leave us feedback online: https://www.kuow.org/feedback See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, Seattle Times Jonathan Martin, and Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Rachel Smith. We can only make Week in Review because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/donate/weekinreview  We want to hear from you! Leave us feedback at https://www.kuow.org/feedbackSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Anyone who has fallen off the conveyor belt of mainstream health care and into the shadowy corners of illness knows what a dark place it is to land. Where is the infrastructure, the information, the guidance? What should you do next? In her new book, Rebel Health, Susannah Fox draws on twenty years of tracking the expert networks of patients, survivors, and caregivers who have come of age between the cracks of the healthcare system to offer a way forward. Covering everything from diabetes to ALS to Moebius Syndrome to chronic disease management, Fox taps into the wisdom of these individuals, learns their ways, and fuels the rebel alliance that is building up our collective capacity for better health. Rebel Health shows how the next wave of health innovation will come from the front lines of this patient-led revolution. Join us for an event that is both proactive and innovative, as Susanna Fox paves the way for a collective capacity for better health and a patient-led revolution in medical care. Susannah Fox helps people navigate health and technology. She served as Chief Technology Officer for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where she led an open data and innovation lab. Prior to that, she was the entrepreneur-in-residence at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and directed the health portfolio at the Pew Research Center's Internet Project. Sally James is a writer whose curiosity about people has taken her from jails to hospitals to schools to research labs. Once a staff member on daily newspapers, she has been an independent writer on medicine and science for many years. She has reported stories for the South Seattle Emerald, Parentmap, Seattle Business, and other outlets. She is a former president of the Northwest Science Writers Association, a nonprofit supporting science communication.   Buy the Book Rebel Health: A Field Guide to the Patient-Led Revolution in Medical Care The Elliott Bay Book Company

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, founder and president of Gamoran Legal Consulting, Saul Gamoran, and founder of Earth Finance, and former member of the Washington state House and Senate, Reuven Carlyle.

Welcome to the first-ever LA Food Pod Holiday Party! Father Sal joins us to talk holiday plans and to try our hands at some festive mixology. We're making something called a Merry Margarita, brought to us by our friends at Hornitos. Will we like it? Will we hate it? Will you want to try making it for your holiday gathering? Listen to find out.  But that's not all. What is a holiday party without some sort of game? In a game that only makes sense in the context of the LA Food Podcast, Father Sal and I have combed the food lists of 2023 from the likes of the LA Times, Eater, The Infatuation and more, to draft which ones we thought did the best job. It's a deliciously convoluted white elephant of sorts, except instead of gifts, what you get to walk away with is our arbitrary ranking of a bunch of other arbitrary rankings. What's not to love? Helpful links: Eater Where to Eat https://www.eater.com/23506205/best-places-to-eat-restaurants-travel-2023 NYT Mexico City dishes https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/t-magazine/mexico-city-restaurants-food.html LAT Hall of Fame https://www.latimes.com/food/list/los-angeles-hall-of-fame-restaurants-modern-classics LA Taco pupusas https://lataco.com/best-pupusas-los-angeles LA Taco tacos https://lataco.com/69-best-tacos-in-la LA Times Italian Sandwiches https://www.latimes.com/food/list/best-italian-sub-sandwiches-los-angeles-guide Infatuation Celebrity-owned restaurants https://www.theinfatuation.com/los-angeles/guides/the-celebrity-owned-restaurant-power-rankings LAist Cheap Fast Eats Gardena https://laist.com/brief/news/food/deliciously-messy-teriyaki-burgers-a-bowling-alley-coffee-shop-and-secret-shu-its-cheap-fast-eats-gardena Kenji Lopez Alt for South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/2023/08/26/j-kenji-lopez-alts-favorite-south-end-restaurants/ NYT's LA 25 https://www.nytimes.com/article/best-restaurants-los-angeles.html --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thelafoodpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thelafoodpodcast/support

Have you ever wondered if there was another version of this country besides the one that was taught in schools? For many Americans, especially Black Americans, the answer is yes. The backstory that most of us were taught has been whitewashed and sugarcoated, its truths buried and untold, with many delivered halfway — if at all. Reality rewritten. In his new book, Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America, columnist and political commentator Michael Harriot presents a retelling of our nation's history that promises to set the record straight and showcase the perspectives and experiences of Black Americans. The prevailing narratives of history are rife with errors and oversights — after all, history books were written by those in power and from their perspective. In a society that so often devalues and erases the Black experience, Harriot's book challenges the dominant paradigm, with each page a choice to subvert it. In Black AF History, Michael Harriot presents a more complete version of American history. It centers Black Americans, combining provocative, witty storytelling with research based on both primary sources and the work of pioneering Black historians, scholars, and journalists. Harriot also enlightens readers with little-known stories: From the African-Americans who arrived before the Mayflower to the unenslavable bandit who inspired America's first police force. Harriot asserts that American history has been synonymous with white history. But in his book, history is Black AF. Michael Harriot is a journalist, author and cultural critic. His award-winning journalism has appeared in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, your television, and his mother's refrigerator. He earned the National Association of Black Journalists Awards for digital commentary, television news writing and magazine writing. He is the author of the book Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America and currently serves as a columnist for The Guardian and theGrio.com, where he covers the intersection of race, politics, and media … and animal attacks. Marcus Harrison Green is the publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and a columnist with the Seattle Times. Growing up in South Seattle, he experienced first-hand the impact of one-dimensional stories on marginalized communities, which taught him the value of authentic narratives. An award-winning storyteller, he was awarded the Seattle Human Rights Commissions' Individual Human Rights Leader Award for 2020, and named the inaugural James Baldwin Fellow by the Northwest African American Museum in 2022. Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America Third Place Books

“I'm sacred, the next person is sacred, and all life is sacred. That connection we have to each other and to all forms of life is sacred and must be cherished. In the same way, the relationship we have with land and the relationship the land has with us should be honored.” - Agaiotupu Viena (Samoan) Colonization has disrupted the identities of queer Indigenous Peoples, and because of this, they practice deep forms of care, often making chosen families as a built space of refuge. In Samoa, one way to describe a refuge is “paolo,” which means “to give shade” or “protect.” Care and shade are inherently a part of queer and trans Pacific Islander identity.  This summer, Seedcast producer Ha'aheo Auwae Dekker (Kanaka Maoli) was a guest at UTOPIA Washingtonʻs Hoʻolauleʻa, a community event dedicated to celebrating queer and trans Pacific Islanders, or QTPIs. In this episode, they share the sounds and music from the event along with wisdom from fellow QTPIs Ara Sifainu'ululei “Ara-Lei” Mahealani Yandall and Agaiotupu Viena. Both share about their experiences as fa'afafine, a gender identity embedded in the lands of Samoa, as well as the reason UTOPIA was created, and the unique role they play in caring for the wider Pasifika community and each other. Special thanks to Ara-Lei, Agaiotupu, and UTOPIA Washington for welcoming Seedcast into their Hoʻolauleʻa earlier this year and for sharing their time, stories, and energy with us. Thanks also to our Nia Tero colleagues Michael Painter, Nichlas Emmons, and Anne Quidez for their feedback on this episode. Host: Jessica Ramirez. Producer and Audio Mix: Ha'aheo Auwae-Dekker. Story Editor: Jenny Asarnow. Resources: UTOPIA Washington Enjoy the full video recording of the 2023 Hoʻolauleʻa showcased in this episode of SeedcastFollow UTOPIA Washington on Instagram  Learn more about UTOPIA in this South Seattle Emerald piece Seedcast is a production of Nia Tero, a global nonprofit which supports Indigenous land guardianship around the world through policy, partnership, and storytelling initiatives.Enjoy the Seedcast podcast on the Nia Tero website, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and your other favorite podcast platforms. Keep up with Seedcast on Instagram and use the hashtag #Seedcast.

Thursday, October 19 on Urban Forum Northwest:*Kevin P. Henry will serve as Moderator for The Seattle Association of Black Journalist presentation of Black Voices Matter:Beyond The Byline Saturday, October 21 4-5 pm at Seattle's Rainier Arts Center. Panelist for the discussion are Lola E. Peters, Editor-At-Large, South Seattle Emerald, Tat Bellamy-Walker, Communities Reporter-The Seattle Times, and Mayowa Aina, Special Projects Reporter KNKX.*Emile Pitre and Issac Alexander pay tribute to the late Emanuel J. Brisker Jr. (EJ) they will also comment on the impact the Black Student Union (BSU) had on the University of Washington in the late 1960's and 1970's when there was three times more African American students on the Seattle campus than in 2023.*Juan Peralez, President, UNIDOS-Snohomish County and Maralyn Chase, Communities Against Hate and Violence Extremism invites you to The Communities Against Hate Educational Forum, The Rising Radical Right's Threat To Our Safety And Democracy that will feature Renowned Author David Neiwert. The title of his presentation is "White Christian Nationalism or Cultural Diversity.Panelist/Speakers are:Jennifer Bereskin, SeaMonster Human Rights LeaderAneelah Afzali, Executive Director, MAPS-AMEN (American Muslim Empowerment Network)Reverend Dr. Kelle J. Brown, Senior Pastor, Plymouth ChurchThe event is Thursday, October 26 6:15-8:15 pm at the Everett Civic Auditorium.Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us for archived programs and relevant information at www.urbanforumnw.com. Like us on facebook. Twitter X at Eddie_Rye. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thursday, October 19 on Urban Forum Northwest: *Kevin P. Henry will serve as Moderator for The Seattle Association of Black Journalist presentation of Black Voices Matter:Beyond The Byline Saturday, October 21 4-5 pm at Seattle's Rainier Arts Center. Panelist for the discussion are Lola E. Peters, Editor-At-Large, South Seattle Emerald, Tat Bellamy-Walker, Communities Reporter-The Seattle Times, and Mayowa Aina, Special Projects Reporter KNKX. *Emile Pitre and Issac Alexander pay tribute to the late Emanuel J. Brisker Jr. (EJ) they will also comment on the impact the Black Student Union (BSU) had on the University of Washington in the late 1960's and 1970's when there was three times more African American students on the Seattle campus than in 2023. *Juan Peralez, President, UNIDOS-Snohomish County and Maralyn Chase, Communities Against Hate and Violence Extremism invites you to The Communities Against Hate Educational Forum, The Rising Radical Right's Threat To Our Safety And Democracy that will feature Renowned Author David Neiwert. The title of his presentation is "White Christian Nationalism or Cultural Diversity. Panelist/Speakers are: Jennifer Bereskin, SeaMonster Human Rights Leader Aneelah Afzali, Executive Director, MAPS-AMEN (American Muslim Empowerment Network) Reverend Dr. Kelle J. Brown, Senior Pastor, Plymouth Church The event is Thursday, October 26 6:15-8:15 pm at the Everett Civic Auditorium. Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us for archived programs and relevant information at www.urbanforumnw.com. Like us on facebook. Twitter X at Eddie_Rye.

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with Geekwire's Mike Lewis, South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, and KUOW's Joshua McNichols.

“There's no one right way to be Asian American you know? The diasporic experiences trying to grapple with culture, what to keep and carry, what to relate to - so very human and universal.”  Shin Yu is many things - poet and writer, but also podcast host and producer of Ten Thousand Things – a show for Seattle's NPR affiliate KUOW Public Radio. Shin Yu's also currently the Civic Poet of Seattle (2023-2024) and author of 11 books, including most recently Virga. She is the recipient of awards from the City of Seattle's Office of Arts & Culture, 4Culture, and The Awesome Foundation, as well as a 2022 Artist Trust Fellow and she was shortlisted in 2014 for a Stranger Genius Award in Literature. Shin Yu served as Poet Laureate for The City of Redmond from 2015-2017. Shin Yu's work has appeared in publications throughout the U.S., Japan, China, Taiwan, the UK, and Canada - in publications like Atlas Obscura, Tricycle Magazine, YES! Magazine, NYTimes, Zocalo Public Square, Seattle Met, ParentMap, Seattle's Child, International Examiner, and South Seattle Emerald, and many more. Sharon and Shin Yu related to each other in a ranging conversation about Chinese childhood and raising bi-racial children - both of which have formed her ideas about art, literature and storytelling. You'll appreciate her deep passion for connecting communities, connecting cultures, and drawing out beauty in the most unique ways  LEARN ABOUT SHIN YU shinyupai.com instagram.com/shinyupai PODCAST: kuow.org/podcasts/bluesuit BOOKS: goodreads.com/author/show/308679.Shin_Yu_Pai WORDS: joysauce.com/contributor/shin-yu-pai/ SUPPORT UPCOMING WORKS: “No Neutral” (poetry collection) -spdbooks.org/Products/9798988370109/no-neutral.aspx “Less Desolate” (haiku comics collection) - kickstarter.com/projects/1701310602/less-desolate “Small Doses of Awareness” (Microdosing Guide) - amazon.com/-/he/Shin-Yu-Pai/dp/1797227823 MENTIONS BOOK: Letters to a Young Poet (Rainer Maria Rilke): goodreads.com/work/quotes/1208289-briefe-an-einen-jungen-dichter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, political analyst and contributing columnist Joni Balter, and KUOW's David Hyde.

After spending the last four years finding new approaches to recording, NAVVI's first new music in four years displays the Seattle duo functioning in a new gear. The sleek aesthetic is still there, vocalist Kristin Henry still sounds like she's singing from a different spiritual realm. But the 2023 issue of NAVVI is even more atmospheric than they were when we last heard them. Henry and producer Brad Boettger give "Clemency" more room to breathe. "I wanted to lean into tenderness,” Henry recently told Jas Keimig of the South Seattle Emerald. This (comparatively) delicate approach to their work has made the next phase of NAVVI's body of work one to watch very closely. - Martin DouglasSupport the show: https://www.kexp.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Local journalism is an integral part of the community, and Seattle's media landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Those changes have consequences for news consumers. South Seattle Emerald founder Marcus Harrison Green and Vanishing Seattle founder Cynthia Brothers are here to talk about the state of journalism in Seattle.And we want to hear from you! Follow us on Instagram at SeattleNowPod, or leave us feedback online: https://www.kuow.org/feedback We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. You have the power! Make the show happen by making a gift to KUOW: https://www.kuow.org/donate/seattlenowJoin us for a live taping in August! The conversation is all about Seattle's music scene. Tickets and more info: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/kuows-seattle-now-live-casual-friday-music-in-seattle-fremont-abbey-tickets-574989819027?aff=oddtdtcreator

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They discuss Dave Reichert's entry into the Washington gubernatorial race, whether fireworks are worth their consequences, observations about the motivation for and role of endorsements in local elections by powerful media outlets, a school governance model that renders school boards powerless, and Seattle Times poll results that challenge their usual narratives on homelessness and public safety. 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, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times   “Fireworks cause at least 2 building fires in Seattle, dozens of brush fires” by David Hyde from KUOW   @waDNR on Twitter: “(deep sigh) All six wildfires in the Pacific Cascade Region this weekend were caused by fireworks.”   “Seattle's School Board Should Move Away from Student Outcomes Focused Governance” by Robert Cruickshank for The Stranger   “1 in 3 Seattle residents is considering leaving. Costs, crime are to blame” by Alison Saldanha from The Seattle Times   “Seattle police rated as ‘fair' or ‘poor' by most residents, poll finds” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   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. Today we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Welcome. [00:01:11] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back on, Crystal. [00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Very, very excited to have you back on. And as we start our news of the week, we see a new entry into the race for governor - Dave Reichert. What do you make of this? [00:01:27] Robert Cruickshank: It's not that surprising, given that he had been apparently poking around the 2016 governor's race, the 2020 governor's race - Republicans didn't really have a leading candidate yet. I think corporate Democrat Mark Mullet was hoping he could de facto become the mainstream Republican candidate. But Reichert, I think, saw an opportunity here, realizing that the Republican candidates who have announced - people like Semi Bird or Raul Garcia - are much further to the right. Reichert himself has a very right wing record in Congress, of course, but he has 20+ years of presenting himself to the people of Western Washington, in particular, as someone who's more mainstream. And I think he saw his opportunity with Inslee retiring, an open seat. And open seat elections for governor in Washington - they're pretty rare these days - we've only had two this century. The first in 2004 was decided by 130 votes. And then in 2012, Inslee beat Rob McKenna, but it was pretty close - I think 51-49%. So Reichert saw his moment - I'm sure he had Republican leaders in the Legislature, corporate backers whispering in his ear, saying - Dude, we need you - there's no way we win otherwise. And even with Reichert in the race, it's still a pretty uphill climb for him, but he's going to have a ton of money and backing behind him for this. [00:02:39] Crystal Fincher: He is going to have a ton of money and backing behind him, and I do think that it was really an opening. And I think the opening came because of how extreme the Republican candidates are. The leading candidate right now is endorsed by Joe Kent, notoriously so extreme that he lost a traditionally Republican district to a Democrat in Congress - one of the biggest upsets in the country - because he is unhinged. And we're seeing candidates like that bubble up - now it's a reflection of how extreme the base has actually become. So I'm very curious to see what the reaction from the base to Dave Reichert is, because what - the people who were certainly encouraging him to run are looking for a more moderate presence, someone who is not presenting themselves as extremely as some of the other candidates are. But are they going to get any traction in a crowded primary where there are other alternatives that seem closer to that base? While at the same time, on the other side, I think Mark Mullet was really hoping to be able to capture moderate Republican votes - and has basically legislated as a moderate Republican, but still calls himself a Democrat because Republicans as a party have moved further to the right. But his policy certainly has not been consistent with Democrats in the Legislature or in the base. And so the concerning thing about him, from more progressive people, was that - Okay, if he makes it through against Bob Ferguson to the general election or against Hilary Franz in the general election, that he could siphon some Democratic votes for sure. But also pick up a ton of Republican votes, if Republicans don't feel like - Hey, we don't have one of our people in the general, but this guy is not as much of a Democrat as these other ones. That's a scary proposition in that situation. This really flips that and adds a whole new dimension to this race. So I'm curious - imagining what conversations are like in his camp - and what they're really considering as the impact on their campaigns and the path forward for each of them. [00:04:43] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, Mullet's team is, I think, trying to win over that sort of centrist Democratic vote. The thing is - it's just not that extensive - there's not very many of them. If you're a Democrat who is somewhat cranky with the status quo, you're not that numerous. Ferguson has won three statewide elections, he's got a strong base of support in King County, and will do well outside of King County as well. Mullet has, I think, really no path at this point. Especially as Reichert left Congress in 2018, so that means he avoided having to be there during both of Trump's impeachments. He avoided having to be there on the insurrection on January 6, 2021. So he is a bit of a relic from the past in many respects. But one of the things is he didn't have to go on record around some of these things and he'll try to play that up. But I think Bob Ferguson, who has not been running the greatest campaign - we should say, so far - running a front runner campaign, but really light on issues. He did hit pretty hard at Reichert - and correctly so - when he pointed out Reichert is a really right wing voting record on abortion rights in particular. And that matters here in Washington state, because the governor appoints Supreme Court justices in Washington state. And if you have a right wing governor who's trying to prove his anti-abortion cred to a suspicious base - he gets into office somehow - then I think we're going to have a real problem on the Washington Supreme Court. And we've seen what happens when you don't take Supreme Court nominations seriously. A lot of people, 2016, thought - Oh, they will never actually overturn Roe vs. Wade. Well, they did it. And you'll hear conversations here in Washington in 2024 saying - Oh, Reichert may be anti-abortion, he's got an anti-abortion record, but it's so safe here in Washington state, nothing could happen to it. I think we should know by now that anyone saying that is just deluded and has no real conception of the risk that a right wing anti-abortion candidate poses to abortion rights. [00:06:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and that's such an important point. And lots of people think it's safe - it is only safe to the degree that we actively protect it. It is only safe because there have been appointments of our State Supreme Court justices - that follow the law, follow the precedent, and understand that that's critical for personal freedom and autonomy. And the blueprint for how this works, we saw with Trump. Yeah, parrot that - Oh, I'll protect women's rights. Oh, it's settled law. We're not going to mess with it. Meanwhile, just appoint all the judges to do that work for you. The base knows that's how it works on that side - they play along - Yeah, he'll say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Don't worry about it. We know he's going to appoint these judges. That's where really the fight for rights gets usurped, where things that are not publicly popular get entrenched, and get implemented. So it just is a big concern in terms of that. And he gets credit for being a moderate Republican based off of really him not being there while more extreme Republicans were acting more extreme. I don't know that it's a given that he's not that extreme. I'm going to be really curious, especially through campaign stops as he hears the base demand more from him. Does his rhetoric change? Does it become more extreme for that party's base of today, which is different? I'm really curious to see how that race unfolds. [00:08:05] Robert Cruickshank: Reichert will have to campaign with Trump, either literally or figuratively. Trump will be on the same ballot and his rabid fan base, which is of course now the base of the entire Republican party, will be eager for restoration to power of Trump. And they're going to want to know where Reichert stands on that. And there's no way he actually gets around that. Now this is where - again, Ferguson has, I think, a gift here. He can run against an actual right wing Republican. But Ferguson's also going to have to learn the lessons of 2016, which is that you don't win solely by running against a right wing Republican. You have to have your own agenda that says - here's what I'm going to do differently as governor. Here's what I'm going to do to solve your problems. We haven't seen that from Ferguson so far. He seems content to run a traditional front runner campaign - where he has a poll lead, he touts his endorsements - but no real bold narrative to try to inspire people. He's going to have to do that. Because the lesson we learned in 2016 from Hillary's campaign was she didn't have that at all - she also ran a classic front runner campaign and narrowly lost. You have to have something that excites people about you yourself. Democrats have, for as long as I've been alive, tried to defeat the far right by pointing out how awful they are - sometimes works, but more often than not, it fails. Because the voters need to see from Democratic candidates those solutions to what they want. [00:09:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, could not agree more - and we will keep our eye on that race. Also this week, we had the July 4th Independence Day holiday. With that came fireworks celebrations - big publicly-funded fireworks celebrations from cities and counties. But also, just a ton of personal firework activity, although it is banned in several cities and counties around the state - that really doesn't seem to be consequential at all. What do you think about the use of fireworks, and is it worth the risk that they present now? [00:10:02] Robert Cruickshank: I don't know about you, but I remember - as a kid in Southern California - looking forward to the Fourth and lighting up the fireworks in the street and you think not much of it. You think about personal safety - Don't blow off your hand, kid. But I think what we're seeing here is there's a much larger policy problem with these personal fireworks. People talk about the way in which they cause post-traumatic stress revival in combat veterans, people worried about their kids and pets - that all matters. There's an even bigger problem though with the effect on our climate and on air. I think it was the Washington Department of Natural Resources pointed out that all six of the wildfires currently burning in Washington state were caused by fireworks. And Crystal, you've posted in the last couple of days on social media great before-and-after shots from downtown Tacoma - crystal clear blue sky shot of Mount Rainier, and then the day after the Fourth obscured by all the smoke. And we all woke up yesterday to all this smoke, which was caused in one part or another by people lighting off fireworks - whether it's just the actual smoke from the fireworks themselves or the wildfire smoke that it caused. And I think we have to look really seriously at whether, especially in a climate crisis, we want to be doing this. Our forests in Western Washington are especially dry this year. You go to campgrounds and they will soon, if they're not already, be under a burn ban - and rangers will come and enforce that. But a lot of cities like Seattle have fireworks bans - they're unenforced. And I remember - I think it was in 2011, I was working with Mike McGinn when he was mayor - I used to sit in occasionally on the meetings he had with SPD command staff. And I remember - I think it was July 4th, 2011 - when just fireworks went off all night and we just got flooded in the mayor's office with complaints - This is illegal, mayor, you should be enforcing it. And so the next day happened to be a command staff. And so I went in to help compose our response from the mayor's office and McGinn asked the commanders - What do we do about this? And the SPD brass all said - Yeah, it's illegal, but we have so many other things we're dealing with on the Fourth. We have to make sure that people aren't driving drunk, we're worried about people congregating in big crowds and causing problems, worried about gun violence. And Mr. Mayor, we can't respond to all of these calls. And people know that. Everyone knows that the prohibition on fireworks is never enforced. So we have to figure out what we're going to do about this. I don't think we want cops rolling up and down every street on the night of the Fourth. But is there some way we can more effectively limit the sale and use of fireworks? Because I think this is a clear climate problem. And it's not just the risk of someone blowing off a hand, which is bad enough. Now it's a risk to all of us and our air quality and our lungs. We don't want yet another smoke-filled summer just because people shot off fireworks unsafely. [00:12:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I'm someone like you - especially growing up, when I was young in Southern California - loved fireworks. I loved fireworks here, I loved fireworks displays. There was - probably about 10 years ago, now 15 years ago - where it was similar kind of to the Blue Angels conversation - Yeah, I may enjoy it, but it does have negative impacts on others. Pets are freaked out, it's a nightmare to manage pets with the things. And people - because we have sent so many people to war, there are a lot of people dealing with PTSD and complex issues surrounding things that sound like very large explosions, especially when they're unplanned. And I don't know what things are like where you're at, but where I'm at in South King County, fireworks start long before the Fourth and they last long after the Fourth. And they're random. It just can sound like a random - six o'clock this morning - sounded like a random explosion happening - Did a bomb just go off? No, it's fireworks. And so they do just, themselves, have a lot of challenges. But they're compounding other huge problems that we're dealing with. You talked about the wildfire smoke that we're already dealing with - we're adding smoke on top of smoke in this situation, when we've learned so much more about how important air quality is to health. We're adding fires on top of fires, when we have our fire departments and our state fire officials trying to fight so many fires already. Skamania County residents were dealing with a water shortage because so much water was being used to fight fires. Is it really worth jeopardizing people's access to water here in Washington state? Is it really worth the days - plural - of horrible air quality directly attributed to that? And on days like today, and this week, when it's really hot out - Okay, we are a state that has very low rates of air conditioning inside, people have to go outside to keep from baking while they're in the house inside and now they've got to breathe dangerous air. I don't know that the cost is worth it. But also - one, you'd be surprised how many people who are progressive in many ways would like cops driving down every street enforcing fireworks bans. But I think what we've learned from all of these bans is that if the supply issue isn't addressed, I don't know that we get beyond this problem. And we've got to figure out a better way, just community-wise, to work on this. It feels like the cat is so far out of the bag. It feels like, whether it's cars or guns or other things that people just feel such an emotional attachment, and some ties to patriotism - which, if your patriotism relies on fireworks, it's not patriotism. But it's just a big challenge. I certainly am so tired of fireworks at this point in time, but I'm not sure what an effective path forward is. [00:15:39] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and one thing to note is that the sale of fireworks is banned in much of Western Washington, but one notable exception is tribal lands. And I think people have the experience of driving through tribal lands and seeing these enormous stands where fireworks go on sale two weeks before the Fourth. And Native Americans have, as we all know, been denied their rights for so long, you don't want to come in and try to pass some ban. At the same time, I think it's worth having some conversation with those communities and say - What can we do about this? How can we find a way to bring down the number that are being sold and really try to crack down on the abuse of privately owned fireworks? [00:16:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. You will not find me advocating for telling tribal communities what to do, sovereign governments what to do. But I do think there is a place for conversation among everyone to try and figure out how can we better manage this, at least. Also want to talk about some races going on right now. We are coming up on the primary election, which will be on August 1st. We're seeing some endorsements begin to trickle out from a number of outlets. Are there any endorsements that have caught your eye to this point? [00:16:54] Robert Cruickshank: There's one that came out yesterday, which was completely unsurprising - but still notable, I think - which is The Seattle Times not really endorsing Sofia Aragon for King County Council, but really endorsing against Teresa Mosqueda, who they just seem to loathe. And reading their editorial yesterday, the thing to know is that they don't tell you precisely why they loathe Teresa. They talk about - Oh, defunding police, she doesn't take public safety seriously - none of which is true. The real reason they don't like her is because she's incredibly effective at standing up for working people, standing up for their unions, and especially taxing big corporations. JumpStart, the tax on big corporations here in Seattle, would not have happened without Teresa Mosqueda's leadership. The Times is so anti-tax and wants to cut taxes on big corporations - that's what they really care about. And one of the reasons why this endorsement matters is because it's a tell - it shows what's really going on when The Times makes their endorsements this year. And you see the pattern across these races in Seattle City Council, they'll say - Oh, we're endorsing this person because they sound good and they have experience, and they're going to crack down on public safety, and they're going to outlaw drug use, and resume the War on Drugs - that's their surface level messaging, because they know that's what resonates with their section of the electorate. But the truth here is they want a city council that will repeal the JumpStart Tax. They want a city council that will either slow walk, or undermine, or not even do a capital gains tax - that is what the Blethen family's cared about, above all else - is taxes. And they're furious that someone like Teresa Mosqueda was able to finally get the JumpStart Tax through, and they want to see her defeated because they don't want her going on the King County Council and continuing her successful advocacy for taxing the rich and big corporations. So I think it's important to read Times endorsements with that lens in mind. [00:18:44] Crystal Fincher: The corporate money in Seattle politics, I think, is pretty safe to say that it's primarily motivated by anti-tax sentiments. We have talked for years and years about Washington state, Seattle included, having the most regressive tax system in the country - meaning that the people at the bottom spend much more of their money on taxes than the people at the top. We have no income tax, and we're light on a lot of other taxes for the most wealthy individuals and businesses here in the state. They want to maintain that. They love the status quo. Now everyone else is suffering under it - we've seen how that impacts homelessness, poverty, education, other services, seniors - everything else is starved because these people want to maintain their wealth and profits to the detriment of the rest of the community. So when we hear these things and when you hear these wedge issues, the cruelty sometimes that comes to those conversations is absolutely there - but that corporate money really is motivated by who's going to ensure that we're not going to pay more taxes. And so what I think we've increasingly seen, and I'm definitely noticing this cycle, is that these candidates really are not on record about much. And when you read this endorsements, they don't point to - hardly any specifics - you see things like, They seem like they can bring people together. They have a perspective that can reach lots of people. But what are the details? What have they done? And usually that's not included in these endorsements. And so what is it really about? Not what they're talking about in that article - it's about the taxes. And Teresa Mosqueda has been so extremely effective at figuring out what the community needs, responding to what the community actually desires, and putting together a coalition and a revenue package that addresses the most critical needs that we have in the City. It was extremely popular - so popular that it passed and has been really resilient. People not only liked it before passage, they love it now. And on top of that, it was put together so well and so soundly that the JumpStart Tax bailed us out of an economic shortfall. The JumpStart Tax prevented austerity in the City of Seattle. Bruce Harrell used JumpStart money to help stabilize a lot of his priorities. This has been very helpful to everyone with all interests, because it was there to backstop the volatility that comes with not having more stable progressive revenue. So it is really disappointing to see that. And it feels like they're talking out of two sides of their mouth because they have benefited from that tax. But it's a tax, so it must be bad. And Teresa Mosqueda understands budgets - she understands where to find money, where money needs to be invested to get the biggest benefit - and is looking to take that to the King County Council, which it's desperately needed there. I don't know if many people pay attention to how opaque the King County budget is, but it is really hard for - even legislators - coming out there to understand. And for the public to engage with, it's really difficult. And Teresa Mosqueda has proven that that's her forte, that she can bring more transparency and accountability to the tax money that's being spent - because I do think there are legitimate questions about - Where is this money being spent? How is it being spent? How does this compare to other times? And I think she's in a unique position to do that. It's just wild to see someone do something that a lot of people thought was impossible, and do it so successfully that it's literally benefited everyone in the City, and have that just not be acknowledged. [00:22:31] Robert Cruickshank: Your point about what corporate money really wants is anti-tax policy - I know that the Seattle Chamber of Commerce was asking city council candidates this year a question that basically went - Do you agree that we should be wisely spending City money and look to cut spending before we raise taxes elsewhere? It's a very leading question that clearly states their goal. They want to roll back as much of JumpStart as they can. And what they're seeing with JumpStart, as well is the state capital gains tax - it's popular. Not only is it effective at raising money, it raises more money than people thought it would. There's a lot of money to be gained through taxing corporations, through taxing the capital gains of wealthy people. It's popular, it works. Teresa Mosqueda could bring that to King County, where there's a huge crisis with transit - we're losing routes, having a hard time retaining operators, need to pay them better, give them better benefits, put more buses out there. That all costs money. And King County usually goes to property taxes or sales taxes to fund transit. Well, put Teresa Mosqueda on that council and you could see something much more progressive in terms of revenue for our transit system - that sends shivers down the spines of every Seattle Times editorial board member, and that's why you saw this absurd attack on Mosqueda in their editorial yesterday. [00:23:51] Crystal Fincher: What do you think about the role of endorsements - in Seattle, particularly - so far? [00:23:58] Robert Cruickshank: It's interesting - I've been talking to a few candidates about this. And a couple candidates - some who have just not really done the political thing before, but who have paid attention to politics. Like most of us who are progressive - we don't know much about a candidate or a race - we open The Stranger and look at their endorsements. I first moved here in 2001. I had no idea about anything related to local politics, but I read The Stranger and I'm - Okay, yeah, this makes sense. And ever since, that's usually how I voted until I started paying close attention to things myself. But talking to candidates, and some of these folks are - Gosh, you know, if I don't get a Stranger endorsement, I'm sunk. My campaign's over. And I try and say - No, that's not true at all - I've worked with candidates, local, state, federal candidates around the country who lose a key endorsement and go on to win anyway because they run a great campaign that gets their message out to voters and talks about things that people really care about. But I think here in Seattle, we've gotten to a place where - even though I strongly agree with The Stranger endorsements 9 times out of 10 - I think these newspaper endorsements - The Stranger, The Times, in particular - have become too influential. And I don't think this is necessarily the fault of the papers themselves. Newspapers do endorsements all the time around the country. And there are other media outlets here in Seattle that do endorsements - South Seattle Emerald does, PubliCola, Urbanist. But it's these two in particular, Stranger and Times, have outsized influence. And I think we, who are progressive activists, voters, people who - I don't know about you, but I'm the type where family and friends say - Robert, I don't know how to vote on this. What should I do? We need to start doing a better job steering people towards other sources of information, in addition to these newspaper endorsements. One of the reasons being they're small-d undemocratic - you can have candidates that have done great work in their community, who've built up a strong network of support, who've really gone out there and hustled to build grassroots backing, who are running a progressive campaign. And if they don't have a great day in an interview, or they aren't buddies with the Blethens - they don't get an endorsement and their campaign's sunk. You can get around that. And I think we, who are the progressive activists, need to do a bit better job of helping campaigns and helping inform voters how to run smart campaigns, how to get messages out there, and what those messages are. Because there are great candidates who are going to be overlooked in some of these endorsements. And though, again, I'm assuming I'll agree with 9 out of the 10 endorsements that we see in The Stranger when they come out later this month, I still want to see voters look to other sources as well. And I want campaigns to know that they can still win, even if they don't get this or that endorsement. We're finishing up our endorsement process at the Sierra Club - I want people to look at Sierra Club endorsements and think that they matter, and I think they do. But I also want to be part of a campaign - I wouldn't want anyone to look at the endorsements we're doing and have that be the final word. It all needs to be part of building a movement that's grassroots in nature behind campaigns, rather than having people who we might agree with - or not agree with, in the case of The Times - anointing winners and losers. I don't think that's healthy for a progressive movement. [00:26:58] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. And I think endorsements are useful as a piece of information as a data point, not as the determining factor. And it is bad for small-d democracy. To your point, it's not necessarily the fault of the papers. But like with The Stranger - The Stranger is batting a thousand in its endorsed candidates getting through the primary. So basically, if you're a progressive candidate and you don't get The Stranger endorsement in your primary, it's bleak. It is that bleak at this point in time. I think part of it is due to us losing so many reporters at so many other outlets, the decline of local media. We used to have a ton of papers in South King County - now we have a few, and those few are dramatically understaffed. And that's the case throughout the City. We used to have more hyperlocal blogs even in the City than we do today - even that is hard. The revenue needs, it's harder to support yourself as an independent journalist, it's harder for newsrooms to afford to put the amount of reporters on things. And I think what I've seen is there's been a decline in the amount of political reporters. There's been a decline in the amount of coverage overall. And that coverage used to do a better job of informing the editorial policies and the endorsements. Hard to ignore something that was covered on the hard side of your paper that was reported and just not address it, or gloss over it, or not acknowledge it's a problem. That's much easier to do when you just aren't able to cover the things, but the coverage isn't happening. So you get these really ideologically focused endorsements - it's not like they weren't ideological before, but now there's not even reporting to back that up in so many situations. And really one of the reasons why I started moderating debates was because I just want those endorsements to reflect who those candidates really are. I want voters to understand what the candidates really believe, what they're on record voting for, what they're on record doing. Because so many times these days, these endorsements happen that don't talk about anything that is on the record. People read that, they believe it because it's coming from a trusted paper. Then they get into office and govern consistently with their record and people have the surprise Pikachu face like - I never knew this was going to happen. When it's just like - if endorsements and editorial boards would have done a better job of making sure that endorsement reflected who that candidate was, we wouldn't be in this situation. And so I just think it's a disservice, really, to voters to not have who a candidate is and what they've actually done - good and bad, wherever that falls. Just have it be based in reality, and be based on what they've said and what they've done. And that just seems to be playing less of a role in some of these major endorsements, understandably, because there isn't a lot of coverage there. You have people doing their best to interview people in these situations, but it's a big challenge. [00:29:56] Robert Cruickshank: We also need to draw distinctions between The Stranger and The Times - not just on ideology, but an approach. Like at least at The Stranger, you've got the reporters themselves, comprising their Election Control Board, doing the interviews themselves. And those interviews are tough - tough in a good way. They ask really good hard-hitting, probing questions and they follow up with hard-hitting probing responses - they don't let people wiggle out of something. They're coming in there with some background, they've done research there, and they're coming at it trying to get a sense of who's going to be the most progressive, who's going to fight for us, who's going to be a champion. I like that and I respect that - that's good. The Times is coming in there with a clear bent and an agenda - 9 times out of 10, they know who their candidate is going to be well in advance. And they're just looking for things in the endorsement interview at The Times that they can quote in the editorial, or they want to get the candidate they really don't like and oppose to say something in the interview they can quote from and bash them over the head with it in the editorial of the other person. So I think those are fundamental differences there. But I think you said, as usual, a lot of really good things here - one of which is the lack of reporting. And I think we've seen local reporting just fall apart, not just in Seattle, but it's even worse once you get outside Seattle. These smaller towns like Burien or Bothell or Kent or Federal Way or whatever it is, the local coverage is almost non-existent. Or when it does exist, it comes from the right wing. And that's not helpful either when there are huge populations in these cities that are progressive and want a progressive solution. And so I think the lack of reporting on a day-to-day basis really just undermines a lot of our ability to run the democracy the way we want to. I also want to close by saying I think it's a little bit incumbent on candidates and campaigns and consultants themselves to do a better job running smart campaigns. I think here in Seattle, in particular, some folks have become a little too reliant on getting a Stranger endorsement - counting on that to get them through the primary, counting on that to get them through a general election. Yeah, if you get that endorsement, clearly it's worth a lot. It's valuable. I don't know that Mike McGinn would have been mayor without getting The Stranger in 2009, so that worked out. But I think at the same time, you have to run a smart campaign - McGinn ran a really good campaign in 2009. Stranger endorsement might get you through the primary - doesn't always get you through the general election. You have to have a really sharp ability to get your message out there, mobilize your voters, and talk about things that voters care about in a progressive way. I worry that with the dominance of just a couple endorsement sources, that people aren't running as insightful or smart campaigns as they might in other parts of the country. [00:32:25] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. I also want to talk about a piece about Seattle Public Schools in The Stranger this week by none other than Robert Cruickshank. [00:32:38] Robert Cruickshank: It comes back to this question of local reporting. And I was looking at some articles a few months ago about the strike that happened at Seattle Public Schools in 2015 - and just the amount of coverage from so many different reporters and so many different outlets, compared to what we have today, was striking. There's very little coverage now happening in the media about what's going on at Seattle Public Schools. The Times will cover it occasionally, but there's a bent to it. The Stranger rarely - and again, they don't have the resources they need to cover everything they want to cover. It's not their fault. It's - the ecosystem is eroded by corporations and private equity and all of that. But what I wanted to draw attention to is this issue around how the schools are governed. And there is an effort out there, funded by the Gates Foundation through something called the Council for Great City Schools, to impose a model of governance on the school board and the school district that is rooted in corporations and nonprofit governance - where a school board is really the school district's version of the city council, or the legislature, or Congress, right? That's how it works today and how it should work - they're the elected representatives of the democracy to make sure that everything's going properly, that if there's a problem the board can step in and fix it, to hold the bureaucracy accountable. Bureaucrats hate that, and so do the corporate education reformers at the Gates Foundation - they've always been trying to find ways to limit or eliminate the public's oversight and influence in operations of the school district. And so what they've come up with lately is this thing called Student Outcome Focused Governance, which sounds great - we all want good student outcomes. But in practice, what it means is this tendency - which already existed - to have the board do less and less work and have less and less oversight over district operations. It now locks the board into a really rigid system where the board essentially becomes rubber stamps. The idea is that they give goals to the superintendent - we want a certain amount of third graders to score well on a test. And guardrails - Oh well, you agree you're not going to violate community norms by doing this. It's all really vague stuff, but there's no enforcement mechanism. And ultimately, what happens is that when a school community comes to the board saying - We have a problem here. You're cutting our jazz program at Washington Middle School - which is nearly a third Black students at Washington Middle School. Franklin High School - You're eliminating our mock trial program - the student body at Franklin, about a third Black. A year ago, the district fired the principal at Cleveland High School, who had done a great job hiring a faculty that looked like the diverse community that attends Cleveland, that had done a great job raising graduation rates, especially among Black students. And they fired her because she violated a district mandate to hide the stats on COVID cases. And so the community - again, a lot of Black families show up at the school board saying - Oh my God, this is terrible, you need to intervene. And the board in all these cases says - No, we're not going to do anything. And part of the reason they say no is they say - Well, we've decided we're stepping back from operations. We're not going to interfere with what the superintendent is doing. And this new model of Student Outcome Focused Governance, where we hand over more and more power and policy to the superintendent, is part of that push. And so it's just adopting this corporate mindset where your board of directors just rubber stamps everything and lets the CEO do what they want - that's not how a school district is supposed to operate. And the nice thing about Seattle is we're not a place where we have Moms for Liberty showing up at the school board meetings wanting to ban books. Now, that is a problem in Kent and a problem in other places - you have to figure out how you manage that democratically. But here in Seattle, we need a board that is engaged - especially with $130 million budget deficit, especially with closing schools. And we're going to see at tonight's board meeting, some of this play out - where they're reviewing their goals and seeing that actually these goals they set out - of third graders achieving certain test score proficiency - aren't being met. In fact, they're pretty far from being met. And so the question is - All right, what are you going to do, board? Are you actually going to intervene on any of this, or are you just going to let it go? And the last thing I want to mention on this front is the board is looking at, the district really, is looking at closing schools. They might announce this fall maybe as many as 20 schools they want to close, which will be a huge story, a bomb going off in communities when their core of their neighborhood, their school is closed. And people have been asking - Well, what's the board going to do to have public input? The superintendent's plan is to have a couple of public meetings in August, when people are either physically not here or are checked out for other reasons - they're not engaged in their school community - to have this conversation. And is the board going to do anything about that? Are they going to actually bring in the voices of the communities that are going to be most affected and impacted? Or are they just going to say - Eh, we've ceded all that power. We don't really want to do that work. We're just going to sit here and rubber stamp what the administration says. These are fundamental questions about community involvement and governance, small-d democracy - and the board is going off in the wrong direction with very little oversight from the public and certainly not from the media. [00:37:30] Crystal Fincher: I'm really glad you wrote that because it's such a big problem. And what was striking to me was a couple of things - as you mentioned, just how frequently the voices of parents and students have just been ignored. Where problems - yes, they exist, yes, it's bad, but it's not our place to intervene, basically. And if it's not their place, then what are they doing? It just doesn't seem to make much sense. And in the context of this current election, where we have school board candidates talking about what they want to do, what their goals are, how things would change - that seems like that would be hard to do under this current structure. It seems like - in order to make any kind of progress, to have anything that they're talking about land in the realm of possibility - we have to change this way of doing things first. So it's a bleak situation currently, but it can be changed. And there just needs to be a focus. And I thank you for writing that to help provide that focus - on everyone saying - Wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense. And really just another thing that is bad for public governance. [00:38:36] Robert Cruickshank: One of the reasons I wrote it is these are conversations happening among a lot of different parents in Seattle that - there's a whole network of people who are engaged and talking with each other about these concerns and growing increasingly frustrated that they're just not getting media coverage. And this is where I point out - yeah, there's so fewer reporters covering the schools these days. As we said, even earlier in this podcast, while we think it's bad in Seattle, it's so much worse once you get just a couple of miles outside of the City, where there are Moms for Liberty people out there pushing really hard to ban books, to attack trans kids, take down Pride flags. And that occasionally gets covered when it gets bad enough, but the constant drumbeat going on in some of these smaller school districts is just not getting the attention it needs to and it's a problem. [00:39:26] Crystal Fincher: It's a big problem - in Kent, in Highline School District, in Tacoma. It is in our suburbs. And because it isn't getting much pressure and because information is so siloed, we're seeing alliances form - some people who endorse Democratic candidates falling into this trap and then just spiraling from there. And it's a big challenge, but we won't be able to get on top of it without taking action here. And by having those districts that aren't being afflicted with that set an example, policy-wise, for other districts. Seattle is in such a unique position, as a larger city with a progressive population, to be able to do that. And policies like this - you could almost say they were designed to prevent that, that's how it works on the ground. But it absolutely needs to be changed. Now I also want to talk about some polling that we saw reported in The Seattle Times this week, that may have been surprising to some Seattle Times readers if they read past the headline. What did you see here? [00:40:32] Robert Cruickshank: There's some fascinating results, including even in today's Times, where - just starting with the one that appeared today - the headline, "1 in 3 Seattle residents thinking about leaving the City." Okay - another "Seattle is Dying" narrative? Well, you read the actual article and look at the polling results - you see that about 30% of those people saying they want to leave are worried about housing costs - turns out they're renters who love Seattle, they feel safe here, they like the City a lot and they don't want to leave. But they feel like they're being priced out, so they're looking - Maybe I move to Tacoma, maybe I move to Montana, maybe I move to Texas - but they don't want to. Then there's another third of those people who are looking at leaving Seattle, who are the ones who say they're concerned about public safety - turns out, overwhelmingly, homeowners making more than $250,000 a year as a household - these are people who have no actual public safety worries. We have issues in Seattle, but this is a very, very safe city by any stretch of the imagination. And yet these are the people who have the most privilege, the most money and wealth in the City, who are being spooked by the coverage they're reading in The Times and thinking - Oh gosh, maybe I need to move out of here, it's become unsafe. No, it's not. But it's interesting to see who gets attention and who doesn't. The Times caters to that wealthy homeowner and stokes their fears about public safety. While the renter - usually younger, usually more progressive - The Times actually attacks what they need. The Times is notorious for opposing housing bills. The missing middle bill, the Times tried to kill earlier this year from the editorial side. So it's interesting to see these results even pop up in The Times' own reporting. Earlier this week, they had something on public safety and police - shouldn't surprise any progressive that "defund the police" is now unpopular with pretty much most of the electorate. But what remains highly popular across the board - and this shows up in the Chamber's own polling as well - is standing up alternatives to police. That has huge support. People get it - that we need an alternative to sending an officer with a gun to a lot of these calls. We need to preserve that for violent crime or theft in progress - the things that you might want a cop for. Someone in mental health crisis needs a mental health counselor, not a cop. Suspicious person walking down the street - come on, someone else can respond to that who's not going to escalate that with a gun. And the public gets that. And yet that's not reflected in The Times editorializing. And as we know, City Hall, especially the mayor's office, really dragged its feet on setting up alternatives to policing, even though the public is making it clear in these polls that they want that. [00:43:07] Crystal Fincher: And notable that - even on this program before - Monisha Harrell, former Senior Deputy Mayor, really wanted to stand those up. And unfortunately, she's not going to be with the administration much longer. And even in this and this public safety poll - it is so interesting how people view polls, approach polls, and how media entities are now using polls. One - now, you want to view the entire poll. And what we've seen increasingly from outlets, including The Seattle Times, is the kind of dripping of information. And okay, you drip information - still talk about your methodology, but they seem to be like - Oh, it's all about talking about this - so that's definitely one thing to note. I'm looking at the headlines on some of these things, which are curious. But when you look at the actual results - my goodness, when asked the question - How would you rate the job the Seattle police are doing in the City? - 60% of residents say it's not good. The choices are excellent, good, fair, and poor - 40% say fair, 20% say poor. If you have 60% of residents in your city saying you're not doing a good job - for everyone else, that gets breathless headlines from The Times saying that they're in trouble, maybe they're on their way out, but here it just seems to not factor into the narrative. And not that The Times is going to say - Okay well, disband - that's not going to happen. But it can inform questions - like in the last municipal elections, we had a number of candidates running on police reform. Now, some with a more cynical view - myself included - when they saw, say, mailers from Sara Nelson saying that she was going to focus on police reform, didn't really believe that. But hey, everyone gets elected, they have a chance. Now, I don't know what Sara Nelson has done in this time on the council about police reform, but that seems to be the thing - just promise it and never get to it. Or that's basically the - You know, hey, we don't need to do any extreme stuff, but things do need to get better. Once again, if you don't talk about what those things are, what your actual plans are, it really commits you to nothing. And surprise, what we have gotten there is nothing - when the public is really saying - Please do something and we're getting increasingly dissatisfied by not doing something. You talked about how people desperately want alternatives to policing. There are few policy proposals in any issue area that are as popular as that. And so my goodness, stand that up, get the job done. And what this could really spur is an examination of why, when it's so popular, it's not happening and the mayor's office is dragging its feet. It's funded by the Seattle City Council, this is really in the mayor's lap. Why isn't this happening? But there just seems to be no curiosity here. And this, to me, is interesting in just how campaigns use polling. A lot of times it's not for horse race stuff - it's to inform where people are at on issues, how to bridge the gap between where people are at and where you are as a candidate, and where you'd like them to be. It's not a - Well, this is where people are at and this is all we can do about it. It's a piece of information, it's not a determining factor for what will happen. And we see that all the time, because polls move and polls change. And the more you talk about an issue, you see the numbers move on it. So it's not set in stone, but it is a piece of information and it just feels like we aren't using that information effectively. [00:46:30] Robert Cruickshank: I think you can look at some of the progressive campaigns in Seattle that are being run this year, and I'm not sure in some cases what their overall strategy is. Because there's a clear path here - tax the rich, stand up alternatives to policing. And quickly get people housed without sweeping them, without being violent and destructive, but get our homeless neighbors into housing that is good and housing they want to be in - with a door that locks, for example. That's popular. All those things are super popular and they probably can run on that. And then The Seattle Times candidates are going to have a hard time saying - Oh yeah, me too - because their backers don't want that. But these polls are really fascinating because of what they show, and how they not just complicate but openly challenge the narrative that we're seeing from The Times, from the Chamber, and from some of these candidates, people like Sara Nelson and others. This is not a right-wing city. This is a city that sees some problems out there and wants them solved. And wants progressive solutions to them, as long as progressives are able to truly offer them. [00:47:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And shows that everyone across the board is concerned about these problems. There's this narrative that progressives just don't care about crime. Statistically, we're victims more than anyone else. We're victims of this stuff. We are suffering from it - we don't want it, it's unacceptable. What is infuriating is seeing so much money and time devoted to things that have proven not to solve this and being told - But we don't have the money or resources to actually do the things that will. Well, if you would just stop wasting them on the things that won't - how many headlines do we have to see that community is upset because following this sweep, people came back to next door, right across town. Clearly, and literally I've seen four of those headlines in the past two weeks for our region. And yeah, it's so obvious that just saying - Go somewhere else - and violently imposing that and destroying people's property while telling them - Go somewhere else - just doesn't work. The problem is that they don't have homes. If we aren't doing anything to get them in homes, we are just perpetuating the problem and spending a lot of money to do it - it's just so incredibly wasteful, it's so fiscally irresponsible. [00:48:46] Robert Cruickshank: What this shows is that candidates on the right, Seattle Times, Chamber of Commerce - people like that - are not actually interested in solving these problems. They're not really interested in housing the homeless. They're not really interested in dealing with people who are abusing drugs, addicted to drugs, and doing so in public. They're not really interested in solving the crime problem. What they're really interested in is taking those problems - blowing them up out of proportion, scaring people about them, and then using that fear to turn people against progressive elected officials and progressive candidates. Because as we talked about earlier in the show, what they really care about is cutting taxes for the wealthy and for big corporations. They know that those taxes are extremely popular, but if they can elect candidates who will roll those taxes back and elect them on other issues by stoking those fears - that's a winning political strategy. And it's worked. It's a strategy that exists for a reason - it's often successful. And so we, who are progressive, have to understand that. And we not only need to just point out that that's what the playbook the other team is using, we have to counter that with having the solutions that people really want. And fight hard and effectively get them. This is where Teresa Mosqueda, again, has been very, very good at this. She had, with the JumpStart Tax, tried to fund affordable housing. The council in 2020 had great efforts - great programs funded and approved to solve visible homelessness. And Jenny Durkan just undermined all of them for political reasons. And so that's the challenge that we face - is often progressives are going to get the blame for things that corporate Democrats and right wingers have blocked them from doing. [00:50:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, could not agree more. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 7th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, one of the best political minds on the West Coast, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on one of the 11 platforms that people are on, probably, @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks and me @finchfrii on all platforms. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review 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 episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

If journalism is the lifeblood of our democracy, then why does it feel like its chronically on life support? Nationally, thousands of news outlets have been crushed under the weight of financial distress. The few that survive are driven by profit motives, rather than seeking to educate and inform. Locally, we've witnessed the closures of the Seattle Chinese Post, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Seattle Weekly, and the Seattle Globalist. While other outlets have been forced to either go exclusively online or operate with skeleton newsrooms. So, what is to be done to halt the decay of one of society's most essential organs? While many bemoan the decline of journalism, there are also solutions being explored for how to ensure that every community both locally and nationally is afforded journalism that is factual, accurate, and accessible. Join Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen, KNKX News Director Florangela Davila, and South Seattle Emerald Executive Director Michael McPhearson as they discuss a pathway to a vibrant local media ecosystem that is a force for the public. The discussion will be moderated by Deloris Irwin of the League of Women Voters. Florangela Davila has been a journalist since 1992. For 14 years she worked at The Seattle Times, covering race and immigration. She also served as managing editor and news host at KCTS 9. The child of immigrants from Colombia and Peru, she was born and raised in Los Angeles and graduated from UC Berkeley and Columbia University. She's earned numerous individual and team journalism honors in print, online and broadcast, most recently three regional Murrow awards for KNKX. Jelani Cobb is the Dean of Journalism at Columbia University. He has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 2015. He received a Peabody Award for his 2020 PBS Frontline film Whose Vote Counts? and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Commentary in 2018. He has also been a political analyst for MSNBC since 2019. Michael McPhearson is the executive director of the South Seattle Emerald. He is the former executive director of Veterans For Peace. As co-coordinator of the Ferguson/St. Louis Don't Shoot Coalition and leading a delegation to support the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, he recognizes the critical role of community media for social change. He has testified before Congress and is currently a board member of the ACLU of Washington. Frank Blethen is the publisher of The Seattle Times and the great-grandson of the 126-year-old company's founder. Delores Irwin is co-chair of the League of Women Voters of Washington committee that produced the 2022 study “The Decline of Local News and Its Impact on Democracy.” She graduated from Cal State University, Fullerton, with a BA in Communications/Journalism, and was a newspaper reporter for several years at Southern California newspapers, including the Orange County Register. She is a former public information officer for a city and also worked for a public hospital and a community college district, all in Southern California. She is the former League president in Kittitas County.  Presented by Town Hall Seattle and South Seattle Emerald.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by general secretary of the Seattle Transit Riders Union, Katie Wilson! They cover a lot of ground today, discussing Bob Ferguson's unnamed donors, the Burien Planning Commission resigning in protest over “scapegoating” and “lack of action and missteps” by the city council majority and city manager, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's “War on Health,” reflections following the Seattle City Council mobility-focused forums, the Seattle City Council approving an affordable housing levy for the November ballot, Trans Pride barring Seattle Public Library, King County Council considers mandating that stores accept cash in addition to card or electronic payments, and a Saving Journalism, Saving Our Democracy event on Wednesday, June 21st, at Town Hall 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, find today's co-host, Katie Wilson, at @WilsonKatieB, and find the Seattle Transit Riders Union at @SeattleTRU. Resources “Better Behavioral Health Crisis Response with Brook Buettner and Kenmore Mayor Nigel Herbig” from Hacks & Wonks   “Before rule change, AG Bob Ferguson moves $1.2M ‘surplus' to campaign” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Early WA governor's race skirmish? Campaign finance loophole scrutinized” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Public Hearing to review – and possibly take action against – Charles Schaefer and Cydney Moore will be Thursday, June 15” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “King County's letter to City of Burien offers $1 million and 35 pallet shelters for homelessness crisis” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Emotion-packed special Burien City Council meeting results in removal of Charles Schaefer as Planning Commission Chair” by Mellow DeTray from The B-Town Blog   “UPDATE: Total of 9 commissioners, advisory board resign en masse in protest of Charles Schaefer's removal” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog   “Seattle to Launch "War on Health"” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “​​Harrell's approach to fentanyl crisis: Heavy on spectacle, light on substance” by Marcus Harrison Green for The Seattle Times   “Community Court Is Dead. What Comes Next?” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell Vows to Pass New Drug Law, Creates Work Group to Find Solutions to the Fentanyl Crisis” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola   “Mayor Harrell Promises a ‘War on Health,' Not a ‘War on Drugs'” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Midweek Video: Seattle Council Candidate District 3 Mobility Forum” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle City Council District 5 Mobility Forum Video” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “City Council sends $970M Housing Levy to Seattle voters” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “WA renters need to earn twice the minimum wage to afford rent” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times   “Seattle Public Library Kicked Out of Trans Pride After Hosting Anti-LGBTQ+ Activist Kirk Cameron” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Data shows Seattle area is becoming increasingly cashless” by Gene Balk from The Seattle Times   Saving Journalism, Saving Our Democracy – Town Hall Seattle   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. 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 learned about North King County's innovative new Regional Crisis Response Agency with its inaugural Executive Director Brook Buettner and Kenmore Mayor Nigel Herbig. Following national guidelines and best practices for behavioral health crisis care, a five-city consortium established the RCR program in 2023 as part of a vision to provide their region with the recommended continuum of behavioral health care - which includes someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: co-founder and general secretary of the Seattle Transit Riders Union, Katie Wilson. [00:01:35] Katie Wilson: Thank you, Crystal - great to be here. [00:01:37] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here again, and just - I am such an admirer of the work that you and TRU do. Just wanted to start talking about - an updated public disclosure report cycle just happened, we're in the midst of a gubernatorial race that has started early. But there was a notable addition to these reports, or occurrence in these reports, and that was the reporting by Bob Ferguson of his surplus transfer. How did you see this? [00:02:10] Katie Wilson: Yeah so basically, Ferguson transferred - I believe it was - $1.2 million from surplus funds from previous campaigns to his current gubernatorial campaign. And it appears as just a big lump sum, so it's not clear who donated this money - what individuals or interests. And because of the timing of the new PDC interpretation of the law, this appears to be technically okay, but it does mean that it's very possible that you have people who contributed to that $1.2 million who are also contributing to his current campaign and therefore going over individual campaign contributions. So you could look at it as a big infusion of kind of dark money into this race if you wanted to. It appears to be technically legal but definitely of, I suppose, questionable ethics in a larger sense. [00:03:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it was really notable. I'd read the reporting looking at it, but when you're looking at a PDC report and you see basically more money undeclared, unassigned to - literally listed under miscellaneous there in the report - it does make you wonder who those people are. Especially since if you work in politics or affiliated with it, you know that it's because of an action by the attorney general - which lots of people agree with - that we can't currently advertise on Twitter or Facebook because they lacked the appropriate reporting requirements. Because that's so important - to see who is giving what - we have stronger disclosure requirements than some other areas. Certainly it's something we take seriously. And so it is interesting to see from the attorney general who did that, just a lot of dark money. This could be an interim reporting thing maybe, he could still report who those donations belong to. As you said, it could run afoul of some of the campaign contribution limits if there are people who gave both to that campaign that he's transferring from and to his current gubernatorial campaign, but it's really a conundrum. Our Public Disclosure Commission recently clarified that you can't make transfers above any campaign contribution limits, but the official notification or the official clarification didn't happen until after this transfer - although they did let everyone know that they were going to be making that rule change. And it was after that notification that this transfer was made. So no, it was probably dicey, a bit questionable - especially because of that, I would expect to see the donors disclosed. I hope to see the donors disclosed - I think it's an important thing that is unambiguously the spirit of the law, if not the letter. So we'll see how this continues. Are there any other notable races that you're paying attention to, notable reports that you saw? [00:05:09] Katie Wilson: Not so much on the PDC side - I think I didn't comb through it as closely as you did. But one more note on the Ferguson thing - I was just thinking, it just brought to mind - I think the reason, part of the reason why it's notable is just the size of the transfer of money, right? $1.2 million is actually quite a campaign fund. But also just, of course, that it is Bob Ferguson - many of us associate him with principles and things like that. [00:05:36] Crystal Fincher: In law and order. [00:05:37] Katie Wilson: Right - in law and order. And so it just makes me think about just the difference between the things that we say that we believe and then how we behave in our own lives. And you think of something like a new tax going into effect - and a wealthy person who supports a tax that is going to require them to pay more money, but then they shuffle things around before it goes into effect to avoid it affecting them as much. Human nature perhaps, but I think we can expect better of our elected leaders. [00:06:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Speaking of expecting better from our elected leaders, I wanted to talk about what's happening in the City of Burien. We certainly have talked about this before, after King County Executive Constantine sent a letter that was - I don't know that it was unprecedented, but certainly not something that we see often. After Burien had twice enacted sweeps of homeless encampments - which as we know are advised against by public health authorities, don't have evidence showing that they are effective, usually people just end up moving to another place - that doesn't solve homelessness, it is actually destabilizing. And providing services and housing is what has had a track record of success that's much better than sweeps. But they kept doing it. And then they - and when I say they, I'm talking about a majority of four people on the Burien City Council – in 4-3 votes on the council, voted to move forward with that. And then because they were called out about a law that says if you're gonna sweep, you need to have shelter available - it makes no sense and is unconstitutional to say that someone can't be in a public space without somewhere else for them to go. When that happened, they said - Okay well, we'll try and just do an end run around the law, and we'll lease it to this dog park group - which is a front for people who are just going to use their lease and occupation of that land as a private entity to then trespass people off of that land, so a sweep by proxy. Which Dow Constantine, the King County Executive, saw and said - I can't have our sheriff's deputies participate in this - and those sheriff's deputies are the ones who are actually providing police services to the City of Burien - saying that this is unconstitutional, we can't be a part of it. But at the same time, offering help to get through the problem, offering $1 million, offering several pallet shelters - I think it's 100 pallet shelters - for people and space in order to put that. Which most cities, I think, would be jumping up and down, celebrating, saying - We need all the help we can get. [00:08:18] Katie Wilson: You would hope, but most cities - you think most cities in King County would be jumping up and down to start a sanctioned encampment in their city? [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: I think many would. I think more would than you think. Now, that caveat comes with they may sweep in addition to that, I don't know that they would stop the sweeps. But I do think that most would take that money and identify places in the same way that they've identified places in these contentious meetings for shelters and different locations and the conversations that we have with that. Not that it wouldn't have any friction, but most cities have taken advantage of funds in this area. It is definitely more unusual to say - No thanks - to a million bucks, especially when the problem is chronic. They have swept three times now and the people just moved to another location - 'cause surprise, they have no other home to go to. And if there is no shelter, then what? So shelter has to be part of this. And hopefully we proceed beyond shelter and really talk about housing and helping transition people into that. So this is just a conundrum. But the escalation came when the City Council tried to censure a member of the Planning Commission and a City Councilmember who were actually trying to do the work of finding housing for people - accusing them of interfering. And it just seemed like a really ugly thing - that they felt like they were being called out, showed in their reaction to King County Executive Dow Constantine's letter. Just seems like taking offense to even being questioned about this tactic - again, that is against best practices - and feels like retribution, and really unconstitutional retribution. What's your view on this? [00:10:09] Katie Wilson: Yeah, this has been a really contentious public issue in Burien for a little while now. And I think that the bigger issue that we're dealing with here is the spread of the homelessness crisis. Of course, the homelessness crisis has been regional - not just in Seattle - for a long time, but I think that there's been an intensification over the last few years and especially coming out of the pandemic as rent increases, not just in Seattle, but in some cases even more so in other cities around the county have just shot up, right? So you've had double digit percentage rent increases in many, many cities around the county, including Burien. And so I think that that has led to, been a big factor in increasing numbers of unsheltered homeless people in Burien and other cities outside of Seattle, so that it's becoming a more visible and urgent public problem for them. And I think that there's a lot of kind of wishful thinking on the part of both some elected officials and a lot of people in Burien that this isn't really a Burien problem, right? Like maybe these people could just go to Seattle or something, right? So I think that there's a - and we saw this play out too in the fight in Burien about permanent supportive housing recently, right? So there's a reluctance to invest in things like shelter and services in the city, and a desire that the problem just goes away or goes somewhere else. So that's, I think, the bigger picture. And the specific grounds on which the councilmember, Cydney Moore, and the Commissioner Charles - and I'm forgetting his last name now - that this meeting was held, hearing was held last night to potentially remove Charles from the commission and to censure Cydney on the council was that they had - when these sweeps were happening - they had allegedly talked to campers and helped them to find somewhere else to camp. And so I think the idea was that it was improper for these public officials to basically tell people - Here. You can camp here. - when it's technically illegal. And so this hearing took place last night and the outcome was that the - Charles was actually removed from the commission, something that the council had the power to do. And they did that by a 4-3 vote. And in the end, Cydney Moore was not censured. There was a proposal to postpone discussion indefinitely that passed, so that didn't happen. The council does not have the power to remove a fellow councilmember - that can only happen through an election. If they had had the power to remove her, would four of the councilmembers have voted to do so? We'll never know. But they decided not to censure her, knowing that she's going to still be on the council, at least through the elections. [00:13:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and at least in elections - there are active elections going on here. We have two people who have been strong proponents of these sweeps, who have spoken against King County Executive Dow Constantine - two of them are running for election. One running for a King County Council seat - Sofia Aragon, running against Teresa Mosqueda. Another running for Burien City Council seat - Kevin Schilling, with two opponents there. And it was really interesting this week - there were endorsement meetings held in a variety of LDs - Burien is in both the 33rd and the 34th Legislative District. So hearing local Democratic organizations talk about this - and it is just confounding - 'cause there's such a misalignment between what you hear coming from the legislative districts and the Democratic base in these areas in the city, and some of the elected officials. So there seemed to be a strong repudiation - certainly a decline to endorse Kevin Schilling again, same with Sofia Aragon. And so it just seems like there are signals coming from people that this is not the right solution. And even if people don't know what to do about the problem and are - I see this as a problem, I'm not sure what to do. It feels like everybody is going - But why would you pass up some help and maybe a path forward? Why would you pass up a million dollars? And talking about passing up - that this offer was made earlier this month, late last month - and they haven't even taken it up, considered it. We still have people living outside. And they had this special meeting to consider kicking this planning commissioner off of the Planning Commission, censuring this councilmember - yet, they're still not even taking time to discuss this offer. Focusing on solutions, getting to work - no matter what your viewpoint is or what you're working on - seems like that would be what would satisfy most people, at least make some progress moving forward on whatever it is that they're going to decide to do. But it seems like they're doing nothing and refusing any offers of help, both financially and otherwise. So many times it's the - Well, how are you gonna pay for it? Someone else is willing to pay for it. The hardest part of this is already taken care of. So I hope that they do take action to move soon. We have seen already some repercussions from this council action and seeing several people from some Burien commissions have resigned - one from an Airport Commission. In fact, not only an airport commissioner, but several members of the Planning Commission are resigning from their seats. And a statement that is released - was just released here while we're recording - the statement says, "We, the undersigned, are resigning from the Burien Planning Commission effective immediately. We've lost confidence in our city council's ability to lead. Over the past several months, it has become clear to us that there is a majority on the council, specifically, Mayor Aragon, Deputy Mayor Schilling, and Councilmembers Matta and Mora, who are unwilling to discuss issues of affordable housing, homelessness, and poverty in Burien. Instead, they have spent valuable time and resources seeking someone to blame for their lack of action and the missteps of the new city manager. Planning Commission Chair Charles Schaefer fulfilled their need for a scapegoat, and they removed him from his position last night while still refusing to take action to address the homelessness crisis that impacts Burien as much as any other city in our region, state, or county, or country. In addition to being unproductive, this action raises significant concerns for us all about our own constitutional rights as individuals serving our city." So we will continue to pay attention to what is happening here, and see what happens. Also want to cover this week - Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell - I don't know if he meant to say this or what, but announced his "War on Health" this week. What happened here? [00:17:17] Katie Wilson: Okay, what a situation. So I think - I guess the idea is that - we all hate the War on Drugs, so we're gonna go for a War on Health instead. Yeah, bad marketing. So the background of course is the City Council vote recently on basically copying the new state drug law into Seattle's code so that the City Attorney Office can prosecute drug possession and public use in Seattle. And that vote ended up failing due to a last minute switch by Councilmember Lewis. And Lewis subsequently said that he would vote for it, but only if there was a process to stand up some new alternative to replace the community courts that City Attorney Ann Davison had unceremoniously dissolved. And so this announcement by Bruce Harrell was of a task force - I'm now forgetting the name of the task force, Crystal, maybe you can help me out - and so the idea is that this very diverse task force, people coming from many different perspectives are gonna come together and they're gonna figure out the solution. We're gonna have more diversion programs, we're gonna have ways for people to avoid just spending a long time in jail for drug possession or public use. And then Seattle is going to pass this law at least partially recriminalizing drugs. And then, everything's gonna be great. So that's the Harrell version of what happened. [00:19:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's interesting. And it was the Fentanyl Systems Work Group - a subset of the Fentanyl Systems Work Group that was originally put together as part of an effort to revitalize downtown - so now there's a shift, in a subgroup made of that. It was noted that - he said that we need to take a public health approach. There are no public health representatives on this large and broad task force, but it just - if you know me, we've probably had this conversation, but - at some point in time, we have to stop trying to task force our way around problems. We've known of this crisis for quite some time. We've had staff dedicated to figuring out what to do with this crisis. This is a big problem. I don't think that the issue is that people don't know what the problem is, or what the options are on the table - we've been discussing this as a community for quite some time. It really is just - what are you going to do about it? And of course, no one is going to be - everyone is not going to be happy with whatever decision is made, but there needs to be action taken. Hopefully that action is aligned with best practices and what we have seen work elsewhere. But it seems like this is a half-baked response and kind of a flat-footed response to the council declining to do what they were doing there. But even if they would have passed that - that doesn't take care of the crisis. We're talking about criminalization here. We're not talking about the things that actually get people out of addiction, that gets fentanyl off of our streets, that does address public use - which is a problem and needs to be taken care of. I think a lot of people's frustration is just - why do we keep spending time and money either doing nothing, or doing things that have already failed? It would be great if we could spend time and money on things that have a shot at working and have shown that they have worked elsewhere. [00:20:59] Katie Wilson: Yeah, totally. And a couple of things that jumped out at me, reading some of the coverage of this - I thought Marcus Harrison Green had a good op-ed in the Seattle Times about it. And one of the things that he pointed out is that many people start using after they become homeless, right? And so in that context, throwing someone in jail - which is incredibly expensive, even if you do it compassionately, as Harrell has promised compassionate arrests or whatever - and then eventually they're back out on the street where they're more likely to overdose is a really bad idea. And I think that Erica Barnett, in a lot of her coverage of this and related ideas, points out repeatedly that the idea that jail is gonna be just this nice kind of sobering up period, and then you're gonna come out and be much more likely to get treatment and services is really wishful thinking. And in one of the pieces on PubliCola about this, Lisa Daugaard points out that the really critical issue is actually finding funds for recovery services for people with substance use disorder, especially people who are homeless. And that's really, I think, the elephant in the room in terms of what we're not talking about when we're creating this task force to come up with policies and everything. It's just not being willing to reckon with the scale of the resources that are gonna be needed to actually provide the housing and give people the services that they need. And this is something that I think - not to say that that's not gonna be talked about, I'm sure it will be talked about - and it will be talked about in the fall budget process this fall. And that just really makes me nervous - because as someone who's on the City Revenue Stabilization Work Group that's thinking about how the City should deal with an impending general fund shortfall, there's not gonna be a lot of money sloshing around that is just waiting to be allocated to things like this. So I think there's gonna be some really challenging conversations coming up about how we fund these extremely underfunded needs. [00:22:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also wanna talk this week about a number of candidate forums that were held in the City of Seattle from organizations focused on mobility and disability throughout the community - a large coalition of those. And so there were council forums held in several districts. I moderated one of them, another one ended up being canceled - it was a District 4 forum - in honor of the strike at the University of Washington. Any takeaways that you had from these forums with Seattle City Council candidates? [00:23:35] Katie Wilson: Yeah, and by the way, side note - congratulations to UAW 4121 - I believe they've settled their strike as of yesterday. So that's awesome. But yes, so there was going to be a District 4 candidate forum and that's been - hopefully will still happen at some point, but was canceled in solidarity with the strike. But over the last couple of weeks, a large coalition of organizations - including the Transit Riders Union and other groups that work on transportation, climate, and disability issues - hosted forums in the three other open seats, so District 1, District 3 and District 5. And you can watch all of them - so they were recorded, I think The Urbanist might've run articles with links, they're on YouTube. And full disclosure - I did not attend all three forums, I have listened to a lot of it - but my overall impressions were hopeful, but also cynical. So I think a lot of the candidates in all of these races gave a lot of really good answers, made commitments, said that they support much greater investments in multimodal infrastructure. They understand that over 60%, or 66%, of Seattle's carbon emissions come from transportation. They need to really do mode shift - give people realistic options that aren't driving. They support one of our, TRU's issues - trying to get Seattle to pass legislation to require large employers to pay for transit passes for their workers - something that we were working on before the pandemic and was interrupted, but we would love to see happen at some point soon. So lots of good answers. I think the challenge that I see is that when I think about, for example, our current City Council and the kind of answers that they would give to those same questions at a candidate forum, I think a majority, probably a super majority would also give great answers to those questions. And one of the things that we've experienced over the years working with allies to try to get Seattle to do better on these transportation issues is just how short the good intentions and commitments fall in practice often. So for example, it's one thing to say that you support building sidewalks in all the places in cities that don't have them. How are you gonna come up with the astronomical funds that are required to do that? It's one thing to say that you support a connected network of bus lanes and bike lanes throughout the city. How are you gonna behave when there's big political conflicts because you're trying to take space away from cars? And another thing that we've experienced is that even when we have a council that is pretty good on these issues - if we don't have an executive who's right there with them and going to cooperate on implementation, the council can even pass things, like dedicate money for multimodal investments. And then those things don't happen because the mayor doesn't actually support them. And so the money doesn't actually get spent on those projects and things just get delayed and delayed and delayed out of existence. So that's the caution, but we'll see. I think I don't have very much of a sense in a lot of these council races of where exactly things will land after the primary, but I'm hopeful that we'll get some councilmembers in there who care about these issues and will at least make a good effort to move forward. [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I definitely share the takeaways that you have. I also found it notable - one, on a number of the questions - yeah, the answers were more agreeable than initially thought, even specific answers. I also think - and heard it from them directly - they were surprised at hearing figures like 40% of residents of Seattle use non-car modes of transportation, yet only 4% of the SDOT budget is dedicated to those modes - and just that big contrast there. And they were very unaware of that contrast. I think there's a lot of people who, because of the way that media coverage has been over really the past decade plus, that more money and resources are dedicated to this than actually are - and really seeing how little comparatively is budgeted for people in cars versus everyone else doing everything that's not in cars is really stark, and they seemed very surprised by that. And I hope that helps to frame just why we're in the situation we're in, and why we have so far to go, and the urgency is so strong right now. So hopefully we do get some good policy wins out of this, ultimately, when these races shake out. Also want to talk about the Housing Levy being approved. What did the City Council do this week? [00:28:38] Katie Wilson: Yeah, so the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to send a $970 million Housing Levy to the November ballot for voters to vote on. This is a seven-year property tax levy, so that $970 million is spread over those seven years. And this would be used to construct and operate new affordable housing. It would be used to subsidize affordable home ownership. It would be used to raise wages for workers in the supportive housing and services sector. There's a big chunk for rental assistance, some other things. And it's a significantly larger levy than the one that is expiring - I believe it's like over three times bigger than the previous one. And of course that is, I think, probably an appropriate response to the scale of our housing prices. I guess what I would say is that it's tough - because we're chasing the private market. So as rents in the private market and housing costs, home prices in the private market just shoot up and up, it becomes more and more expensive - more and more people on the lower end cannot afford to rent, let alone buy in our region. And so then that demands more and more public resources to create housing that they can afford. And to me that - so it's tough because you look at the Housing Levy that's just expiring and it was very successful, right? It actually created more housing than it had been projected to. And then in addition, we have other funds that are going into building affordable housing, like the JumpStart big business tax - a big chunk of that is going to fund affordable housing and that's been incredibly successful. You look at the list of projects around the City that have benefited from money from JumpStart and it's a long list. And so this funding that we're putting into affordable housing is really a success story, but you look around and you don't see that reflected in general kind of feeling of - this city is becoming more affordable. And that's really just because we have - so much of the housing is still stuck in this kind of dysfunctional private housing market that is just going up and up and up. So yeah, that's what's happened. [00:31:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And your point about - progress is absolutely being made, that's just a factual statement - but we still have the conditions that are creating this problem. And it's like you have to plug the leak in the boat if you're going to successfully bail it out, and we haven't adequately plugged those leaks. The wages required - there was an article about this this week - the wages required to just afford rental housing, let alone a home, are astronomical. What were your takeaways from that article and how does that contribute to this problem? [00:31:39] Katie Wilson: Yeah, totally. And that's the annual Out of Reach report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition - so every year they come out with a big report about every state in the country, every county in the country that kind of looks at what is the wage that a full-time worker would need to make in order to afford housing in that region. And basically what the report showed is that here in Washington, in the state - not just in King County - a Washington renter needs to earn $30.33 an hour to afford the typical one-bedroom apartment in the state without spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. And then in the Seattle area, that's even higher. So a renter would need to make $40 an hour, over $40 an hour to afford that market rate, standard one-bedroom apartment. And these are significantly higher numbers than last year's report - I believe it said they're about 20% higher than last year. And so what that tells us is that even though - luckily, here in Washington state and in the cities in King County that have established higher minimum wages, those wages are indexed to inflation - so we do get an annual inflation adjustment upward. That adjustment is not sufficient to make up for the rising cost of rents in our region so that lower-wage workers are definitely falling behind. And that $40 an hour figure is really interesting because it basically means - you look at the wages in Seattle, SeaTac, and now Tukwila, which starting on July 1 is going to have a minimum wage of $18.99 for most workers - those are getting up toward $20 an hour. But looking at this, it's like you would actually need two adults working full-time at those higher minimum wages to, with any comfort, afford a one-bedroom apartment in King County. So it really just shows how even as there are these efforts going on - this year, ballot initiative in Renton and work that TRU is doing with allies in Burien and unincorporated King County to try to get more jurisdictions to raise minimum wages - we're trying to get them to raise up to around $20 an hour, right? $19 or $20 an hour. And that's great, but man, it still doesn't mean that you're going to be able to afford housing easily. So yeah, it's a problem. And I think like this and thinking about the Housing Levy and just how far we have to go to make this region affordable, I think it really also underscores the need for social housing and how important it is that the City does a good job of following through on Initiative 135 and getting that started, so that we can start expanding the non-market housing sector - serving not just the very lowest income levels, but people even of all income levels - because really only taking housing out of the private market, ultimately, is going to fix this problem. [00:34:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And a reminder that there is an option for taking some housing out of the private market in the City of Seattle with the - Seattle's public developer that has been established. And as we talk about these City Council elections coming up, really making sure that there are plans that these candidates have to fund this developer and to pursue this is going to be very important. Also this week, we saw an announcement from Trans Pride that they are no longer welcoming the Seattle Public Library at their event. What happened here? [00:35:16] Katie Wilson: Yeah. Trans Pride basically announced that Seattle Public Library is not welcome at their event due to a number of issues, but I think the most recent one - and maybe the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak - was the library's allowing Kirk Cameron to host a talk in a library auditorium. I believe this was last month. Kirk Cameron being a former child TV person - I never saw him, I don't remember who he was - but who is now an anti-LGBTQ+ activist and has written children's books about the dangers of Pride. And so the library, as a public institution, says that it has legal obligations to not engage in viewpoint discrimination and has to allow any group or individual to rent its meeting spaces. And Trans Pride has responded by uninviting the Seattle Public Library from participation in the upcoming event. [00:36:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And this to me is a situation where - yes, the library is correct that because of First Amendment issues, they do have to accept facility rentals from there. But Trans Pride also absolutely has the right to determine who is and isn't welcome at their event, and especially in today's environment where safety is of paramount concern. Yeah, I think in this situation, both parties have the right to do what they do. I've seen some reaction in going - questioning whether Trans Pride can even do this. They absolutely can. This is what consequences are. And while it does appear that the Seattle Public Library, and most public libraries, do have to rent to their facilities to people for events and they can't choose who does and doesn't get to do that - it is unambiguously clear that Kirk Cameron is espousing harmful and dangerous rhetoric that's false, and it winds up endangering our trans community. And yeah, absolutely, they're not going to be welcome at an event where their institution can participate in making Trans Pride and the people in our community less safe. It's pretty straightforward. You have no right to participate in everybody's events - if they don't feel comfortable with you there, then that's that. So to me, this is just the library made its decision that it felt that it had to make, and Trans Pride made their decision that they felt that they had to make - and that's just that. [00:38:03] Katie Wilson: Yes, and PubliCola has done a lot of good coverage of this issue, so go there to read more. [00:38:09] Crystal Fincher: We will, of course, be linking that article in the show notes. Also wanted to talk about an upcoming vote this week with the King County Council about whether to mandate that stores in the county, or at least in unincorporated King County, continue to take all forms of payment, including cash. Why is this such an issue? [00:38:29] Katie Wilson: Yeah, so article in this week's Seattle Times from Gene Balk talking about how cashless payment and refusing to accept cash is becoming a more and more common thing in the Seattle area. And this is timely because there is actually legislation before the King County Council, championed by King County Councilmember Jeanne Kohl-Welles, that would require businesses - most businesses in unincorporated areas of the county, which is the jurisdiction that the King County Council has jurisdiction over - would require them to accept cash as a form of payment. This is something that I don't believe any jurisdiction in Washington state has done yet, but it's not unusual in other parts of the country. So New York City, San Francisco - there's a bunch of cities. And even a couple of states - I think the entire state of New Jersey, there might be a couple more - have passed legislation that requires businesses to accept cash payment. And obviously for a lot of us, we just walk around with a card and that's fine and it works for us. But especially seniors, immigrants and refugees, people with privacy concerns - either from experience with or fear of identity theft, domestic violence survivors, houseless people - there's demographics that are much more likely to rely on cash for most or all daily transactions. And if you're in one of those - in that situation - then if you have more and more businesses not accepting cash payment, then you get effectively locked out of the local economy. And so this legislation is coming to the full King County Council next Tuesday for a vote. It's not guaranteed to pass - so I think that there's definitely some reluctance on the part of some of the King County Councilmembers to vote on this. So if you think this is important, now's a good time to email in to your King County Councilmembers and maybe consider testifying next Tuesday. But yeah, I think unincorporated King County has a chance here to set an example for other jurisdictions in the area. [00:40:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And that great reminder to make your opinion known to your city council - County Councilmember - if you can. I was just in Santa Monica, California a couple weeks back, and they had businesses that had signs in their shops that they don't accept cash. This is a thing that can happen in this area. And it does seem to be a reaction to not wanting "those" people around. And there are lots of reasons why someone may prefer to use cash over other means, or may have to use cash over other means - and discriminating based on the type of payment just doesn't seem wise or prudent. And especially as we see so many forces working on excluding people from so many other places in society, we certainly don't need to contribute to the acceleration of that. So I also want to talk about an event taking place next Wednesday. What's happening? [00:41:47] Katie Wilson: Yes. So next Wednesday, 730 PM, at Town Hall Seattle, there is a forum that is co-sponsored by South Seattle Emerald and Real Change called Saving Journalism, Saving Our Democracy. And this is going to be a conversation about the challenges that news outlets, especially local news outlets, are facing these days keeping the lights on and providing adequate coverage of local issues. And the panelists include Jelani Cobb, who is the Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, and Michael McPhearson, who is the Editor of the South Seattle Emerald, Florangela Davila, who is a journalist who's worked at a bunch of different outlets, and Frank Blethen, who, of course, is the publisher of The Seattle Times. And the moderator is going to be Delores Irwin, co-chair of the League of Women Voters of Washington, which actually - earlier this year - put out a really great study called The Decline of Local News and Its Impact on Democracy, which charts the struggles that newspapers, in particular, in Washington state have faced over the last decades and kind of the dwindling news coverage in a lot of areas of the state, creating news deserts. So I think it's going to be a fascinating conversation. And I happen to know that there will be some potentially actionable policy proposals that will be discussed that could turn into interesting campaigns in this area in the near future. So I definitely encourage people to attend the event, get involved in the conversation. [00:43:39] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I am a big fan and supporter of both Michael McPhearson and Florangela Davila - we are fortunate to have them both in our local media ecosphere. And certainly, this is part of a broader national conversation. But looking forward to see what's discussed. It's critical to our democracy, it's critical to just our everyday lives - the quality of representation and policy that we see - and how people and organizations and institutions are held accountable. So it makes a big difference - I hope people definitely tune in and attend - we will put a link to that in the show notes also. And with that, I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 16, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is co-founder and general secretary of the Seattle Transit Riders Union, Katie Wilson. You can find Katie on Twitter @WilsonKatieB. You can find Seattle Transit Riders Union on Twitter @SeattleTRU. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by the former Director of Progressive Majority who has now transitioned into public service but remains involved in numerous political efforts across Washington, EJ Juárez. They discuss today being the final day for this year's candidates to declare their candidacy for elected office, the legislature's decision to make personal possession of drugs a gross misdemeanor, Crosscut laying off women reporters in a pivot to podcast and video, Marc Dones' resignation as CEO of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, and Seattle reclaiming the title of America's fastest growing city.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, EJ Juárez at @EliseoJJuarez.   Resources Becka Johnson Poppe, Candidate for King County Council District 4 from Hacks & Wonks   King County Council races begin to take shape by David Gutman from The Seattle Times    Washington to Paper Over Drug War with Some Treatment Money by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger    OPINION | In Special Session, Lawmakers Are Hiding Behind a False Moral Imperative to Justify the War on Drugs by Jude Ahmed for South Seattle Emerald   Slog AM: Crosscut Lays Off Five Newsroom Staff, LA Pride Pulls Out of Dodgers Pride Event, Bouncy Castle King Accused of Arson by Nathalie Graham from The Stranger   Regional Homelessness Authority CEO resigns by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times    Why Did Marc Dones Resign? by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Seattle is once again the fastest-growing big city, census data shows by Gene Balk from The Seattle Times   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek - our Tuesday topical show - I chat with Becka Johnson Poppe about her campaign for King County Council District 4 - why she decided to run, the skillset she brings from overseeing half of King County's $16 billion budget, and her thoughts on addressing human services sector wages, issues plaguing the King County Jail, housing and homelessness, drug possession and substance use disorder, climate change and air quality, and budget transparency and efficiency. However, today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: the former Director of Progressive Majority who's now transitioned into public service and remains involved in numerous political efforts across Washington, EJ Juárez. [00:01:34] EJ Juárez: Hi, Crystal - thanks for having me back. [00:01:36] Crystal Fincher: Hey - always excited to have you and your perspective on the show. Today is Friday, May 19th. For people who are involved in or adjacent to politics, this is known as the last day of filing week - the week where candidates officially declare their candidacy to run for a position on the ballot. We have hundreds and hundreds of positions up for election in Washington State. Here in King County, there are some interesting races shaping up. We will see - the deadline is 4 p.m. today - what the official candidate field looks like. We're nearing the end. There's usually a flurry of late additions just before the end of the last day of filing. I guess - what are your thoughts as we head into this final day? [00:02:24] EJ Juárez: My thoughts are - I love Friday of filing week. It is my favorite day of filing week because you get to go hang out at Elections and watch the folks at 3:50 p.m. that are standing around watching which races don't have anybody filed, so they can get a free pass or where they're gonna jump in. But I think some of the most exciting races out there right now - King County Council is starting to fill up with some late additions to the pack, especially in some races that looked fairly settled where we had clear challengers and clear insurgent candidates - and now we've got a different mix happening. And I would not be surprised if many organizations who were planning to do early endorsements are putting a pause on those plans because of new faces that are getting in - and just the pure number of folks that are running for some of these open seats, whether that is King County, City of Seattle, or some of the suburbs. [00:03:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This week, we did see a new dimension in one King County Council race - I believe it's District 4 - to replace Councilmember Kohl-Welles. And already in the race were Sarah Reyneveld and Rebecca Johnson Poppe. This week, we had Jorge Barón join the race, formerly of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project - that's where I'm certainly familiar with him from. And this is gonna be a really interesting race and I don't know how it's gonna wind up. [00:03:40] EJ Juárez: Yeah, I think of all the King County Council races this year, this is the one that excites me the most - because there are three really great candidates who are bringing such different perspectives and have such different, I think, experiences that they would supplement the Council with. Certainly with Becka - newcomer, bringing a really deep set of experiences from her own personal and professional life. But then Sarah, who I don't think it is a surprise to anybody - who has been fairly widely known to be running for this for quite a while now, and now the opportunity is here. And then Jorge, which was a complete surprise and I think now within the last week has caught a lot of people off guard and really thrown a wrench into - certainly, Sarah and Becka's campaign plans, I'm sure. His decades of advocacy and his quite frankly historic leadership at Northwest Immigrant Rights Project would bring some really interesting perspectives to council as well as that race - representing a part of Seattle that has not always led on some of those issues. And Sarah being an Assistant Attorney General - I am so excited to see what issues bubble to the top and how this plays out. How about you? [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm interested - I'm certainly interested - three people who have formidable resumes behind them in different ways, but certainly all who have, I think, valuable perspectives to be shared. I think a lot of people are going to be wondering - hey, they clearly know what they're doing, they're professional, but what does that mean in terms of votes and how they're going to represent me and fight for the issues that are important to me? To not just be a vote, but to be a leading advocate for the issues that are important to me. How can I trust that? And I think how well each of those candidates addresses that is going to make a difference in how people view them and see them. Because we do have a lot of people who make a lot of promises, get elected, and then the way they vote doesn't quite turn out how people assumed based on their value statements. So it's gonna be really interesting to examine and see - those are not necessarily critiques of anyone in this race at all - just one of those overall things that will be interesting to follow. [00:05:49] EJ Juárez: It'll also be expensive. I cannot even imagine right now how much money will be spent in this primary, especially given the deep networks of all three of these candidates - I would expect this to be a very expensive seat. [00:06:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is probably a lock on that one - maybe a historically expensive King County Council District race. We will see. I'm also just curious to see - certainly in the City of Seattle, a number of the larger cities - candidates usually start early. Late filing week doesn't usually - we don't usually get significant surprises today, or people who enter the race and you're like - Okay, they are in a prime position to win this thing. But for most of the suburbs and other cities that are not the handful of large cities, that's not the case. And the Friday of filing week brings just a flurry of activity. Names that pop up - some people are familiar with, some people aren't. But these city council races across the state, school district races - which are definitely extremely important to pay attention to. Don't know that we'll have any Municipal or Superior Court Judge races here in King County, but there certainly are elsewhere in the state. So some of those races that - once again - don't necessarily get top billing in the news, that people are clamoring over and paying attention to. But that are vitally important to just the daily lives of people - where we see sometimes in coverage of national politics and Congress, the debates that they're having in other states, the legislation that they're passing that are obliterating people's civil rights - particularly trans people at this point in time. But the eradication of teaching anything basically, but white-approved material, and not teaching any kind of LGBTQ queer history, any kind of ethnic history - to the people who are here and who've made contributions to our country and our communities. And this is happening here locally. We have people trying to ban books here locally, people talking about taking away funds from public education to go to vouchers and private education and dismantling parts of the system. These are really important races that don't get a lot of attention, but I hope wherever you are listening from - you pay attention to in your community, because they make a big difference and your vote just counts so much more in those elections because so many people don't vote. A few people can make a really big difference. So we will keep our eyes on who files today. Also this week, there was a one-day special session on the 16th to address legislation - known as Blake legislation - coming out of our State Supreme Court's Blake decision a couple of years back, which invalidated - basically struck down personal possession laws for substances, illegal substances - drugs, basically. This didn't have anything to do with dealing, distribution, paraphernalia - but for simple possession, it said that the existing law was invalid, which made the Legislature act. And at the time - this was either two or three years ago, pandemic time is weird for me - they intervened, made possession a regular misdemeanor. And at the time, the justification for that was - hey, we know that decriminalization is the right thing to do. We don't think we have adequate supports in place yet. So let's double down on providing resources to localities and counties to make sure that they have treatment services, diversion services established so that we aren't doing nothing, that we are doing something to address the problem. And we'll put a sunset in this bill for 2023 so that we can revisit this, hopefully things have progressed as we've intended, and we can then proceed with decriminalization. So they did that - I believe in 2021. And this year comes around - maybe - it was probably 2020. This year comes around - sunset's happening, they have to deal with this legislation. And during the regular session, they were not able to come to an agreement. There was certainly a significant faction of people who followed evidence and data and said - This should be treated like a public health problem. The War on Drugs has failed - we need to move in a different direction in order to finally address this and improve this problem. Others were in favor of a misdemeanor. Others wanted a gross misdemeanor - which, for people who don't know, gross misdemeanors can actually carry jail time and fines that exceed that of the lowest level felony penalty. As people talk about this, felonies certainly are a different class of crime, and stay on your record differently, and happens differently in background searches. But one of the things we do know is that jail is very destabilizing. And taking someone out of their community, away from their job, away from their family for that amount of time has - as any criminologist will tell you - proven to be more destabilizing than helpful, which is why locking people up for jail is frowned upon by most people who actually study this. It's viewed as counterproductive, making the problem worse and not better. And if we look at the War on Drugs over the past 40 years - I did the DARE program when I was in elementary school - we've only gone backwards in that time after spending billions, if not trillions, of dollars in that time on this War on Drugs. So when we had this decision, it was really viewed this time coming up - hey, they stated their intention when they first passed this legislation, now it's time to continue to work and do the job. Now - real talk - we did have a pandemic that slowed down some of this implementation, so it's not a shocking surprise that all of the infrastructure wasn't there. But it seemed like it was a time to double down on actually getting that done instead of just walking backwards and moving towards a gross misdemeanor. How did you feel about this? [00:11:44] EJ Juárez: I had a lot of thoughts. And first and foremost, I think the thought that comes to my mind the most is that - and you brought it up a couple of times - we are collectively still in a pandemic. And during that pandemic, many people's access and proximity to services to help them either in recovery or manage their life sober went away. And at the same time as many of those services and support systems - whether that was a person, or a formal group, or medical assistance - was taken away from people, they became isolated. And the expansion and explosion of addiction and dependency issues is here in our communities. And for as much as I love a good sunset in public policy - just like I love the ability to evaluate if our policies are going well - in this case, this is one of the ones that I think is well-timed to really say - Does this meet where we are as a community and a state right now? How are we gonna make this last and make good policy? And I think unfortunately, what we saw in this one-day special session from the Legislature was not necessarily the most bold solution and was not a solution that was - I think really, in my opinion - based on helping the most amount of people become the person that they wish to be, but instead was a failure of leadership to count votes within their own caucus. And I think - as much as I think the Speaker is an incredibly historic figure and I think having her leadership has definitely changed the nature of our House - we watched this fail to pass in the regular session, having to come back, and watch Democrats fight other Democrats on a bill that should not have been that contentious. [00:13:30] Crystal Fincher: And that's such an important point - and especially that this is really about Democrats. Democrats control both the House and the Senate - and the Governor's office - by healthy margins. And sometimes we hear that - Well, Republicans won't let us do that. That wasn't actually the case here. And I'm very curious to hear more information about the negotiation that took place - because there are a couple things that were odd to me. One, the motivation for acting - for why it was so important to step in for the state, for our Legislature to step in and make a law - was that there is a fear that patchwork legislation on-the-ground in cities would create a wild variance between laws in different cities and counties. So - hey, it could be a felony in one place and completely legal in another place, and that could be problematic in people not knowing what the deal is within a particular jurisdiction. In reality, what actually happened was that there seemed to be a coalescing of opinion on the Republican side - because we saw a number of Republican mayors, county council people step up in the last month or so of session, when it became clear that it was definitely a possibility that Blake legislation may not pass, certainly not during the session. And they said - You know what? If the Legislature doesn't act, we will step in. But what they said they would step in with did not exceed a gross misdemeanor anywhere. In fact, there were some Republicans, including Republican Reagan Dunn on the King County Council, who were proposing misdemeanor. And so I'm wondering who Democrats were actually negotiating with here. It doesn't seem like it was Republicans - because in that situation, Democrats seemingly would have been where the base was at. And the State Democratic Party passed a resolution saying that they favored decriminalization, and as an absolute last-ditch effort in a negotiation - a misdemeanor. Certainly nothing as far as a gross misdemeanor. So as they were negotiating, if that's the Republican starting position - is gross misdemeanor - where were Democrats at? And how did we only wind up at the exact place where Republicans - some MAGA Republicans - were at, right? We have not heard anyone talk about felonizing this. So what was this negotiation? It doesn't seem like we were negotiating with Republicans. And so if this was just where Democrats were at - this seems like this would be the result if this is just where Democrats were at. [00:16:03] EJ Juárez: Yeah, and I think it's just an important point to really explore - when Democrats are negotiating with Democrats, you have to look at two different places. One, who's recruiting the people that are at the negotiating table, right? And two, the folks that are at the negotiating table - what is their personal ambition? And I think we have a number of people this year that are watching openings coming up for Attorney General or other positions - where taking a vote that would have aligned with the Party that they support and identify as would have, anecdotally, hurt them in their own opinion. The polls do not support that opinion. The population does not support that opinion. And unfortunately we let, I think, individual elected officials' own personal ambition probably influence these negotiations, right? I wasn't in that room. But it is not unreasonable to assume that when you recruit more moderate candidates than the actual party that they identify with and the planks in that party's platform, that they are going to be pulling from the left towards the center - which allows the right much more room to hold on to that gross misdemeanor line that they have in the sand here. It was particularly telling with the quotes that came - I think that were published in The Seattle Times right after this kind of failure to get across the finish line before sine die happened - that this was a Democratic problem and this was an own goal on Democrats. I'm glad that they did get something done. But again, if it doesn't match the Party, I'm really curious what accountability looks like, especially for those legislators in King County where they do not have either their local LD or their county parties in alignment with perhaps the vote that they took. [00:17:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's going to be very interesting to see. We have heard some legislators try and justify this by saying - Well, we got some additional money in for some services. And wow, when you look at the actual money that was there and added - one, I would argue that that money was always going to be part of the package. Two, it's so minute in comparison to anything else. If you were negotiating with that, it seems like there would be something more substantial that happened than the money that actually ended up being tacked on at the end. And I don't know that that justifies a wholesale criminalization statewide with no sunset. This is now just the policy moving forward that is, as you say, not in alignment with local parties and is not in alignment with evidence. And we're saying we have limited resources. And this costs money - criminalizing something, arresting people, jailing people, prosecuting people costs so much money. And so the limited resources that we do have are once again being spent in a direction that we know can't fix this, while we're starving the resources and somehow trying to justify throwing some coins in the other direction, saying - Well, this is gonna be part of improving it. It's just really difficult to see how this is really going to improve things. [00:19:16] EJ Juárez: And I know we need to move on, but my last point on this is really - this is where the lack of a real robust advocacy organization in our state that does this work - that brings in the stories and brings in the experiences at a scale that can hold legislators accountable - their absence is profound in these moments, right? Our ecosystem of advocacy organizations that influence policy has some pretty deep holes when it comes to some of these issue areas, and this is one of them. And I don't mean to discount the groups that are doing great work in this space, but those that are doing hard, (c)(4)-dollar, political expenditures that can engage in political activities is fairly thin. And I can't help but believe that if we had a more robust set of advocacy organizations that were playing in the political side, we would have better policy and we would actually get to the problem of the systems. Because we can't buy our way out of these problems with just more funding for services - we need to change systems, and that starts with how robust our advocacy systems are and how good our candidates are once they get into office. [00:20:23] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also in the news this week is a local layoff - a local media layoff. Crosscut - Cascade Public Media, which is Crosscut's parent company, announced that it intends to lay off five newsroom employees - all women, by the way, two of them happen to be women of color, some with seniority over other people there. They're laying them off effective July 1st - in a pivot to video and podcast. This is just reminiscent of the mid-2010s and the really perilous, tragic pivot to video - that wound up being based on gerrymandered metrics - that led to a real decimation of many newsrooms across the country. And we're seeing this - some newsrooms have cited AI, there's recent - MTV News is closing, BuzzFeed News is shuttering. So many local media outlets are struggling and making do with so many fewer staff than they used to have. But this is really curious from Cascade Public Media. They're not saying they don't have the money to continue employment. They're just saying we're shifting directions - we're moving to podcast and video. We're gonna lay these people off and we're gonna replace them with additional video and podcast producers. Joseph O'Sullivan - to his credit - who is a white male reporter there called out online - Hey, curious to see why I'm safe from these layoffs here - I don't have seniority, but I definitely noticed that everyone laid off was a woman, two of whom were women of color - that just doesn't seem like it makes that much sense. Certainly not a good look. How did you see this? [00:22:09] EJ Juárez: I, and maybe this is the most inappropriate way to articulate this, but every time I have seen or heard a media company say they are pivoting to video and podcasting, I think that is really the death rattle, right? That didn't work for VICE, who just had a historic bankruptcy just this past week. It's not working for BuzzFeed, which is shuttering its newsroom. It didn't work for so many other companies. This is how I think big corporations - and in this case, public media - preserves its assets while it's winding down its obligations. The true cost is - we are in Washington state, I think, at a real critical juncture around how many local reporters we have left covering city halls, school board meetings, library trustee meetings. And all the sites that have suddenly become the most contentious sites of culture wars - we now lack the journalistic infrastructure to actually tell us why those places are becoming so politicized and why they are becoming the place where these fights are happening. It is incredibly disappointing that Crosscut - to me - has made this pivot because podcasting and video doesn't give you investigation. Podcasting and video doesn't give you the ability to do the long-term relationship building behind the scenes where you're developing sources and you are cultivating broad swaths of information from different people. What it does is it gives you the ability to be on somebody's TikTok as they're scrolling in their bed at night. But I would say the issues that we're facing are much more deep than 30 seconds can provide any one person. And the dearth of long-form reporting is what is going to kill this republic. The fact that we don't have the ability to go deep on why water treatment systems are so difficult to fund and renovate and keep operational - because they're unseen and unsexy, right? So it's incredibly sad to me. And I think it is even more telling that - as Crosscut probably increased their donor rolls on the backs of their highly promoted people of color coverage, are now laying off those very same reporters that brought in new donors. And I don't think that's lost on anybody. I think that this is what happens. You bring in folks to do the racial work, to do the work in communities that traditional media has not been able to do - and then they're first out the door after they've made their profit for the bosses. [00:24:36] Crystal Fincher: And we've seen this replay in so many different layoff scenarios exactly as you just laid out - whether it's mass media, whether it's news - it's just frustrating. Certainly a lot being talked about in - is AI part of this? We've heard in other layoffs cited that - well, AI can do so much more than it used to do, and we can rely on that for some of this. Or - hey, not lost on us, right? We're talking on a podcast - talking about how a pivot to podcast is not the thing to do, but it's not. That's - it's a different thing. And sure, supplement reporting and coverage with that, but to just replace it - like you said, this is what happens before they die. And it's also not lost on people that this is seeming - this is not the first action that people have felt in this direction. When they cut off their community editorial, guest editorial program - which did a really, really good job - was something that picked up a lot of support and steam, actually talking about on-the-ground solutions to many of the issues that plague us. One of the reasons I do this podcast is because I'm - I get so frustrated with the lack of conversation about actual solutions about what works - Should we address this or not? Not how do we address this? What are the options on the table? And there are usually a lot of options on the table that even people who consider themselves aligned politically can disagree on, different things need to be tested and tried out - there's so much to talk about in terms of how we solve things. And that series was really informative in that reason. And it was rumored - because of some board leadership or new leadership that came aboard, they felt like that was catering too much to progressive forces where it's - this is Seattle, that this is serving. It is reflective of the community that it is serving. But certainly if you are not living in Seattle, or if you do not interact with many people from Seattle, you may think that it is more appropriate to do that. Wasn't lost on people that - in the Crosscut Ideas Festival, people were platformed with severely anti-trans views, advocating for punitive criminal legal system policies and procedures, the othering of so many people, criminalization of homelessness and poverty. And Michael Cohen was there. Just things that made a lot of people scratch their heads and say - one, what in the world anywhere, but especially in Seattle, what is happening? What's even going on? So it just seems like the people who are making decisions just have a different alignment. And even though they said this decision was partly in place to pursue a younger audience - seemed like they were doing that - and they're getting rid of the people who were successful at doing that. [00:27:31] EJ Juárez: I think you hit the nail on the head of - this idea of pursuing a younger audience is not always pivot to video. It is reductive to assume that young people cannot consume anything more than 30 seconds. And it also does them a disservice when this is an incredibly politicized set of young people and set of generations that are hungry to understand their world in really complex and nuanced ways, and Crosscut has missed that boat. For me, what I think of a lot when I think of Crosscut now - and especially after the last Ideas Festival, which to me was less about ideas and more about provocative speakers to bolster their brand - was really this idea that you touched on around Crosscut had a moment in which it was super relevant. And that moment of relevancy was incredibly dense, but it was on the upswing and it was with those editorials. It was with the expansion of their reporting. What Crosscut did not do is capture its own growth and capture that moment, and instead pivoted towards a very traditional understanding of how that business needed to be run. They benefited greatly by the Seattle PI shutting down its very last legs of local content. And frankly, at the same time, as The Stranger really losing a lot of its best reporters and watching their own newsroom shrink and the quality is what it is now. But I think there's definitely a market change in both the Seattle and Puget Sound landscape, and Crosscut is such a cautionary tale of watching a group of people not capture their moment. [00:29:03] Crystal Fincher: Cautionary tale indeed. There was a point in time where - everyone I knew was tuning in to Crosscut, checking out Crosscut and what was there - the coverage was just so relevant locally. You really nailed it. And it's a shame that they moved in a different direction and it's certainly is not what it was, and moving further away - by the day, evidently. The union that represents those employees does say that they do plan on fighting this, that it doesn't seem like this transpired fairly. And so we'll definitely be paying attention to how this unfolds over the next weeks and months. Also this week, we got news that Marc Dones from the King County Regional Homeless Authority is stepping down and resigning from his position. How do you see his tenure and, I guess, the establishment - 'cause he basically built the thing from the ground up - of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority? [00:29:58] EJ Juárez: I think this one is so complex. I think there are many reasons why we're in this place and this surprise resignation - that maybe wasn't so much of a surprise. I feel like - for the past year, the only thing we've heard about the Regional Homelessness Authority in the news has been terrible. It has been punch after punch after punch where the nuts and bolts of that organization have left the folks on the ground doing the hardest work waiting to be paid, waiting to get the funds that they're promised. We've also seen, I think in some ways, a somewhat confrontational approach from that organization with the very regional structure that it's supposed to uphold. One of the things I think with this is I think Marc - I do not know Marc - and my interactions with that organization are as a spectator and somebody who depends on them to do the great work that they've set out to do. The vision that that organization set forth is incredible. And unfortunately, I think that in order for any organization to develop on an incredible vision, you have to build a great team. And unfortunately, that's an organization that did not build a regional team in order to execute on that vision. So you can be bold and visionary, but if you don't have the chops and you don't have the ability to bring a team with you - ideas are a dime a dozen, but true organizers and folks that can bring folks with them - I think that is what that organization desperately needs in its next leader. [00:31:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, for me, it feels like this was a challenging task from the outset. And I don't know that there was even the alignment between the regional parties involved that would have supported anything, but what had been happening in a status-quo-type of path moving forward. People who know me have probably had this conversation with me, but - even the formation of this regional homelessness authority felt like - we heard, certainly Ed Murray when he was the mayor, talk about the need for regional solutions. Several people talk about the need for a regional solution. To me, it always felt like that was an excuse and a way to escape accountability for local action, for action in their purview and in their jurisdiction. Certainly there was a lot more that a - Mayor Ed Murray, Mayor Jenny Durkan could have and should have done to address this - that they just didn't. They didn't agree with, they didn't execute on. And here we have now Mayor Harrell. And it just seemed like the vision that Marc Dones laid forth and the vision that you heard from local leaders like Mayor Harrell or some housing providers were never in alignment. And it seemed like there were silos there. It seems like there was some feeling that they needed to protect what they were doing, and maybe the Regional Homeless Authority was gonna take away some of their power or their resources. And a reaction to that was what it seemed like was happening in a few different places. Certainly Marc Dones talked about doing things in a different way. People didn't always agree with that way. Is that on him, or is that just on a lack of alignment? Certainly they hired him, so it seems they would have hired someone who was closer to what they - the direction that they wanted to go - but it's challenging. And it took - it's hard to build an organization. And what he got dumped on him was a ton of money and said - okay, build it and go. It took longer than anticipated to build it. It does seem like they were achieving some good results, especially recently. But as you said, there were other stories always peppered in there. And for every step forward, it felt like there was a story or something about a challenge that they were facing. And even the issue of - this latest major issue where somehow, because of someone's lack of oversight - and I'm still not sure exactly who that is - this organization wound up overspending its budget by quite a lot, which could leave people evicted, basically, without any place to live through no fault of their own in this situation - was really, was a challenge. And it seemed like that was a result of a lack of alignment, and people operating in silos and not wanting to share or collaborate on what they were doing. And so I certainly hope that this next person who is stepping in can manage those relationships better, or at least level set better. And hopefully these partners will give them the tools that they need and the collaboration that they need to succeed. But we will see how this continues to play out. Also, we got news - and I guess we will wrap up on this today - Seattle's, once again, the fastest growing city in the country. This is particularly amusing to many people in Seattle because of a long-term kind of insistence in trying to spin a narrative from some very conservative forces - in a documentary a while back that was pretty hyperbolic and exaggerated that "Seattle is Dying." And it's alternating between a city that's controlled by anarchists, that's being burnt down by Antifa, and being overrun by drugged-up zombies and homeless people who they characterize as all criminals and out there due to some moral failing or their own fault, right? And that just does not - it was just false. It is not the reality on the ground for most people. Most people are not fearing for their safety as they're walking throughout Seattle. They're just carrying on about their lives. And sure, there are challenges. And sure, there are people outside who shouldn't be - although the problem with that is the people outside, not people needing to see the people who are outside. And so it just is curious and interesting. And I'm wondering what you think, or why you think Seattle continues to be one of the fastest - or now the fastest - growing city in the country once again. [00:36:06] EJ Juárez: Seattle's awesome. I think that's - I love Seattle, and I think Seattle has a problem with people saying that they love Seattle. And there is a real culture in the Puget Sound of the other cities' political leaders scoring cheap political points by dunking on Seattle, right? And at some point, the chorus of those other politicians doing that work becomes something. And that has unfortunately permeated into the City, where I wish more people were open about how much they love this place - because that's why people are moving here. That's why people want to be here. And I think especially as we look at this return-to-the-office moment that we're in, Seattle is gonna come back. And I think that the work that the Downtown Seattle Association and the Mayor's office are doing to reimagine what's possible in our downtown, given that we have so many opportunities unlike other major cities - I'm super excited about it. I also think that we might be on the first wave of climate migration. I think that it would be foolish for us not to at least consider - those who have the means and opportunities now to relocate to a place where they are less exposed to natural disasters comparatively from where they might be from, where heat swings - barring last week - are less frequent. So I think that we're well poised for a comeback and I think that this is the first maybe harbinger of that, where we've got folks coming back and we're growing again. [00:37:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's a very valid point, especially talking about - now is the time with people - when people of means are making changes based on this. And I've had conversations with people about this, and people are absolutely looking at - What is the weather likely to be? Is there likely to be flooding? Is there likely to be extreme heat waves? On top of that - of the challenges brought by climate change - the challenge is brought by our failure to manage our infrastructure appropriately. Some folks in Texas - not only is it a problem with heat waves or extreme cold, but also their power being completely unreliable when that happens. Or elsewhere in the country - or water being completely unsafe to drink and unpredictable in that way. Different ways that also a failure to manage infrastructure is exacerbating our struggles with climate change and leaving people more vulnerable to that. I also think that we are - we're, comparatively, a very educated place, a very engaged place. It's a beautiful place to live. It's not - this is one of the easier places for businesses to attract employees to come. And really that's what was behind our incredible population growth in the first place. This is a place, this is a good place to do business. We heard so many times from - whether it's the Association of Washington Cities or the Chamber or Washington Roundtable - these raises in minimum wages or this tax that the city council wants to put on businesses, it's gonna make the sky fall. Everybody's gonna leave. Everyone's gonna move out. And now they're - as the "Seattle is Dying" crowd will be - bad things are taking over Seattle. No one wants to be here. And that is just laughably false and continues to be proven laughably false. Definitely don't wanna give the impression that there are not significant challenges - there are lots of significant challenges everywhere. And the set that we have is, unfortunately across the country, a better set than many people are dealing with in other places. We should do better. We should still be doing better. But comparatively a lot of places are doing worse. Not to mention just attacks on civil rights, and people being able to be people and live their own lives in different places. And we are a place that is welcoming to people - as you talked about before. So I definitely understand why Seattle is at the top of this list and continues to return to the top of the list. I hope we do things to make it even more welcoming and inviting and support the population that is moving here, like making appropriate decisions on housing and renter protections and rent controls and preventing displacement from the continued population growth. [00:40:40] EJ Juárez: I think a key difference, too, as we look at some of those places that are less hospitable to business - Washington was rated number one best place to open and run a business multiple times here in the last few years, including last year. But I look at places like Florida, where also massive migration to that state and also very large high profile exodus by companies out of that state - because it is so hostile given the conditions for its employees to live safe, prosperous lives within their communities. So to places like that and people that are talking about how great Florida and Texas and all these other places are, I say - Hey, Disney just canceled a billion dollar expansion in Orlando for their employees because they did not believe their employees were safe in how hostile that government was towards them. Hey, come on up to Washington. We like Mickey Mouse, let's do it. [00:41:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we won't just exact a vendetta against a company because they didn't agree with what the governor said. So it'll be, it's certainly an interesting exercise to go over all the things that do make Seattle a pretty cool place to be - took me longer than many people to warm up to Seattle, but I have arrived, I'm here. [00:42:06] EJ Juárez: Just wait two years, it changes every two years. You'll like one of them. [00:42:09] Crystal Fincher: Oh goodness - with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, May 19th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is the former Director of Progressive Majority, who's now in public service and remains involved in numerous political efforts - and you all hear how insightful and intelligent he is when he's on - EJ Juárez. Thank you for joining us. [00:42:36] EJ Juárez: Thank you. [00:42:37] Crystal Fincher: You can find EJ on Twitter @EliseoJJuarez. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, it's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Every year, Town Hall selects exceptional local artists and scholars for paid residencies where they engage with Town Hall programs and collaborate with our programming team to develop original events for the community. For our Spring 2023 residency, we're lucky enough to have both a Scholar- and an Artist-in-Residence. This Scratch Night will showcase their work in progress. Scholar in Residence: Sally James Sally James is a writer whose curiosity about people has taken her from jails to hospitals to schools to research labs. Once a staff member of daily newspapers, she has been an independent writer on medicine and science for many years. Most recently, she's reported stories for the South Seattle Emerald, Parentmap, Seattle and Seattle Business magazines, and other outlets. She is the mother of three adult children and lives in Seattle with her husband and a noisy cat. She is a former president of the Northwest Science Writer's Association, a nonprofit supporting science communication. Focus while in Residence: In the words of Sally, “The Year 12 project is asking about a pivotal time in a young person's growth when what's swirling around us in news, music, or culture may leave a permanent imprint on our identities. Laura Kastner, Ph.D., a clinical professor of psychology at the University of Washington, will join James onstage to talk about the brain changes that happen around age 12. Kastner is the author of several books about adolescence and parenting. You can participate in Sally's Year 12 project here: Share your Year 12 Stories!

For the past century, scientists and naturalists have been steadily unraveling the secrets of bird migration. How and why birds navigate the skies, traveling from continent to continent — flying thousands of miles across the earth each fall and spring — has continually fascinated the human imagination, but only recently have we been able to fully understand these amazing journeys. Although we know much more than ever before, even the most enthusiastic birdwatcher may not know how we got here, the ways that the full breadth of scientific disciplines have come together to reveal these annual avian travels. Flight Paths is the never-before-told story of how a group of migration-obsessed scientists in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries engaged nearly every branch of science to understand bird migration. Uniting curious minds from across generations, continents, and disciplines, bird enthusiast, and science writer Rebecca Heisman traces the development of each technique used for tracking migratory birds, from the first attempts to mark individual birds to the cutting-edge technology that lets ornithologists trace where a bird has been, based on unique DNA markers. Along the way, she touches on the biggest technological breakthroughs of modern science and reveals the almost-forgotten stories of the scientists who harnessed these inventions in service of furthering our understanding of nature (and their personal obsession with birds). Rebecca Heisman has written for several organizations including the Audubon Society, the American Bird Conservancy, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the Wilson Ornithological Society, and the American Ornithological Society. Her first book, Flight Paths, tells the epic scientific story of how we know what we know about bird migration. When she's not writing or birding, she can often be found knitting, playing with her son, or adding to her native plant garden. Sally James is a writer and journalist who covers science and medical research. She has written for The Seattle Times, South Seattle Emerald, Seattle and UW Magazines, among others. For the Emerald, she has been focusing during the pandemic on stories about health and access for communities of color. In the past, she has been a leader and volunteer for the nonprofit Northwest Science Writers Association. For many years, she was a reviewer for Health News Review, fact-checking national press reporting for accuracy and fairness. She is most pithy on Twitter @jamesian. Flight Paths: How a Passionate and Quirky Group of Pioneering Scientists Solved the Mystery of Bird Migration The Elliott Bay Book Company

On this midweek show, Crystal welcomes reporter Megan Burbank to talk about the status of reproductive healthcare in Washington state after last year's Dobbs decision removed guarantees for abortion access on the national level. The conversation starts by highlighting barriers that already existed prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned such as the Hyde Amendment and a slew of state-level restrictions, then delves into the realities of why the issue is important for maternal health, family planning, and economic mobility.  Despite Washington having more state-level protections than other parts of the country, Megan and Crystal discuss the challenges our state does face with fallout from abortion restrictions in other states, the increase in religiously affiliated hospital mergers, and inconsistent access to services depending on one's location. Finally, Megan shares her thoughts on how people can get involved - through state legislation working its way through Olympia as well as helpful and non-helpful ways to engage with the issue. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Megan Burbank at @meganireneb and http://burbank.industries/.   Megan Burbank Megan Burbank is a writer and editor based in Seattle. Before going full-time freelance, she worked as an editor and reporter at the Portland Mercury and The Seattle Times. She specializes in enterprise reporting on reproductive health policy, which she has covered locally for Crosscut, the South Seattle Emerald, and the Seattle Times, and nationally at The New Republic and NPR.   Resources “Roe v. Wade was never the whole story” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   “Long uncertain, young people's access to abortion is more complicated than ever” by Megan Burbank from NPR   “‘Ask for Jane:' Who were the pre-Roe underground abortionists?” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   “A landmark study tracks the lasting effect of having an abortion — or being denied one” by Megan Burbank and Emily Kwong from NPR   “Who is traveling to Washington for abortion care?” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   “Abortion rights in WA fall into limbo at religious hospitals” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut    “Students lobby for WA bills on abortion and gender-affirming care” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   “New Yakima clinic to expand abortion access in Eastern Washington” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   “How a Texas ruling on abortion pills would affect Washington” by Megan Burbank from Crosscut   HB 1469 - Concerning access to reproductive health care services and gender-affirming treatment in Washington state   HB 1340 - Concerning actions by health professions disciplining authorities against license applicants and license holders   SB 5242 - Prohibiting cost sharing for abortion   HB 1155 - Addressing the collection, sharing, and selling of consumer health data   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. So today I am thrilled to be welcoming Megan Burbank, who's a writer and editor based in Seattle. Before going full-time freelance, she worked as an editor and reporter at The Portland Mercury and The Seattle Times. She specializes in enterprise reporting on reproductive health policy, which she's covered locally for Crosscut, the South Seattle Emerald, and The Seattle Times, and recently at The New Republic and NPR. Have appreciated her coverage - really comprehensive coverage - of reproductive healthcare, which spurred wanting to have this conversation just to talk about what the status of reproductive healthcare is here in Washington in the backdrop of the Dobbs decision and abortion access not being guaranteed from a national level. Welcome so much, Megan. [00:01:43] Megan Burbank: Thank you so much for having me. [00:01:44] Crystal Fincher: So just starting off, what got you interested in covering reproductive health policy? [00:01:49] Megan Burbank: Yeah, it's a good question. So I began covering reproductive health policy in 2011 when I was a news intern at The Stranger. And there was a bill introduced in the Legislature that would regulate these centers that are called crisis pregnancy centers that are often set up near actual abortion clinics, but they're operated by a centralized, evangelical-affiliated organization that is designed to dissuade people from having abortions. And so I was part of an investigation of those centers when I was a young and impressionable news intern with The Stranger, and it really opened my eyes to a lot of the ways that abortion access was complicated even before we were even talking about Roe v. Wade being overturned. And also I would say that I just have always been aware of it on a personal level. I grew up knowing about Roe v. Wade, and I thought of it as something that - the older generation had secured this freedom for us and it was just not something that I questioned. And then when I became an adult and started actually reporting on it and realized the systemic barriers to people actually accessing that type of care, even under Roe, I realized that there was a lot that needed to be reported out about that. [00:03:02] Crystal Fincher: I think you've done a good job really diving into covering the difference between - yes, I can technically access this service, I have the right to do it, it's healthcare that is available in places, but it's not always that simple that something that is technically available is accessible to everyone. Even before, as you talked about, Roe v. Wade being overturned, what were some of the barriers and challenges that people were facing when it came to accessing these services? [00:03:33] Megan Burbank: There were so many of them. There are so many of them. I think the thing that we often forget about abortion access is that women of means - wealthy white women - have always had the option to have an abortion. Before Roe v. Wade, it was common for people with the finances to travel to do that - even to travel to other countries for care. And so when we talk about abortion access, I think it's really important to build in this sort of class piece to it - it's expensive, right? It's expensive to have an abortion. It's typically - it's not always covered by insurance. It is here in Washington because we have a law that mandates that, but that's pretty unique. And another thing to note is that we've got the Hyde Amendment, which was enacted in 1978, so shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned. This essentially bans public funding for abortion, so if you're on Medicaid, Medicare, any sort of military healthcare plan, if you're in the Peace Corps - there are a lot of different scenarios that are impacted by this - you don't have abortion coverage through your insurance. And what that means is that, especially for low-income women, for people of color, for folks who are young - young people - they've been left out of this access picture for quite a long time. And actually that's how that amendment was designed. I think one of the things that people find so horrifying when I talk about this is that Henry Hyde, the lawmaker behind that policy, said explicitly that he wanted to ban abortion access for all women, but that low-income women - what was available to him through legislation through Medicaid. So I think that was a barrier that cropped up shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided. And then of course, we've got just an influx of state-level restrictions that began around that time and have really snowballed since. So we see things like basically bans based on gestational age - so like 15-week bans, that kind of thing. We see things like parental notification laws, which can be really complicated for young people who perhaps are caught up in the foster care system and trying to access care or for other reasons, cannot ask their parents for support in them making their decision. There are also things like 24-hour, 72-hour waiting periods. And those types of restrictions were commonly enacted in the states before Roe v. Wade was overturned. And so the upshot of that is essentially that even though we had the legal backstop of Roe during that time, access could look pretty spotty already based on wherever you were in the country. And then in Washington, we have very robust state-level protections for abortion, but that is not the norm and has not been the norm elsewhere. [00:06:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely true. And even though it was ruled to be a constitutionally protected right at that time, there's just a lot of red tape that you're able to put in front of people's ability to be able to access abortion - whether it's having to visit doctors in-person when you might not otherwise have to, whether it is extra requirements for the prescription, and availability of medication that can help with a medicated abortion or preventing implantation, that type of thing. And it really has been used to manipulate people's access to this. Why is this such an important issue overall? You hear people say sometimes - If you don't wanna get pregnant, then don't have sex. And - People can just keep their legs closed and avoid this whole thing. Why does that not tell the whole story? [00:07:06] Megan Burbank: When I hear people say things like that, it just makes me think of the conversations that I had with this woman named Judith Arcana, who was a part of the Janes in Chicago before Roe vs Wade - this group of women who were activists, who essentially established a network to help people seeking abortions access care. And they were successful because they were able to secure training in abortion. And they also, by Judith's telling, I feel like they were very underestimated and so it was easy for them - not easy, but it was possible for them to get away with this for a long time. And I think one of my major takeaways from that conversation was just that - if someone wants to have an abortion, it's not really this thing that they're gonna take or leave, right? If you're in that situation, you're desperate. You're gonna make it happen, and you're gonna make it happen legally and safely, or you are going to make it happen through whatever underground economies are available to you. And so I think the reality of that is just that people can feel however they want about abortion, but the fact of the matter is that someone in that situation is going to seek out care to the extent that they can. And I think the idea behind laws that are protecting access is just that - wouldn't it be better for them to do this in a way that's safe? And that's the difference. And I think when you look at reporting from the pre-Roe era, you can see that that's really true - that women commonly died from abortions that were obtained through these extra-legal networks, and it was more dangerous for them too. One of the things that I heard about in my reporting for that piece was just that people who sought abortions in the pre-Roe era were often subjected to things like abusive behavior from the people they sought support from. There was often a threat of sexual violence, and they often didn't know what kind of care they were getting or what the credentials of the person performing it were. And they also - they had to pay for it, it was expensive. So you'd have to come up with this large sum of money and just trust someone who you had no reason to believe was actually a doctor to perform this procedure. Women did it anyway. When I talked to Judith, one of the things she told me was that nobody ever changed their mind. And I think that that's something that's just really important to remember because it's not really a choice between no one having abortions ever and people having abortions. It's a choice between people having abortions in safe, medically appropriate environments or having abortions in situations that are much more harmful. [00:09:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I think another thing that has happened during this conversation and greater awareness about how perilous the right to abortion is and how impactful it is - is not just the conversation about how important the ability to choose when and how you have children impacts your social and economic mobility, ability to participate in the workforce, but that just being pregnant is a very, very difficult and traumatic thing on someone's body. You're essentially displacing all of your internal organs, massive hormonal and body changes. And this is not something that is without consequence, or simple, or without challenges for people who are pregnant - and this is a big deal and comes with a lot of risk. I'm a Black woman, certainly very familiar with mortality rates for Black women who are pregnant - an issue that goes beyond issues of access into just straight racism - and just overall with maternal health in this country, we don't do a great job. So it is a really challenging issue. And even though abortion, which is really a routine procedure for most people - and on the risk of things out there, it doesn't seem like it's an outlier in the way that you would think, given all the regulations about it. But what does it mean to be able to have efficient, safe, affordable access to contraception, and how far away are we to be able to provide that for everyone? [00:11:23] Megan Burbank: I think we're pretty far from that, Crystal. I think that what it means is that people have a sense of self-determination and autonomy. And I would say a sense of psychological safety too, because one of the things that often comes up around abortion when I do my reporting on it - you were talking about pregnancy. And pregnancy statistically is much more of a health risk to take on than to have an abortion, especially an abortion early in pregnancy, which is when most abortions occur. When I talk to providers, they will often tell me that - actually - remaining pregnant is pregnant, especially as you pointed out in the United States where we have these huge racial disparities in terms of maternal, perinatal outcomes and maternal morbidity and mortality, that kind of thing. I think that it's the ability to not put yourself in that level of risk - can be really life or death for many people. And I think that having access to abortion and birth control - it allows people to space their pregnancies. One of the things that I think is often forgotten in this conversation is that I think it's something like over half of people seeking abortions are already parents. And so they are making a decision that allows them to care for, and provide for, and have the economic supports to raise the children that they already have. The other thing that I think is really crucial to note here is that there's been some really excellent research on the consequences of being denied an abortion. And there is an excellent study called the Turnaway Study that was conducted over a number of years among people who had sought out abortions and been turned away, not due to state laws, but because of gestational age of their pregnancies. And it follows them in the outcomes that they had. And what it found is that for the people who did not receive abortions and carried to term, they didn't regret carrying to term - but if you looked at the outcomes in their lives in terms of their financial and emotional wellbeing, they took huge hits because they weren't able to access care. And so having access to an abortion is something that can prevent someone from being caught up in a cycle of poverty, which is why I often think that it's useful to frame it as an economic issue because the impact is such that being able to get timely care means that someone is able to care for their family in a way and remain afloat financially. And not being able to do that can mean the opposite - raising a child is expensive. [00:13:57] Crystal Fincher: Very expensive. And in a state like Washington, you mentioned we do have a lot of protections, but that doesn't mean that everyone has access to abortion and abortion care. What are the types of challenges that we face in Washington state? [00:14:12] Megan Burbank: One of the things we're dealing with now is just the fallout from abortion restrictions in other states. And so what that means is that there has been this gradual influx of patients from out-of-state, which focuses more demand on clinics. That can be complicated because it can create more delays for folks trying to access care in Washington. And I wanna be super clear that this is not just tied to Roe v. Wade - this was happening before Roe v. Wade was overturned, with the passage of legislation like Texas's Senate Bill 8, which is the six-week ban that includes this provision that allows people to have these sort of vigilante lawsuits against ordinary citizens or doctors for facilitating abortion care. And so after that law went into effect, what happened in states like ours is that we began to receive an uptick in patients from states like Texas and surrounding states. Because when a state bans abortion, people seeking care will go outside of that state, which creates a delay at clinics in states around that state. And then that sort of creates a ripple effect all the way up to states like ours. So I think it's easy to say - We're in Washington, access isn't a problem here. But when access is restricted elsewhere, we feel the effects of that. And then I would also say that one of the things that I think is important to remember is access is not universal here either. Especially if you live in rural areas, your options may be really limited in terms of finding a provider. I think it's something like 50% of counties in Washington don't have an abortion provider. And so that means that simple geography can be a barrier. And then I would also say we have - Washington has a policy which essentially allows for state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion. So if you're on state Medicaid here, you can - having an abortion is covered. And that's pretty rare. We're only a handful of a number of states that have that sort of policy. So we have these sort of state-level protections that can serve to mitigate some of the federal policies that have impacted access in other states. But that doesn't mean that we have a super clear, facile approach here. I think one of the things that I also see is - in Washington, we've had so many hospital mergers over the past decade between secular healthcare systems and religiously affiliated institutions. And often when that happens, it results in limitations on what reproductive healthcare is available in those hospitals. And so that may mean that even though you're in Washington, the institution where you are accessing care may not provide abortions. [00:16:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this is a major issue here. And these are healthcare systems like Franciscan and Providence and names that are pretty well known throughout the region. I don't think people necessarily always recognize that these are religiously affiliated hospitals and they frequently restrict access in a way that matches the religious convictions. But with these mergers, these may be the only hospitals that are available for someone in an emergency situation needing abortion care. And again, I think lots of people have been exposed to by now - that abortion is not always something that just happens, as people elect. There are lots of different situations where someone needs an abortion, including when a fetus is no longer viable and it can be a significant risk to a mother's health to not receive prompt medical care and a prompt abortion in that kind of situation. It can kill the mother - it's a big, big risk - and to not have that available, or not something that hospitals choose to offer really puts a lot of people in danger. We've seen this in areas where abortion access has been restricted and these stories have made the news - but this is something that doesn't always make the news - but these issues of access are really important. Is there anything happening legislatively, anything happening to help improve the access situation in this religious hospital merger situation, or just in rural areas who have lost healthcare capacity? [00:18:40] Megan Burbank: Yeah, there's been several legislative attempts. There was a law passed, I believe in 2021, called the Protecting Pregnancy Act. And this was drafted in response to scenarios like the one you're describing - where someone would present with an emergency situation related to pregnancy, like an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage, and would need abortion care as treatment. And there was a case in Bellingham where a woman was turned away several times while having a miscarriage, which can be quite dangerous. An ectopic pregnancy also, as you rightly pointed out, is - that can be an emergency situation. People can die from that if they don't receive timely care. And so this law was drafted with the intent of protecting providers who are in institutions that may have internal bans on abortion - that allows them to perform a procedure, an abortion procedure, in that type of situation and to be legally protected while they do it. I think it's not clear how useful this law has been in practice, if it's really expanded access in any meaningful way. I spoke with a provider about it this year, or in 2022, and she said that it was pretty hard to gauge how much of an impact it had. And she also told me that it was still common for patients in that type of situation to be transferred to a hospital like the University of Washington that does provide abortions and is known for that. So I think that's one piece. And then the other is this law called the Keep Our - or this bill - called the Keep Our Care Act that has been introduced in the Legislature. It was brought up this session and last session as well. And this would impose more stringent reporting requirements when healthcare institutions merge. And the focus of this one is not just on reproductive health but also on end-of-life care and gender affirming care, because those are the types of care that are often impacted by these mergers. And that bill appears to be stalled in committee - I don't think it made the cutoff. So we'll see what happens with that - I'm tracking it. But I think there have been these legislative approaches to address that type of situation where someone presents at a hospital in an emergency and can't receive care based on the ideology of the hospital they happen to be in. Which honestly is not something that - I think if I were in an emergency, I don't know that I would be checking the religious affiliation of the hospital. I think I would just want to go to the closest one. [00:21:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and get the care I needed to survive and recover. Absolutely. You mentioned that you're tracking these bills and they can overlap and impact gender affirming care, other care - which is definitely true - we use abortion care as an umbrella term, similarly to contraception as an umbrella term. But this can impact a lot of different types of care. We certainly - after Roe v. Wade was overturned, heard of several situations where people had been prescribed medication that could be used for abortion, but that is used for treating a variety of other ailments, chronic conditions, and that's just necessary for healthcare in their situation that isn't related to an abortion at that point in time. But that medication's still being restricted because it has the potential to cause an abortion. Are we seeing these impacts in Washington state? And overall, what does it mean that reproductive health can be restricted, but also conflated with so many other conditions and treatments? [00:22:15] Megan Burbank: It's complicated. I think one of the things that has been interesting to follow is just - abortion care has often been siloed medically. And I think that we're seeing the same thing happen in real-time with gender affirming care, where it's treated as this separate thing that is not part of traditional healthcare. At the same time, it's something that is crucial for the people who seek it out. And one of the things that I have found to be interesting is that a lot of attempts to restrict gender affirming care resemble, policy-wise, restrictions on abortion. They have the same sort of mechanisms. There was a law recently introduced that really resembles Texas's abortion ban, but is focused on gender affirming care. And so I think that there is a nexus between the two. Another thing that I think is worth noting in this area is that - so Cedar River Clinics, which operates a number of clinics in Western Washington and they have one in Eastern Washington now that recently opened, they have provided gender affirming care for a long time. It's part of their practice. They also do abortions and provide other sort of basic healthcare services. And when I spoke with their communications person in 2022, we were talking about abortion - one of the things that she said was that people have been traveling to that clinic for decades because - they have been traveling there because it is a place where they can access later abortions, but it's also a place where they can access gender affirming care that may not be available in the state where they live. And so I think it is interesting to see these types of care sort of siloed and treated as separate from the rest of healthcare, even though people - they're critical treatments for the people who need them. And I think when you look at abortion, it's such a common procedure. I think it's something like one in four women before age 45 - it is a very normal part of healthcare in that sense, just looking at the numbers. And so I think that it's important to look at that and to look at where that - what agenda is animating the sort of fight against these types of care. And then the other thing I would note is that - you had mentioned abortion medication - and one of the things that we're following right now is the lawsuit in Texas that could potentially take one of two commonly used abortion drugs, mifepristone, off the market. And that's an example of a situation where - mifepristone is not just used in abortions, it's used for other things as well. But it has a REMS designation, which is a restriction that includes a lot of complex dispensing requirements - and so it's been at the center of a lot of debate for a long time for that reason. And I think one of the things that I found pretty alarming in a lot of the coverage of that case was that there were headlines saying that it would ban abortion pills across the country, which is technically true - it would ban, it would affect access to this one abortion pill. But the way that that framing exists, it suggests that there would be no medication abortion available to anyone, which isn't true. Providers in Washington, if that decision goes the way that it's likely to go, are prepared to pivot to a different dispensing protocol where they would use one abortion pill, misoprostol, which already is part of that typical protocol where people take both misoprostol and mifepristone. They work better together but misoprostol does work by itself and there is a lot of data, especially in countries where abortion is banned, that shows that it's effective in ending pregnancy on its own. And so I think it's just - when we look at the way that these drugs are regulated, it's really important to have that context and to see that it does not necessarily mean that all access is going away. It often means something a bit more nuanced that still is going to be hugely impactful on people, but I think that's a situation where clarity in reporting is really important. [00:26:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I really appreciate you bringing that up - because to your point, I saw a ton of headlines that said - Medication abortions are going to be illegal if this court case is decided in a way that it looks like that judge is inclined to decide it. And lots of people hear that - certainly if I wouldn't have read beyond the headline, I would have been under that impression. And so I appreciate you bringing that up. I also really appreciate you bringing up how similar the political and policy playbooks are for the regulation of abortion care and gender affirming care - how we seem to artificially silo them in ways that don't come from the medical profession. These are not experts and doctors doing this. These are politicians saying - We need these extra requirements, extra red tape, extra reporting guidelines, extra waiting periods, extra requirements. And this is not coming from doctors, this is not coming from experts across the board, whether it's abortion or gender affirming care. And how subjective we get when it comes to gender affirming care, just as you said, subjective when it comes to the types of medications that are considered for abortion, not for abortion, and there can be a crossover there certainly - that's the case with gender affirming care. People need the healthcare appropriate to their situation, whether it reinforces their gender or not. There's certainly a lot of things that fall into the bucket of gender affirming care that we see as normal, everyday things - that the amount of people who have BBLs and breast enhancements and are taking hormones for a variety of reasons. There are so many people on hormones to treat a variety of ailments, but we act like it's just the scariest, most wrong thing in the world when it comes to trans people or people who need that kind of care. So I appreciate just the calling out and knowledge that there really is a similar playbook here being employed, and we're seeing a lot of the same tactics being used to place barrier after barrier. And the way that they get these things through - I think with both abortion and the gender affirming care - is they aren't going after outlawing the entire thing all at once, but just one more barrier, one more waiting period, one more regulation. And when you make people repeatedly jump through all these hoops, they eventually just get tired out, worn out, and not everyone makes it through all the hoops. And they know this and this is how they restrict access, even though there technically may be the ability to get it if everything aligns perfectly and you have enough money and time and the ability to take off work and that kind of stuff, which so many people don't have. So as we move forward, what should we be looking at and what can the average person who's interested in ensuring that reproductive access remains available and accessible to most people - how can people make a difference in their own community and what can they do to help this? [00:29:38] Megan Burbank: So there are three laws, or three bills, that have been introduced that have made it past the house of origin cutoff. One is a shield law that would protect providers of abortion care and also gender affirming care from being prosecuted for doing their jobs, essentially. There's another bill that would prevent licensing boards from retaliating against clinicians for providing care like abortions and gender affirming care. And then there's a third bill which would prohibit cost sharing for abortion. This is a really interesting bill because what it means is that if you are seeking abortion care - we have this law in the state of Washington that requires insurance plans to cover abortion if they cover maternity care, but that doesn't always translate to abortion being affordable because you may have high deductibles, your copay may be high. So this policy would essentially make it so that if you are seeking abortion, you don't have any coinsurance responsibility for it as a patient - which is a pretty wonky thing, but what it means is that you'll be able to get care without paying a high copay. You'll be able to just go and receive the care that you need. And so those laws are pretty instrumental in expanding protections for abortion access in Washington. And I think it's important, if this is something that people care about, to follow these pieces of legislation and just make sure that you're informed about it. I would also say - one of the issues that I've heard from activists since Roe v. Wade was overturned was that there's been a huge interest in their work and it's overwhelming. And I've also seen, I've also heard that there's been a lot of doubling up on existing activism. I think probably the most insidious example of this is like the camping meme that was going around after Roe v. Wade - of people in blue states being like, "Come camping with me, I'll help you get an abortion." Which is - I think comes from a good place of wanting to really help - but the thing is there are existing networks in the United States called abortion funds that have been around for a long time. And they exist to help people access abortion care and pay for things like travel expenses and childcare and their procedures. And so I think instead of doubling up on the work that already exists, it's really important to seek out the activist organizations that are already doing the work - because what I hear from them is that they see their work being redoubled in this way that's not really informed in the long shadow of the movement. And so it's really important to find out who is already doing the work and if you wanna be part of it, how can you support them rather than starting your own thing? But yeah, I think also - one of the things that I often say to people is if you care about abortion access and the policies that impact it, that should be a year-round activity. That shouldn't just be something that happens whenever there is a particular piece of legislation in the news - you should be following coverage of this on an ongoing basis because it's deep and complicated and wonky and it really helps to immerse yourself in it and to look into who are the players, who are the people that are advancing this legislation, and how is it gonna impact you? I think that's really important. And I think that there's been a lot of emphasis on things like stocking up on abortion pills and offering to drive people to their appointments. Again, I think it comes from a really good place, but I think it doubles up on existing work in a way that is often harmful to people who are actually already really immersed, on the ground, in that work. [00:33:21] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I guess finally, for people who are just living their lives, who may need abortion care at some point in time, but who currently are using period tracking apps, fertility apps, that type of thing. And while we see headlines like Meta or Twitter or other companies turning over data to authorities that may be looking to prosecute people or determine who is seeking abortion care, contraception. We see in Florida - for girls to participate in sports, they have to report their period dates and activity. And concerns about privacy, the technology, all the stuff surrounding that. How would you advise people as they navigate through these times that come with potential legal ramifications? [00:34:17] Megan Burbank: Yeah - I'm not a lawyer. I do talk to them a lot for my work, but I just want to preface this by saying that. But I would say it's a good idea to, I would say, be careful about what sort of social media channels you may be using for this type of information. Because it's very rare to actually be prosecuted for something like purchasing abortion pills, but it has happened. And often it involves an Internet trail of someone having purchased the drugs online. So this happened in Pennsylvania - I think it was in 2014 - a woman was prosecuted because she had purchased abortion pills for her daughter, and they went to a hospital because her daughter's miscarriage was incomplete so they were seeking care. And they were essentially reported on by someone who saw them when they came for care. When I speak to lawyers about this, it's unlikely. It's not, there's not a huge amount of precedent of people being prosecuted for the things that they do and say online, but it's also not impossible. There is precedent for it, despite the fact that it's not super robust. And so I think it's important to be careful about how you're engaging in that type of behavior. And then I would also say - we talked about a slate reproductive health bills going through the Legislature. There is another one called the My Health, My Data Act, which is focused exactly on this. And it's about setting up privacy protections for people using things like period trackers and doing online searches, that kind of thing. And so this is a piece of legislation that's meant to address sort of the gap between private health data that is protected by HIPAA and private health data that an app might have access to, where they don't have the same sort of legal responsibilities. And so I think this type of policy can actually help to protect people in those situations. And I don't think anyone should ever be afraid of knowing about their body or seeking out medical care that they need. I think that's really crucial. And I think that we may well see more attempts to protect that type of information in these types of laws moving forward. And I think they'll probably become more important because it's not something that we've seen a ton of precedent for in terms of prosecutions, but that's all changing right now because we no longer have the legal backstop of Roe. And so I think that means there are a lot of questions that we're gonna see play out over the next decade. [00:36:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And some attempted prosecutions happening right now involving some of that data, so we will certainly see how this plays out. Thank you so much for spending this time with us today, for helping to educate us about the state of reproductive access in Washington state right now. And we'll continue to follow this. Thank you very much, Megan. [00:37:11] Megan Burbank: Thank you, Crystal. This has been great. [00:37:12] 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 Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Guy Oron, Staff Reporter for Real Change! They start with a discussion of Friday's Washington Supreme Court ruling that the capital gains tax is constitutional and what that means for the state's residents. Then they discuss a tragic eviction in Seattle and a court ruling that landlords can ask about criminal records.  They chat about Howard Schultz stepping down early as the CEO of Starbucks, workers protesting before their annual shareholder meeting, and some shareholders' and white collar workers' desire for Starbucks to improve their behavior and relations with unionizing workers. They follow with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce's desire to gut JumpStart tax funds for downtown, despite the popularity of the tax and need for continued investment in other neighborhoods and small businesses.  They close with a discussion of where the Sound Transit CID station debate stands, as well as talk about the significance of Pierce County passing a local tax to fund housing services. 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, Guy Oron at @GuyOron.   Guy Oron Guy Oron is the Staff Reporter for Real Change, covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics. His writing has been featured in a number of publications including the South Seattle Emerald, The Nation and The Stranger. Raised in Seattle, Guy brings a community and student organizer perspective to their journalism, highlighting stories of equity and justice.   Resources Dahlia Bazzaz and What's Happening in Washington Education from Hacks & Wonks   WA Supreme Court upholds capital gains tax by David Gutman and Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times    Seattle landlords can ask about criminal records, court rules by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times   Councilmember Invites Landlord Who's Suing City to Lead “Housing Provider” Panel from PubliCola   Seattle DSA Statement on the Death of Eucy Following the Attempt to Evict Her by King County Deputies | Seattle DSA   Will City Hall give downtown Seattle a tax break? by John O'Brien and Dyer Oxley from KUOW    Howard Schultz Will Step Down From Starbucks to Spend Less Time Getting Owned by Union Organizers by Tori Otten from The New Republic   Starbucks workers protest before annual shareholder meeting from The Associated Press   Starbucks shareholders to vote on proposals for labor probe, succession planning by Amelia Lucas from CNBC   Comptroller Lander and Coalition of Investors File Shareholder Proposal at Starbucks on the Rights of Workers to Organize | NYC Comptroller   Placement of future CID light rail station sparks heated debate, strains relations by Guy Oron from Real Change    What We Know About Sound Transit's Alternatives to a Chinatown Station by Doug Trumm and Stephen Fesler from The Urbanist   Sound Transit is Not Ready for Its Big Chinatown Station Decision from The Urbanist Editorial Board       Light Rail Board Members Seek Middle Ground as Plan to Skip Chinatown, Midtown Stations Moves Forward by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   From the Other Side of I-5: Little Saigon Weighs In On Sound Transit's Light Rail Expansion In the CID by Friends of Little Sài Gòn for PubliCola   Preserve Chinatown or Fuck Over Transit Riders Forever? by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Pierce County just passed a new tax and funded a homeless village. That's a big deal by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune   Pierce County Council votes on sales tax to address housing crisis. Here's the decision by Becca Most from The News Tribune   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, Seattle Times reporter Dahlia Bazzaz returned with a rundown of education issues across Washington state, including why budgets are a mess, how the Washington State Legislature is and isn't addressing it, the Wahkiakum Schools lawsuit addressing capital construction costs, and shifts in enrollment patterns in Washington schools. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: Staff Reporter for Real Change covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics, Guy Oron. Hey! [00:01:30] Guy Oron: Hi, thank you - I'm so glad to be here. [00:01:32] Crystal Fincher: I'm so excited to have you here - have been appreciating your coverage of all of those issues for a while now, so excited to be able to talk about the news this week. And we just got a big piece of breaking news this morning - finding out that the capital gains tax has been found, by our Washington State Supreme Court, to be constitutional. What did they say? [00:01:59] Guy Oron: Yeah, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the capital gains tax is not a property tax and that it is legal, which is a huge win for the Washington Democrats and the governor, who signed the bill into law in 2021. [00:02:15] Crystal Fincher: Yes, absolutely. There was question about - okay, we have - our State Constitution prevents an income tax from being enacted, any graduated income tax is not considered constitutional at this time. This didn't address that issue - basically it accepted that the capital gains tax is an excise tax, so the Court didn't visit, revisit all the rulings that classify income as property and that being a way to clear the way for a graduated income tax. We will address that a different day at some point, I'm sure, but for now, the capital gains tax is found to be constitutional. And this is really big for a lot of funding going for schools, for daycare, for a lot of family support. And this is a tax that is going to only impact - what is it - the top 0.2% of Washingtonians, I think that was, while easing some of the burden or allowing people who are lower income, middle income to really get more bang for their buck in the types of services that are going to be provided here. [00:03:24] Guy Oron: Yeah, it's really a game changer because the state has operated for so many years on this austerity mindset where they have to decide between schools and other public services. And so this will give some breathing room for families, the vast majority of families in the state. [00:03:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So looking forward to see this implementation continue - yeah, and so with only two-tenths of 1% of Washington taxpayers seeing enough profits on capital gains to pay this tax - which is a 7% tax on stock sales, extraordinary profits exceeding $250,000 annually - exempting real estate, retirement accounts like IRAs, family-owned small businesses and farms, among other things. It is just something that lots of people have been waiting to find out if this is going to go through, and that will enable about $500 million extra a year to be raised, just from this tax on two-tenths of a percent of Washington state residents. Also this week, we got news that a landlord court case - another one decided - that it is not legal for the legislation that Seattle passed - to try and help ease people back into the community, help people with access to housing who have been convicted or previously incarcerated - preventing landlords from being able to ask on an application if someone has been convicted of a crime before. That was ruled unconstitutional - landlords can do that, continue to do that. How do you think this is going to play out? [00:05:10] Guy Oron: Yeah, I was very surprised by the Ninth Circuit's reasoning - because on the one hand, they acknowledged the importance of remedying discrimination against people who have been incarcerated. But on the other hand, they ruled that it was too broad - banning landlords from finding out someone's criminal history. And so it does seem like there's still room for the City to challenge the ruling and try to still mitigate that, but it is a blow for renters and people who are fighting against the criminal legal system and trying to get folks reintegrated into society after experiencing the harms of mass incarceration. [00:05:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that's so major, because so many people have had some kind of conviction or even just an arrest. Yes, especially with so many people who have convictions - because we have been in this era of mass incarceration, a significant percentage of our community has been arrested, has been convicted of some crime at some point in time. And we talk about the housing crisis, homelessness crisis - people not being able to afford homes - but also being able to qualify for an apartment, to be able to rent a place is challenging. And if we're serious about wanting to create a safer community, wanting to create a community where more people can have their needs met, where fewer people are victimized or harmed - certainly helping to make sure that people have access to housing is one of the most basic and fundamental things we can do. So there still - once again, is a significant percentage of people in Seattle, but obviously most other cities have not passed this legislation - and so lots of people across the state still facing challenges being able to access housing overall. So we'll see what the response to this is, but definitely a challenge. Also in the news this week is a really unfortunate - really, really tragic - story this week of a really fatal eviction where a young woman ended up taking her own life, where a deputy was shot, and just a tragedy that unfolded because of an eviction - an attempt to serve an eviction notice and forcefully evict this - which really seemed to throw this person into crisis. And the community overall has really largely reacted to this and I've actually been, through this tragedy, heartened to see the reporting from a variety of news outlets really talking about the root causes of this issue - in failing to take action to keep people in their homes, to prevent eviction - resulted in so many people getting harmed, and so many people being less safe, so many people being scarred after this, and a life being lost. How do you see this? [00:08:24] Guy Oron: Yeah, it's just such a tragic incident. I know Eucy was a member of the Seattle DSA community and of mutual aid and other community organizations in Seattle and so I just - my heart goes out to her and everyone who was touched by her presence in the community. I think this case really is the tip of the iceberg, and really shows the structural violence of evictions and our current housing crisis. And so many people have - it's so violent that people have to move every six months, every year or two, every time they get a rent increase. And you just think about children and having to switch schools every year. You have to think about the mental health impacts and stress that it takes to not only find a deposit and pay all the short-term rental fees on top of rent, but also just how difficult it is to exist in society when rents are so high. And so this case really shows how difficult and how much violence our current housing system inflicts on people. [00:09:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and we can do better. We have to do better, we need to do better. And that's the thing that gets me with so much of this. Some of the discourse I see or talk - What are you talking about? Why are you even, basically, caring about the humanity of this person? A law enforcement officer was shot, and we should note that we do not know by whom at this point in time. We do know that Eucy died by suicide. And just a really unfortunate situation. And if we get away from blame, if we get away from this kind of toxic discourse that talks about - if people deserve help, deserve a second chance, deserve grace, deserve housing, deserve basic needs met - when we don't focus on that and we allow things to get this far down the road, it is very expensive. As a community - beyond the life lost - this is destabilizing for a ton of people. This has endangered law enforcement lives - this is not good for them either - this is putting them in danger and in harm's way. It's hard to see who wins. Certainly a landlord now has a clear house, but at what cost? The cost is so high, it doesn't have to be that high. We can do better than this. And I think this underscores the real toll that is taken - we hear statistics a lot of times - and the eviction moratorium saved this many people from being evicted. But when you look at the cost of one person, the impact of one person - it really underscores how urgent it is to act to keep people in their homes, to get their basic needs met, and to find a different way that takes into consideration the health and safety of the community in a much better way than we do now. Also this week, we learned that the Chamber is interested in looting the JumpStart Tax and lowering the B&O Tax in an attempt to jumpstart and revitalize downtown. What's your take on this? [00:11:57] Guy Oron: I think it is very much out of step with much of the community right now that are suffering. We know that during the COVID-19 pandemic, small businesses, workers, even people who work in white collar jobs - right now with all the layoffs going on - are suffering. For example, with the interest rates, it's really hitting - we've seen with SVB's bank shutting down, it's really hitting the tech sector hard. And so most of the economy and most people are suffering. The one group that hasn't been suffering very much are people who own land, and property, and businesses. And to see the Chamber of Commerce, which represents organizations like Starbucks, like Amazon - all these companies which have reported record earnings in the last year - all of them now targeting this small tax, which is a couple million dollars for some of these businesses. In total, I think less than $300 million a year is raised through the JumpStart Tax, if I'm not mistaken. And so it seems like they're trying to take advantage of the economic downturn to redistribute more wealth from workers to the rich. And I think for folks who want to advocate for the whole community and not just a small segment, they should really be skeptical of the claims the Chamber's making. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is part of the ongoing conversation of revitalizing the downtown core. Lots of concern is being heard from people who want to "get back to normal" - whatever that is - from pre-pandemic times, where people were going into the office five days a week. Because of the way that our downtown, many downtowns are designed - people commute in to the downtown core and they commute out of the downtown core. And so much of the businesses, services, structure of downtown, economic structure of downtown is based on just that - servicing commuters, so restaurants and services. But really it's a different downtown after 6-7 PM with so many people clearing out. Through the pandemic, certainly people reduced going to the office. Now patterns have changed where we're seeing less than half, about half of what pre-pandemic foot traffic from people who work downtown was - which is impacting many businesses, which is concerning a lot of people. I think the question really is - should we keep chasing the structure and economy of yesterday that just doesn't look like it is relevant or valid moving forward into the future? If we want to consider downtown just for commuters and focus on the revitalization efforts, return-to-work efforts, and everything going there - we miss the opportunity to make a downtown for today and tomorrow. To make a downtown that's a cultural destination, that's a community destination, and not just a business and commuting destination. I put that just there - businesses are absolutely vital - we need jobs, we need people hiring and thriving, and we certainly need a healthy economy. But again, at what cost? The reason why we have the JumpStart Tax is because most people recognize that businesses, especially the larger businesses, were not paying what most people considered to be their fair share. And this imposes a fee on every employee making over $150,000 for businesses of a certain size. So really it's about mitigating the impacts that their employees have, that their business has instead of solely reaping the benefits of all of the resources - human and otherwise, that this community provides - that they are able to use to drive up the record profits that you referenced. So it's a really interesting conversation. And the other interesting dimension is - certainly, downtown is an important, vital neighborhood. So are lots of other Seattle neighborhoods. And we're now in a situation - once again, in a situation where downtown is really asking for resources from other neighborhoods. And are other neighborhoods are gonna settle for that? Are residents of other areas gonna say - We have to address housing in our neighborhood. We have to address crime in our neighborhood. We need to make our streets safer, healthier. There's so much on the docket to do. Do we need to be taking money out and deprioritizing our needs to move more money over, redirect money to downtown and those purposes - which goes against the JumpStart Tax, which is very popular with Seattle residents and really bailed the City out of a really harmful budget shortfall. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this shapes up - seems like every election is, at the end of the day for the Seattle Chamber and many large corporations, a referendum on taxes for them and an attempt to reduce taxation for them. So we'll see how this all unfolds, but certainly interesting to follow. And once again, we're seeing what's behind a lot of the rhetoric and candidates that we're hearing from out there - and really another bullseye on the JumpStart Tax. In related big corporate news, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is stepping down. What did we hear with this news? [00:17:49] Guy Oron: Yeah, it was a bit of a surprise just because he was slated to step down at the start of April, and he ended up stepping down two weeks early. This comes as he's been engulfed in a lot of controversy over retaliation against union organizers. At the same time, Starbucks has been making record profits alongside other corporations. And this kind of motivated the union to hold a big rally on Wednesday, and there were hundreds of union members and supporters who showed up in SoDo. At the same time, over a hundred stores across the country went on strike as well. And I think this is a turning point. I think we might see some change. It also happened, this also happened at the same time as a shareholder meeting, where there were multiple resolutions sponsored by different shareholders who are concerned about the impact that union busting might have on the reputation of the company. And so it'll be interesting to see if the pressure from workers from the bottom and pressure from some stakeholders and shareholders will together combine to make some change. And maybe we'll see a shift from Starbucks corporate to be a little more amenable to the union. [00:19:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's gonna be interesting. Like you said, they have their annual shareholders meeting. Starbucks is important - it's a big corporation - but it's a big corporation that seems as dedicated as any corporation to union busting in every single way that they possibly can. Howard Schultz was certainly the union buster-in-chief and union busted in ways that were not just distasteful and unethical, but also illegal. The National Labor Relations Board found many instances of illegal union busting activity. And so they seem to be on the tip of the spear of being willing to do whatever they feel it takes to battle unions, whether it's shutting down stores and trying to do the redirection by blaming crime - but the stores that they're shutting down seem to just predominantly be stores that are attempting to unionize, or just don't fit within their profit plans. But also just the amount of hostility towards workers - firing people who are organizing, wielding benefits as a weapon - there was coverage before of potentially even using gender affirming care, women's reproductive care as a wedge issue in attempts to unionize. It is just really unfortunate. And so there were some votes on whether to reassess their labor stance in the shareholder meeting. I don't know how much is gonna come from that - those are certainly non-binding. There is some shareholder sentiment to, at least in terms of rhetoric and outward appearance - from at least a marketing perspective - to not be so hostile to workers, as more and more people across the country definitely understand the plight that their workers are going through more than the plight of the CEO and the highly-paid executives fighting against people just being able to afford the basic necessities of life. So we'll see how Starbucks' new CEO, how their shareholders try and push the corporation - but they've got a long way to go. And certainly even if they were to change some rhetoric, lots of people would need to see changes in behavior - immediate good-faith negotiation with many stores that have opted to unionize that now need to negotiate their contracts and seeing them. But it seems also - as we talked about, I think last week or week before - white collar workers in Starbucks headquarters have also voiced concerns and are calling on Starbucks to do better for their workers. So we'll see how this continues to unfold, and how the new CEO stakes their claim and what path they set. Other really big news this week, in the Puget Sound area, is the Sound Transit CID conversation - CID station conversation about where to site stations and spines for the upcoming lines planned for Sound Transit. What is being talked about and what is this about? [00:22:41] Guy Oron: Yeah, this has been a huge issue across Seattle, the Seattle area, for the past couple of weeks. Sound Transit in 2016 passed a ballot measure called ST3, which authorized funding for a new line that would service both Ballard and West Seattle. And now is the process where the agency needs to find locations for a second tunnel and where those stations are gonna be located at. And so over the past couple of years, the Chinatown International District community has really pushed back against some of these plans. Initially the agency really disregarded completely the community perspective and just started drawing on a map. And they drew proposals for Fifth Avenue, which is right next to Uwajimaya and the gate kind of near Chinatown, and that really angered community. And after basically unanimous pushback, they shelved that proposal. And so now they have one proposal for a Fourth Avenue shallower, which would build a station in between Union and King Street Station. And more recently, a couple of months ago, local leaders - Constantine, Dow Constantine and Bruce Harrell - came up with a second proposal to put two stations right outside of the neighborhood, one in Pioneer Square and the other one kind of in the north end of SoDo. And so this proposal was seen as more a way to mitigate some of the direct impacts of construction on the neighborhood, but it's also caused a lot of controversy because it would make transferring from some lines more difficult. Someone who's coming from Ballard and wants to go take the Amtrak, for example - with the north-south proposal, they would have to get off in Pioneer Square and wait another 10 minutes. And similarly, someone coming from the south end, from Rainier Valley, they would also have to either - to get to the Amtrak, they might have to walk another 5-10 minutes. And certain areas of the CID will be farther than with the Fourth Avenue proposal. And so there's a lot of trade-offs in terms of prioritizing transit accessibility, especially if we think about the climate impacts of mitigating car use. And so those are some of the concerns that transit advocates have brought up. And also, some of the progressive organizations in the CID have really pointed to some of the issues with Fourth Avenue, including potentially 9+ years of construction closing down Fourth Avenue and where will all those cars that kind of use it as a mini-highway - where will they go? And they're very concerned that a lot of them will cut through the neighborhood and increase smog and congestion, and make it harder for people who are actually going to the CID to go there and really make the neighborhood much less livable. And so some of these concerns are really important to consider, especially given the history of the City screwing over the neighborhood time and time again - whether it's building I-5 through the neighborhood, the King Dome, and other kind of mega-construction projects that have really devastated communities there. [00:26:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, Sound Transit tunnel, deep-bore tunnel - several projects have caused a lot of harm and strain to the CID. And I think what a lot of people are saying, 'cause some people are just - Construction is construction. Everybody deals with it. You gotta, it's gonna inconvenience some people. But the issue is - man, the CID seems to be expected to absorb the inconvenience much more frequently, similarly to the way we see disinvestment in South Seattle. Some areas of the City - which have predominantly BIPOC, predominantly low income, much higher percentage of disabled residents who are there - and experiencing the harm from these impacts from construction. And they're saying - We're tired of being the people who have to absorb the brunt and the majority of the impact, or we're always on the chopping block when it comes to what we need. And over and over again, we see it happen where we're experiencing challenges that other areas of the City are not expected to deal with to the same degree. And they're sick of it, frankly. And a lot of people are saying - Okay, is there a path forward where we can mitigate some of these impacts while still looking at and studying these other stations? So there was a meeting yesterday where they agreed to move forward on what you were talking about - studying, building out these new options and what the impacts and the ramifications and the actual projected cost is. How do you see the conversation about mitigating the impacts of this station happening? What kinds of things are they talking about? [00:28:03] Guy Oron: Yeah, a big thing is transit, the traffic congestion, and how you would mitigate traffic congestion into the neighborhood, regardless of which proposal Sound Transit takes up. And I think that is something where the agency will have to be a little more robust than just promise. They will have to compensate the neighborhood in various ways, as well as also compensating the First Hill neighborhood, of course - because that neighborhood hasn't really been serviced by either of the proposals, especially areas like Harborview. I think the agency should look into maybe funding more frequent bus service to that neighborhood as well. Another issue is, of course, equitable transit-oriented development. And I think the agency has an opportunity to use some of its eminent domain powers to maybe help construct more affordable housing - because that's a huge concern that wherever you build a new light rail station, developers will buy up the land - and then the prices will go up - and build market-rate apartments and price out a lot of the existing residents. So those are some of the concerns that Sound Transit and local leaders will have to look to address. [00:29:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I guess I gave my two cents before - which isn't really two cents - on the planned station alignments. I do think the community most impacted, most at risk for displacement and harm should be centered in this conversation. There certainly are people on all sides. There's a broad, diverse array of opinions, but we should hear all of those opinions from that community. We're hearing varied concerns from the community. I think my reflection is based on seeing a lot of people discussing this, a lot of people who are not from the community or tied to the community. And looking at transfer times, which is important - rider experience is absolutely important - but as they do that, to continue to focus and highlight and uplift and listen to the concerns of the residents there. So often when we're in these battles - in a lot of people's minds, it's just refute the argument, get them to vote, and move forward. Downplay the argument - No, that's ridiculous. We should move forward with that. That's a bad idea. And what we're hearing from the community is regardless of which option there is, no matter what option we choose, there are challenges that need to be addressed meaningfully. And I would say to those activists - no matter what option you're supporting - mitigation for the CID, mitigation for First Hill needs to be a part of that. And in so many of these proposals, when we wind up in this situation right here - where community is voicing concerns and people outside of the community are making decisions - so often there's rhetoric - We hear you, we'll totally take care of you. But the things they're asking for are not written into legislation. They're just winks and nods and promises and - Don't worry, we'll take care of it. And then when it's time to take care of it - invariably for a variety of reasons - it doesn't get taken care of, the ball gets dropped, promises get broken, things that they were told were possible are no longer possible. And they end up even more jaded than when they began because they voiced their concerns, they were told that they were heard, they were assured that they would be taken care of, and then they were left out to dry. And so I hope advocates for this really focus on listening to the community, amplifying their concerns, and bringing those concerns to electeds and demanding that mitigations be codified as strictly as everything else. And to not just rely on promises and hopes, and we should be able to do that, and if we get funding. If we are concerned about equity in moving forward, then we need to make sure that we're all moving forward together - and that means standing up for voices that are traditionally talked over, minimalized, overlooked, and making sure that they are actually taken care of. Not saying that everyone's gonna walk away from this happy at the end of the day, but we can ensure that fewer people walk away from this harmed at the end of the day. I think that's everybody's responsibility, and they should really reflect on if they are doing that, they should reflect on if they are talking over people, they should reflect on how to amplify voices, and move forward with that in mind. [00:32:48] Guy Oron: And something I really wish was that this conversation didn't get so polarized, and that communities would listen to each other a little more - be more cognizant of the privilege they are coming into these conversations with. And really direct their fire not at each other, but upwards towards the agencies, towards politicians. There's no shortage of places that Sound Transit needs to be held accountable for, and I think it is unfortunate to see some of that energy be directed between different progressive people who want to do right by their communities. And so I would encourage, like you said, hopefully more cognizant, thoughtful advocacy in the future. [00:33:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The last thing we'll cover today is Pierce County passing a local tax to fund housing services. What will this do? The final thing we'll talk about today is the Pierce County Council passing a local tax - one-tenth of 1% sales tax increase - to fund affordable housing, as well as approving a pair of ordinances that set the stage for construction of a micro-housing village for people experiencing chronic homelessness, which is a big deal. It's really a big deal because, as I look at this - and I'm old, so I remember things from a long time ago, a lot of people may not - but this Pierce County Council, Pierce County being purple, the Pierce County Council being split - and being able to pass a tax with a majority is something that would not have happened 10, 15, 20 years ago. This is a council that had a strong Republican majority, and the recently retired Derek Young stepped down - he was term limited out actually from the Pierce County Council - was part of really starting to turn the Pierce County Council and Pierce County policy from red to purple and even blue in many circumstances. This passed with a veto-proof majority. A number of people that Derek Young helped to recruit were there, so now that he is no longer on the council, this is the last piece of legislation passed with him as a prime sponsor. It started while he was still on there, and it is continuing now. But I do think this is a testament to how important local organizing is, how important it is for our elected leaders to continue to build leaders in their community, to help give people opportunities for leadership, and to help shepherd people into positions that can make an impact like this in the community. This is not the first action that Pierce County has taken to address major structural issues - certainly within public health and public health centers, housing, the environment - many different issues that they have taken action on. And now with housing, seemingly still being ahead of our State Legislature and several other cities here. But I just think it is something that will absolutely do good and that is possible, was made possible by some real serious continued organizing and investment and leadership from people and leaders within that community. So excited to see that, excited to see another major city in the state take a significant step to try and address this housing affordability and homelessness crisis that we have, with significant investments and delivering on what voters basically have given people a mandate to do. Voters are expecting action to address this housing affordability crisis and homelessness crisis. And can talk about minor changes in policies and this and that, but until we actually make solid investments, have dedicated revenue streams to fund continual improvements, we're not gonna make the progress that we need to. And so kudos to the council Democrats on the Pierce County Council for passing this, despite some opposition from Republicans there - but definitely delivering for what the voters have asked for in Pierce County. [00:37:00] Guy Oron: Yeah, this new tax really shows that leaders across the state are starting to take this - the housing and homelessness issue - seriously, and really understand how dire the situation is. So it's great to see other counties, like Pierce County, start to take action and so I commend them. [00:37:20] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, March 24th, 2023. I can't believe it's so late in March, but I can believe my brackets are on fire - okay, I just had to throw that in. It's March Madness, my brackets are amazing at the moment - we'll see if that still holds by next week. But thank you for listening. This show is produced by Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Staff Reporter for Real Change covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics, Guy Oron. You can find Guy on Twitter @GuyOron, G-U-Y-O-R-O-N. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, it's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. And 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.

Taylar Elizza Beth & WD4D - "THE BEAST / DAY 117" from the 2023 self-released album UNDERCOVER LOVERGIRL. On her new album UNDERCOVER LOVERGIRL, Seattle-based rapper Taylar Elizza Beth [aka Taylar White] reunites with producer and DJ WD4D (Blue Scholars, Abyssinian Creole, Common Market). The pair previously worked together on last year's EP, NINETY THREE.  “I want to have more say in what my sound sounds like — and so meeting up with WD4D and figuring out that we have a really great artistic chemistry, it was really serendipitous,” she told the South Seattle Emerald. And on this release, White gets her first producing credit.  On her Bandcamp, she writes that UNDERCOVER LOVERGIRL “is for anyone who has an abundance of love to give, but hasn't always felt safe giving it. It's for people who have had to grow hardened, to protect themselves, to survive. It's for the romantics, the dreamers, the people who even after all the bullshit still know that love is real — because they are full of it.” Read the full story at KEXP.orgSupport the show: https://www.kexp.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of What the Folk, our guest is Michael McPhearson, the executive director of online news publication the South Seattle Emerald, the former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and a longtime activist for racial and social justice within and outside of the US. This interview covers empathy as a radical act, the challenges of fostering solidarity across differences, and the necessity of localized independent media. Afterwards, Joy and Sarah reflect on their own solidarity and communication challenges, as well as how freaking tired they are because who isn't these days. Treat yo'self to a nap, dear listeners – after you listen to this episode. Featured music on this episode is “I Don't Know Much About Star Wars” by Joy Damiani GET INVOLVED Veterans for Peace https://www.veteransforpeace.org/ South Seattle Emerald https://southseattleemerald.com/category/news/ FOLLOW MICHAEL Michael's Medium https://mtmcphearson.medium.com/ MTM Daily https://mtmdaily.com/ Michael's Twitter https://twitter.com/MTMcPhearson

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

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by friend of the show and today's co-host: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm!  They look at WA traffic policy discussions, middle housing arguments, the Working Families Tax Credit, Shasti Conrad as the new WA Democrats Chair, King County and Seattle Council elections, and new Durkan/Best controversy news.  This week, Washington state lawmakers met to discuss ways the state can work to decrease traffic deaths, mostly focusing on education and traffic enforcement, as well as banning turning right on red at certain intersections. Lawmakers also spoke out against the legislature's middle housing bill. 46th LD Rep Gerry Pollet, and Seattle City Council Member Alex Pedersen have come out against the push to increase housing density. Also this week, lobbyist Cody Arledge wes barred from the Capitol campus after a judge found he was stalking State Rep. Lauren Davis of Shoreline. Despite this not being his first issue with stalking and threatening behavior, Arledge had some big clients, including the City of Seattle.  The Working Families Tax Credit went live this week! Please look at the resources below to find out if you're eligible and apply. Automatic tax programs like TurboTax might not automatically alert you of eligibility for the tax, so be on the lookout.  Washington State Democrats elected Shasti Conrad as their new chair last Saturday, following Tina Podlodowski's successful run in the role. Meanwhile, Seattle councilmember Tammy Morales announced that she will be running for re-election on the Seattle City Council, while councilmember Teresa Mosqueda announced her run for King County Council. This news continues to show that this year's elections will bring major change to our state and council leadership.  In other election news, King County voters have until February 14th to vote in the race for King County Conservation District board. Crystal and Doug break down what the board is and why it's an important decision. Voters in the county will also be voting this April on whether the county will implement a $1.25 billion levy to fund crisis care networks.  Finally, Crystal and Doug wrap up the show with a new update on the controversies surrounding Former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. New reporting from Carolyn Bick of The South Seattle Emerald shows that Durkan might have pushed the OPA to delay its investigations into Best, deepening the number of violations the former mayor performed.  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.   Resources “How the SPOG Contract Stands in the Way of Police Accountability with Shannon Cheng” hosted by Crystal Fincher at Hacks and Wonks    “State Road Safety Push Overlooks Design, Dwells on Enforcement” by Gregory Quetin from The Urbanist    “Pollet, Pedersen, and Blethen Assail State Housing Push” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist    “Prominent lobbyist barred from WA Capitol after ruling he stalked state representative” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Applications for the WA Working FAmilies Tax Credit are live. This is who is eligible” by Jared Gendron from The News Tribune    “How to sign up for WA's new Working Families Tax Credit” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “WA Democrats choose Shasti Conrad as new leader”  by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “Incumbent Tammy Morales seeks re-election in Seattle District 2” - by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “Mosqueda Announces Run for Vacant King County Council Seat” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist     “King County voters to decide on Crisis Care Centers Levy in April” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Meet the candidates for the little-known King Conservation District board” by Guy Oron form Real Change News   “Fmr. Mayor May Have Pushed OPA to Delay Investigations Into Fmr. Police Chief” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald  Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I had a conversation with Hacks & Wonks' very own Dr. Shannon Cheng, also of People Power Washington - Police Accountability. Shannon taught us about the intricacies of how the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract stands in the way of police accountability and what the City can do to try and create more accountability. Today, we're continuing our almost-live Friday show 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: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. [00:01:21] Doug Trumm: Hi Crystal - thanks for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here, Doug. We have a full week of news to review when it comes to politics and policy in Washington state. Wanted to start just following up on something that has - we've just gotten a drumbeat of news week after week, day after day - in a couple of very high profile recent pedestrian collisions, cars hitting pedestrians in the Seattle area. It's skyrocketed both in Seattle and in the region. This is a crisis. And there was a press conference this week about that. What happened? [00:01:56] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the state is taking a look at safety. They know that the statewide safety data is really bad. It's going up. The state also has a goal of trying to get to zero traffic deaths by 2030 and it's had that goal a long time and it's just not going anywhere quick. So the state lawmakers gathered, Governor Inslee was there, you had the two Transportation Chairs - Marko Liias in the Senate and Jake Fey in the House. And they had a lot of proposals - there's a lot of legislation proposed this session. But most of it is focused on enforcement and education, and most cities that have done Vision Zero really well have really focused on design in addition to those things. It's definitely some troubling signs and our contributor, Greg Quetin, had a piece on that - just talking about, Hey, we need more design focus. So I encourage folks to check that out for more. But there is some good stuff proposed, like banning right turn on red in busy areas - pedestrian heavy areas - is a good idea and would be very happy to see that pass. But some of these other bills - if we're just talking about giving state troopers bonuses and putting state troopers out on more roads, there's really diminishing returns on that. And might make sense to ramp up enforcement of drunk driving and things like that and lower the limit - that's a good idea. But I think if we're trying to get to zero, we have to start looking at design too. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Pedestrian fatalities have actually increased during these few recent years while this Vision Zero program has been in place. And like you talked about, there's stuff about education, there's stuff about enforcement. You did talk about the right turn on red - cars turning red into pedestrians, into bikes is a really big problem. So that's why the banning the right turn on red is a proposed solution and really looking at balancing - Okay, we're talking about a minute delay potentially for a driver and that can make the difference of saving someone's life or preventing someone from being maimed in a collision with a car. And so really looking at - hey, we have to balance - yes, people are trying to get around in cars on roads and freeways, but also we have a lot of people who are getting around on foot, on bike, who are waiting for transit, who are very vulnerable to cars - and they can inflict lethal damage. They're doing that with increasing frequency and something has to be done. Now, when you talk about design choices, what kinds of things are you talking about? [00:04:31] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I think the lowest hanging fruit - the state has pretty much full control over state routes, highways throughout communities. And those do - they have an important role to play as far as moving people between metro areas and cities, and moving freight and everything. But when they come through heavily populated areas, the state could easily slow traffic there by - either redesign the street to be narrower because people tend to go slower when there's narrower roads, doing things like bump outs at intersections so pedestrians have shorter crossing distances. There's things with a ton of data behind them to show that this decreases the likelihood of a high speed crash. And shorter pedestrian crossing distances is often something that will help with that - you're just exposed less time. It also sends a cue to a driver - Hey, oh, there's something in my field of vision here. I'm not just on this wide rainbow road, like in Mario Kart. I have obstacles here. There was Amber Weilert, a parent of a kid - a 13-year-old kid - who got killed in Pierce County on his bike. Very sad story. That was the best part of the press conference - is they let someone speak from her own experience. And she was nice enough to share her story, which is very tragic. But that road is a super wide road, and that probably contributed to her son being killed. So if we were to redesign that road to be narrower, maybe Michael Weilert would still be alive. [00:06:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we will continue to follow the progress on action taken as a result of this. We heard news that the City of Seattle recently received a grant for traffic safety improvements. We will see how those end up being implemented, but this is absolutely a problem that needs a solution. Also at the state level in our Legislature, there continues to be a housing push for middle housing, for some price mitigation, renter protection factors. But we saw Gerry Pollett - who is currently a state legislator in the 46th district, who is rumored to be considering running for city council - Alex Pedersen, and The Seattle Times oppose the housing push. What were they saying? [00:07:02] Doug Trumm: Same old, same old, Crystal. They're mad that someone's making money off of this that's not them, as homeowners. But The Seattle Times kicked the ball off there with this kind of screed about how this bill is a giveaway to developers, and it's not going to create affordable housing, it's not going to meet whatever - everything is wrong with it. You never can win with folks like that because they want all new development to fit in this perfectly narrow box, which Ray Dubicki did a good job of laying out in our coverage over this week that - what would it take for The Seattle Times to be happy with it? We do live in a capitalist society. We don't go to the grocery store and expect all the wholesalers to make no money doing what they're doing. The reality is until the socialist takeover, or whatever the communist takeover - it would really have to be - if you want housing to get developed, someone's going to be making money off it. So this constant whining about developers making money off of housing people, it just seems to me like a distraction and disingenuous. The Seattle Times is all too happy for people to make money off of their single family homes. They also made a ton of money when they sold their property to developers and built a skyscraper there, so they're not immune to this themselves. It was a lot of bad arguments and of course, Gerry Pollett and Alex Pedersen loved it. Alex Pedersen had a whole long tome in his newsletter about agreeing with it and developers being evil - hitting those points hard. I'm not exactly sure what they were expecting as far as affordable housing. Alex Pedersen did have this proposal that only - basically, low-income housing should be the only thing allowed to be built above the current zoning. But those kind of proposals - when you actually talk to affordable housing providers, they realize that, No, that's not really workable. You're not going to be able to build only nonprofit housing because nonprofit houses can scale up but they can't carry the load for the entire housing needs. You don't have to be terribly sophisticated to realize that you build the housing now and eventually, it becomes more affordable. If you build no market-rate housing, you're not helping working-class folks. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. There seems to be broad agreement and voter support. And looking at who voters have been supporting for various positions - for increased housing, for more middle housing, more housing for everyone. Certainly that is not the only thing that is needed to make sure that displacement stops, that people are not thrown out of housing in the short term, and that renters are treated fairly. But it's hard to find people these days, especially experts, who say that housing supply does not need to increase in order to address our affordability crisis. When you look at housing prices, when you look at rental prices - it is a crisis. The average person who's not a high wage worker in Seattle can't afford to live in Seattle, can't afford to live in many communities that used to be really accessible to a lot of people. Suburbs are skyrocketing in cost and even though the rate of increase is slowing down, it's actually still increasing. So we will see how that plays out. But Gerry Pollett certainly made news last session for his opposition and kind of being the person most responsible for the death of the middle housing bill - and seems like he would be excited to play that same role again, despite such widespread support in the community for a different path. [00:11:12] Doug Trumm: And he's just not being honest about what his position is, which is also frustrating. If you block something, at least own it - but he was trying to have it both ways. And then he does this Facebook post, which might have more to do with indicating he might want to run for city council than any serious policy discussion. [00:11:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see. We know that he is not on some of the committees that he did want to be on. And that may also hasten his desire to exit from the Legislature, but we'll stay tuned on the developments there. Also this week, there was news that came out about a prominent lobbyist being barred from the Capitol after he stalked State Representative Lauren Davis. What happened here? [00:11:54] Doug Trumm: This was a surprising case where this lobbyist thinks that he can just keep doing this. And he's in a prominent firm, so I don't know if that's part of what he thinks he can get away with. He already had a domestic abuse allegation from the 90s or early 2000s, so it wasn't like this was completely out of character for him - which makes his case harder to make that, Oh, he was just trying to do his job and that's why he kept hounding Representative Davis. And he just, it's just - we need to just put this stuff behind us - people can't get away with this kind of thing. And he can certainly still do his job without violating his - terms of his restraining order. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: So Lauren Davis did get a domestic violence protection order. This lobbyist, Cody Arledge - it looks like kind of the textbook intimidation, threatening, stalking, veiled threats. And a judge found that there was cause for risk and concern, and granted that protective order. He ended up - he also had a number of firearms that were confiscated by the police. He actually petitioned to get them back. There was an extreme risk protection order that prevented that from happening. And as you said, this is not his first instance with domestic violence. Davis and Arledge evidently had a relationship in 2021. But before that, he was in a relationship with a woman, requested that - she requested that they stop, he stopped contacting her. He continued to do so using various email addresses, cloaking his phone number. It just seems like this person does not take no for an answer. And then with Lauren Davis seemed to move it into something that would affect her work and sending veiled threat that was alleged to her office. And so it just looked like it was escalating behavior. And Cody Arledge of The Arledge Group is not able to be basically around the Capitol when Lauren Davis is there, has violated a protection order before - and so hopefully everybody remains safe and these measures are enough to keep Lauren Davis and other women who he may have had or will have relationships with safe. [00:14:35] Doug Trumm: And he has some big clients, including the City of Seattle. I wonder if this will end up impacting those, but - lobbyists are known for not always being the most upstanding citizens, but I think this is on another level and pretty unfortunate. Why is it always people like this who have a gun locker with 17 guns in it, you know? [00:14:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to paint all lobbyists with the same brush. Some are wonderful, doing wonderful work and advocacy for excellent organizations that we support. But certainly this is alarming. This is a lobbyist that does, like you said, has a lot of big Democratic and left-leaning clients. And we still have to hold everybody accountable no matter what. [00:15:21] Doug Trumm: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility. I hope he - I hope he follows it himself, although not all of his guns are in his gun lockers - some are just on top of his fridge. [00:15:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some were definitely insecurely and dangerously stored. So that has happened. Also this week - one thing that went live that we definitely want to mention is the Working Families Tax Credit for Washington state - this is a state, not a federal tax credit - is now live. And the application is live. We will link to how you can apply for that. But basically in a nutshell, families that have, or people that have children - their children living with them - are eligible for up to $1,200. There are some qualifications and income tiers that apply, but that is live now. And one thing that I definitely wanted to mention about this is that if you are using TurboTax - which is known and has been cited for deceptive practices before - will not call your attention to this, or let you know that you may be eligible for this up to $1,200 tax credit. So make sure that you separately seek out - if you have kids, take a look and see if you are eligible for this - because your tax preparation software, if you are using that or if you're doing it yourself, may not automatically flag that this is something that you're eligible for on a state level. [00:16:48] Doug Trumm: Yeah, get your money. [00:16:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some tax programs will. TurboTax is definitely one that won't. But $1,200 can make a big difference to a lot of people. And I hope everyone who is eligible does apply and get what they're due. In other news this week, Shasti Conrad, former Chair of the King County Democrats, was elected as the Washington Democrats Chair. Was there anything notable to you about this? [00:17:13] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I thought that was a great pick - had a chance to meet Shasti a few times. I think it signifies they are - as someone who's young, who's a woman of color - that's exactly where they should be going. And she has worked on a ton of great campaigns, pretty strong ties to progressives and the mainstream as well. But I think that's a great pick and there certainly has been angst in the past about how King County Democrats have been run, but I think she's someone who can come in and do a great job. [00:17:44] Crystal Fincher: I do appreciate the way Shasti steered the King County Democrats, especially after the problems and controversies that they had prior to her. And really did a lot of groundbreaking work in recruiting PCOs - getting more people active at the grassroots level at the party - and doing more to support candidates, recruit and support more diverse candidates in lots of different ways - younger candidates, working well with labor. She really seemed to understand building coalitions and increasing majorities and increasing Democratic representation around the county. Certainly, Seattle is a place where mostly Democrats get elected, but elsewhere in the county, there are a number of swing districts and certainly saw movement in that direction with those. Shasti is taking over after Tina Podlodowski decided to step down. After her largely successful term at the King County Democrats, I'm really looking to hear what Shasti is planning to do statewide. I know she has talked about plans for not just King County or Western Washington, but the entire state and making inroads with that. And I'm looking forward to Democrats showing up everywhere in Washington and being really competitive, particularly when we see what the opportunity is after very successful elections like the ones we just saw in 2022. In local news, we had one councilmember announce that they are running for reelection, another Seattle City Councilmember announced that they're running for office at the county level. Who's doing what? [00:19:27] Doug Trumm: I think it was Wednesday we got the news that Tammy Morales is running for council, which was only the second of the seven councilmembers up for reelection right now to announce, Hey, I'm actually sticking around for another term. The other was Andrew Lewis so far, which just leaves Dan Strauss as the person who hasn't officially announced their plans. But pretty much looks like Dan is going to run, but we'll wait for the official announcement for that. But yeah, there's four retirements - so Tammy Morales brought that up in her announcement - that I don't begrudge my colleagues for hanging it up. It's a tough job. It's gotten vitriolic lately with, especially I think related to the defund the police backlash where - the biggest example of that I think was Lisa Herbold getting a brick thrown through her window. These folks - they definitely pay a price for their public service. We know that people are drawn to it, as Morales mentioned - they are willing to overcome those obstacles, but it takes a toll on their families, I'm sure. So was excited to see that Tammy was going to run. And she had made that announcement in Beacon Hill at Plaza Maestas, and had some other progressive leaders with her, and had a pretty good announcement - not everyone always does a big splashy thing like that, but I thought it spoke to the strong connections she has to those organizations, which include a frequent partner of ours in Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. The nonprofits themselves don't endorse, but Clara Cantor has partnered with her in a number of events, a number of projects - so Tammy has been a leader on transportation for sure. And she's not chair of that committee. Unfortunately, we have a chair who's not much of a leader in transportation, but Tammy stepped up. Her district has been the epicenter of the traffic safety crisis we talked about statewide earlier. And she's really risen to the occasion and is demanding more to be done to make southeast Seattle safer to walk, roll, and bike through. [00:21:29] Crystal Fincher: She has been an effective progressive leader, both in being a partner to Teresa Mosqueda - who we're going to talk about more in just a moment - in things like passing the JumpStart Tax, worker protections, renter protections, investments, even trying to push and move forward allocating more money to affordable housing, to supportive services - just from soup to nuts, and has really been rooted in community. Talked a lot about her vision for more walkable neighborhoods, for mitigating environmental harm and other harms, and like you said, has been the most vocal councilmember on the absolute urgency of addressing our pedestrian and bike fatalities and making getting from one place to another in the City safer for everyone. So looking forward to seeing that campaign. There have been a number of different people who have filed for the various vacant positions. Five of the seven council positions are up this year - all of the districted positions, and the citywide positions will be up in two years. And we have heard from, like you said, all but two of the councilmembers up that they are stepping away or stepping down. You mentioned the brick through Lisa Herbold's window. Councilmember Sawant also had people making threats, potentially threats involving guns, with her at her house. It can be a very thankless job, but it can also create a lot of meaningful improvement and progress and opportunity for a lot of people in the City. And so I hope with this new council - with a lot of people coming in - if Tammy is re-elected, she will be one of the senior members of the council. And so that will be interesting to see how that dynamic translates and how this new council shapes up. And what Bruce Harrell does as the executive in the meantime. I think that this is also another good time to just reiterate the - a lot of times we talk about the council - more opportunity to talk about it a lot of times, because there are several, they're all running. They have public hearings and so they're more visible a lot of times than the person in the executive seat, but they set the direction and fund things. The mayor is responsible for enacting policy, for following through, for the implementation, for spending the money, using the money, actually implementing his version of the programs that fit within what the council has authorized funding for. [00:24:15] Doug Trumm: And the local press corps doesn't always do a good job of making that clear because at Morales's press conference, the first question was a gotcha style question on - Oh, defund the police. What are you doing for safety? Then what are you doing to fix the homeless encampments? And she certainly has the power of the purse on that one, as far as being one of nine votes on the budget. But when you get down to actual - what are the departments of the City doing? That's really up to the mayor. And it's very hard for the council to come in and override that kind of authority because all the agencies' heads are going to be answering to the mayor rather than them, so they're definitely not trying to be redirected by the council in that way. So that was interesting. But yeah, and then we were getting to Teresa Mosqueda, who announced that she's leaving the council - potentially - if she wins. But when you announce with 80, 90 endorsements, it's probably a good sign. That's what she did - including everyone from Dow Constantine to Pramila Jayapal, our Congressperson in part of Seattle anyway. And she's running for King County Council District 8, which is now vacated with McDermott retiring. And her list of endorsements was a lot. And four of her colleagues on the County Council, four of her colleagues on City Council, so it definitely looks like a high powered - I wonder who will try to step up. You never can say anyone's a sure thing for election. But if she is elected, that would mean that that county, or citywide seat, on council would - I think you would have a temporary replacement. I should have checked this before this. You'd have a temporary replacement for her seat. And then I think there'd have to be a special election because of the two year gap. But it would create an extra wrinkle in - what is the council makeup going to be? It also would take what would have been the senior-most member and - yeah, and turn someone like Tammy into the senior-most member because it would just take two terms, I think at that point, because the long running councilmembers are all leaving. [00:26:30] Crystal Fincher: That was an announcement. And the amount of support that - looking at these two announcements that we did have this week - came with a lot of support. And Teresa Mosqueda certainly coming out with I think it was 90ish endorsements from across the spectrum. [00:26:45] Doug Trumm: It keeps growing - yeah. [00:26:46] Crystal Fincher: Justifiably - I understand how that happens. She has a lot to run on. Really big consequential accomplishment in getting the JumpStart Tax through - that was something that was opposed initially by a lot of the business community. Even the mayor, Bruce Harrell, was not in favor of it - talked about doing that - [00:27:09] Doug Trumm: And still endorsed her, by the way. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely popular with residents of the City. And really saved the City from some really painful cuts with a budget that has taken a downturn, revenue taking a downturn. It was revenue from the JumpStart Tax that really was able to plug those holes, which the mayor utilized and seemed to come around and understand that - Yeah, this is a good positive thing. It is okay if businesses and those who are profiting from the public investments that have been made in the City do contribute back to address the challenges that we're having. And that shouldn't rest solely on each resident's back - that everyone has a role to play in this and that businesses can also contribute - and so that, certainly looking at that. Talking about behavioral health and public health being a big priority. Teresa has a long background in that and looking forward to tackling that at the county level - because the county is primarily responsible for that. And it's going to take some big action trying to move forward a housing levy, trying to - depending on if this upcoming behavioral health levy passes - how to implement that effectively. And implementation is a big thing. It's one thing to pass something, but it still takes skill and focus and expertise to implement it countywide in the way that it was intended. So will be interesting to see how this does, continue to proceed - like you said - with that kind of list of endorsements, backing even of people who had previously not been as supportive with people, like you said, including Mayor Harrell. It is going to be a tall task for a challenger, but we'll see if one steps up and decides to take her on - one or more. But certainly shaping up to be very interesting elections with so many open seats and such change possible there. One thing I do want to note - that I think was a good idea - that Teresa mentioned was looking at changing how these city council elections happen in the City. Right now, with all of the districted seats up in one year, and then two years later - on the other cycle - the two citywide seats up - it really creates the situation where you can have massive turnover. Which can be a challenge in terms of continuity of knowledge, implementation of things, and just more stability with the council. So maybe staggering that where a couple of the districted ones and one of the citywide seats being up in one year, and then two years down the line staggering the other ones - which I think would be a good idea, would bring about more stability, and we don't have this seeming lurching back and forth with policy. And again, like we talked about before, I don't want to overstate what the council is actually responsible for - the mayor is going to be responsible for implementing so much, but it will help to have more stability at council and maybe not be looking at a body that looks different except for one or two people. [00:30:29] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and if they can switch it to even years - even better. [00:30:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - and I definitely hope that happens. And in a few years we'll also be seeing ranked choice voting for those elections, so that will be another thing that we will be following through. [00:30:42] Doug Trumm: One last thing I'll sneak in on Mosqueda - I think she made a good case of - why run for county council. You mentioned that health care being a big one, behavioral health - setting up those crisis centers is huge. And she also mentioned transit, which is a huge thing for the county council to tackle - they run the King County Metro budget. And she put in a good word for round-the-clock transit service, better service between peaks - we honestly could use better service at all hours - but I think that was a very good point from her. And if the county council can focus on expanding transit service, I think that would be a huge win and a huge thing for her to be part of - along with it being a big year for that is because you have probably the strongest champion for transit on the council, Claudia Balducci, up for re-election and Girmay Zahilay up for re-election. And then in the - I think it's the 6th - you have Sarah Reyneveld running for the seat held by Jeanne Kohl-Welles, so you potentially could have four transit champions depending on how those folks run - so we'll be watching that very closely. [00:31:47] Crystal Fincher: We absolutely will be. Another thing we'll be paying attention to is what was just authorized by the King County Council - a decision to put crisis care centers, a levy for crisis care centers, on the ballot this April. What would this do? [00:32:04] Doug Trumm: I think it - I mean, it's huge investment - raise $1.25 billion, am I getting that right? Yeah - that's a lot of money. It would set up crisis centers in multiple parts of the county, and it would be a place for us to actually have folks who are having behavioral health crisis or mental health crisis to actually go - because so many times right now we're treating that with jail, or just moving people around to different - Here, have your crisis somewhere else, you know. That's not a way to actually solve this problem so I think that would be a important step for our county to take. Unfortunately, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility on health care, and on the mental health side of that especially, so that puts counties in the spot of having to raise the money themselves and I'm glad that King County is in the position to step up and do that. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this levy, if it passes, would fund 24/7 walk-in clinics, short-term observation stays of 23 hours, stabilization stays of up to 14 days, also would increase the pay of these health workers at these clinics - up to 20% more than comparable facilities - which is a major thing because there is a shortage of providers that we're also trying to address here. It's really important - as we talk about a lot of times and focus on undoing a lot of the harmful practices, like you mentioned - they say that they're trying - right now, one of the main ways to address this is through jail, which is not effective. It's actually destabilizing. And so it's important to undo the harm, but it is also just as critical to build the systems that help. We can't just undo the harmful things, we have to build the helpful things. This will do it - I would love to see this funded out of the general fund and just be a regular course of business, but if this is how it has to happen I think it's absolutely worth it. And poll after poll, election after election - we see voters say, We see this is a humongous need. We absolutely support more behavioral health, mental health interventions. And we can see, all over the place, the need for this - people in crisis - having these behavioral health crises where we know that calling the police or sending them in jail is not going to address the root cause. These people need more fundamental intervention and we should make that possible. So that will be on the ballot in April. We have talked about before Seattle's Initiative 135, which will be on the ballot for the election ending on Valentine's Day - you should have your ballots in hand for that. There is also another election that often goes unnoticed and that votes a bit differently - it's actually an online vote for the King Conservation District. What is at stake? What does the King Conservation District do? And how can people vote for this? [00:35:07] Doug Trumm: Yeah, this is a weird one as far as how you can vote for it, because you have to - you don't just get the ballot in the mail. You have to sign up or ask for the ballot to be mailed to you - what you get is just an announcement thing. So it's not terribly hard, but it's just an extra step that isn't there for other elections. I still haven't done it this cycle, so I gotta go and actually do that. But you just - you get the link, and you go online, and you vote there. And it is very much the type of thing where it is hard to tell - what do these folks actually do? You have to do your actual research on it. And conservation, obviously, is a big one since we just passed this big levy in this region - Conservation Futures - so these conservation commissioners obviously would have a say in how to do all that, I suppose. But yeah - maybe you should say, Crystal, because I feel like I don't even fully understand what they do. [00:36:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean it's - unfortunately, because of the way these elections are held - which is largely online, and we will put a link to this information - that is challenging. And Guy Oron actually had a great article about the King Conservation District Board and the candidates - information on the candidates running - but the King Conservation District is one of Washington's 45 local conservation districts. They assist cities and private landowners to advance conservation goals through programs like grant making, technical assistance education. Some recent programs that they've spearheaded have been assistance to small local farmers - especially those from marginalized backgrounds - coordinating volunteers to help with natural and ecosystem restoration, funding projects to mitigate the amount of pollution that enters the region's waterways - these are things that actually help all of us, and certainly Washington is known for its natural beauty - this is helping to protect and preserve that, which is very important as we see the continued pressure of sprawl and external development that is paving over so much of what we used to have - protecting what is left is absolutely critical. It's funded through a small property tax - it averages about $13 per parcel of land - and so it encompasses all of King County except for a handful of cities. So odds are you do this - we are electing its board of supervisors - they're unpaid, but they oversee what happens. And there are three candidates for this position - and we'll link a Q&A with them in the chat - but Chris Porter, April Brown, and - I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly - Csenka Favorini-Csorba are running there. And they each have various backgrounds, they're bringing different things to the table - but this is an elected body that has control of resources and directs how they're allocated - that impacts our environment. Like I said - mitigation of health impacts - we've talked before about how much air pollution, water pollution has impacted life expectancy in the region. Your life expectancy can vary up to seven years based on the zip code that you live in in King County. A lot to clean up, a lot to do - and so I hope people do engage with this. It does fly so under the radar because it's a different kind of election, but we'll link to it - ballots are due by Valentine's Day. This is a county-wide thing, so even though Seattle residents get a ballot in the mail, there is also - for everyone in the county, almost everyone in the county - an online voting process for this. There's potentially some talk about in the future moving this to the regular ballot, but for this election it's online. So I encourage you to get involved with that - we will link the article so you can get more familiar with the various candidates. And then also - last thing we will cover today is - these news stories about former mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best - we just continue to get a drip, drip, drip of those. And Carolyn Bick of the South Seattle Emerald and their Watchdragon investigative reporting reported that Jenny Durkan may have pushed OPA, an oversight arm that investigates incidents and officers, to delay investigations into the former police chief. How did that happen? [00:39:57] Doug Trumm: It took a lot of digging into emails for Carolyn Bick to get this story, but - it becomes pretty apparent in the emails that she completely leaned on OPA Director Andrew Myerberg to shut down this investigation. And he was raising concerns that - Oh, this is going to have - not just be wrong on its face, but also slow down other investigations that they were trying to do. And Mayor Durkan sometimes - through her attorney - was requiring him to slow walk that and make that go away. And yeah, that's exactly how the Office of Police Accountability should not be operating - I mean, it's supposed to be an independent arm of accountability - but it takes a ton of criticism. And this just unfortunately makes that criticism seem very warranted - supposedly there's three legs of the stool in the accountability for after the police supposedly reformed under the consent decree. And the OPA is supposed to be one of them, but it - to be honest - doesn't really hold up its end of the bargain so - yeah, it's just very disappointing to see. And they were getting in the way of another body too, so that makes it even worse because you have the Sentinel - is SER Sentinel, was it Event Review or something? I forget what the E is - [00:41:22] Crystal Fincher: Sentinel Event Review - yes. [00:41:24] Doug Trumm: Sentinel Event Review - yeah, they always have such odd names. Yeah, they were trying to investigate former police chief Carmen Best and in that - maybe they're flailing with desperation - the mayor's office had the OPA trying to try to squash that, and it's just not their role. I mean, they're supposed to be encouraging accountability and instead they're shielding the police chief. It's just not what you want to see. [00:41:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is alleged - based on a public disclosure request and documents that were obtained by Carolyn Bick in the South Seattle Emerald - that yeah, Durkan did slow walk this, advocated for completion of kind of a tangential investigation that could take years before moving on to an investigation of Carmen Best as an individual - some of this is related to the abandonment of the East Precinct. We've heard lots and lots about deleted texts that look like they were intentionally and illegally deleted - that is being investigated to see what happened there. But waiting for this one type of investigation - which this type of investigation explicitly says - Hey, this is not for investigating individual officers, this is for more systemic issues. And waiting for an investigation of former chief Best - maybe hoping that - hey, they'll both be out of office by the time they get back around to this and we can avoid any kind of accountability - looks like it's alleged to potentially be part of the motivation. We will continue to follow this. There are other investigations that have opened up. And to our local media's credit, you all continue to pay attention to this and look into this, because it is - this is a major issue for accountability - whether some people are above the law and others aren't. And especially when it's people who are tasked with upholding the law - we have a former police chief and a former mayor, who is also a former federal prosecutor - who by all accounts seem to be intimately familiar with the law, yet are alleged to have violated it in several different instances. So not surprising but disappointing - a continuation of that - I don't know. We'll see what happens with that. [00:43:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and Andrew Myerberg also failed up out of this one as well - becoming, getting a cabinet post in the Harrell administration, I think - which has now been, he's now been moved on or whatever from already, but he was like Director of Public Safety or some position like that for Mayor Harrell. And it was sort of - well, did he do such a good job at OPA that he deserved this position? It was sort of unclear. I mean, he did put up a fight in this email, but it looked like he ultimately caved and let the OPA kind of be this shield instead of this accountability mechanism. [00:44:22] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so with that - we will conclude the news this week. And we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 3rd, 2023. I cannot believe how time is flying - time just evaporates - maybe it's just because I'm so old. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Executive Director 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. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii - that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast - 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.

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and independent journalist Kevin Schofield discuss a new plan and budget proposal from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, a lawsuit facing the city over Mandatory Housing Affordability, a question for voters at the state and city level on housing, and a preview of the big headlines of 2023. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon! 

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with Seattle Times Isabella Breda, Crosscut's Mai Hoang, and South Seattle Emerald's Marcus Green.

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

To break down all of the news from the 2022 election, Crystal Fincher welcomes political strategist Robert Cruickshank back to the show! They review key results from the election, starting with the race for Congress in Washington's 3rd Congressional District where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez currently leads MAGA Republican Joe Kent in a race that's still up in the air, and the blueprint this race provides for Democrats for winning in rural areas while maintaining their values. Our co-hosts discuss the King County voters repeated rejection of punitive-punishment based measures, and the clear mandate from voters for action on comprehensive public safety reforms and alternate responses that address the root causes of crime with Leesa Manion's decisive victory over the punitive "law-and-order" candidate Jim Ferrell in the King County Prosecuting Attorney race, and the comprehensive public safety and alternative response measures passed in Redmond and Shoreline. They follow with a look at the Oregon gubernatorial race where Democrat Tina Kotek beat a well-funded Republican opponent in a close race, as well as a review of key Democratic legislative victories in swing districts across Washington by candidates who are younger and more diverse, and who leaned into strong progressive messages instead of being hesitant to talk about them. They discuss the results of King County even-year election vote and Seattle's opportunity for Ranked Choice voting reform in the near future if it doesn't prevail in its current close race. After breaking down the incredibly successful Raise the Wage Tukwila campaign, Crystal and Robert end the show by predicting how the resounding success of progressive Democrats this year will impact next year's Seattle City Council races and beyond.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, on Twitter at @cruickshank. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Institute for a Democratic Future 2023 applications are live! The final application deadline is November 13th. Hacks & Wonks is hosting a Post-Election Roundtable this Tuesday, November 15th at 7:30pm! Stream it live on our Twitter, Facebook or Youtube account.  “Gluesenkamp Perez, Schrier maintain leads in WA congressional races” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times  “$19 is the new $15: Lessons from Tukwila's Minimum Wage” by Katie Wilson from The Stranger   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank - hey. [00:00:55] Robert Cruickshank: Good morning, Crystal. Thank you for having me on again. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Good morning. Excited to have you on again in this election week 2022. We have a lot to cover. Before we get into that, I just want to give a couple reminders. We've talked about the Institute for a Democratic Future before - how it's been instrumental to my career in politics - just a great education and network. The deadline for applications is this Sunday, November 13th, so we'll include links to the website information about applying in the program if you are interested. And feel free to reach out to me directly on Twitter, via email if you have any questions about the program. I also want to mention that we are having a Hacks & Wonks Post-Election Roundtable - a live show Tuesday - this coming Tuesday, November 15th at 7:30 p.m. We're going to be streaming live on all platforms. It's going to include Dujie Tahat, Kelsey Hamlin, and Djibril Diop, who is the Director of Government Relations for Washington Education Association and played a very consequential role in a number of the elections and battleground districts around the state - just breaking down the results of this year's general election - expanding upon the conversation that we're going to have today from consultants' point of view and the view of people who were involved in the work being done. So please tune in Tuesday, November 15th at 7 30 p.m. - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, all of the platforms - we'll share that information in the show notes. So now getting into election results - there was a lot that happened. We will go through a number of them. I think I want to start off talking about the Third Congressional District. What happened in this race, Robert? [00:02:56] Robert Cruickshank: So this is a fascinating, and I think potentially really important, race where we started off with the incumbent Jaime Herrera Beutler, one of the few Republicans to vote for Trump's second impeachment, and that made her a target. Joe Kent, a openly fascist Trump supporter, declared his intention to run against her and take the Republican nomination away from her. In response to that, we had Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, who is a rural working class Democrat. She and her husband own a auto repair shop, they live in rural Skamania County in a house they built themselves. She's been active in Democratic Party politics as someone who wants to bring rural working class folks back into the party. And she saw, with increasing alarm, Joe Kent getting traction, getting support down there in Southwest Washington. And she decided she would step up and run, especially since it looked like the National Democratic Party wasn't going to take this very seriously, wasn't going to do much. And so she did step in and she and Joe Kent made it through the primary. And now, as of Friday - at least Friday morning - she's leading Joe Kent by a margin of just about 51% to 48%. She, depending on - today's ballot drop may be the final decider as to whether she hangs on and actually wins. And this would be a big victory not just to stop Joe Kent, which is important in and of itself. But Marie is a really smart, sharp person who's been working hard to bring, a populist, working class, rural voice back into the Democratic Party and do it in a way that's also economically progressive and socially progressive. And seeing the campaign she ran, the ads she ran, I think potentially point to a direction forward for Democrats as they really try to figure out what do they do about rural America. She's winning right now because she has a huge lead in Clark County by double digits, but she's holding her own in the rural parts of the county. She's at 45-46% in Kelso-Longview area out on the rural Washington coast. She's not going to win this race without running up decent numbers in the rural parts of the district. And so I think there's a lot Democrats can learn from here. [00:05:16] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And really cannot be overstated how almost miraculous it is for a Democrat to be leading in any situation in this district, given what you just talked about in some of those rural areas - that's better Democratic performance than we have seen in I don't know how long. I don't know that we have. And so even accounting for the fact that Joe Kent is a fascist, not in touch with reality, completely taken with conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, all of that stuff, she did have to run a positive campaign. It wasn't enough for Joe Kent to be bad. We saw candidates across the country who sounded like him, some of whom won. And we didn't see that here because she was such a strong candidate. She did connect with voters throughout the district in both rural and suburban areas. And it really does seem like it points to the path to victory. First of all - showing up, having a belief that you can, being willing to talk to all kinds of voters, but really connecting the issues that she's talking about - the issues that are important to people in their everyday lives - to the progressive values that actually do improve things materially on the ground and for those families. Just really, really exciting to see. I do hope that as votes continue to come in, she does hang on. We are recording this before we're receiving results on Friday, but I think it is fair to say that the Joe Kent race - if they're hanging their hopes on a comeback, was certainly hoping to see returns that would have been more in their favor yesterday than they actually were. So that is pointing to some signs of hope. We won't know until we see results today, but the ballots did not trend as hard right as they certainly could have yesterday. [00:07:21] Robert Cruickshank: That's correct. And what Marie has done is, in some ways, reclaimed Southwest Washington. There were Democrats representing it in Congress off and on. At the state level, Southwest Washington used to be more reliably Democratic than King County, for example. Like in 1980, Ronald Reagan carried King County, Jimmy Carter carried a lot of Southwest Washington - those old school, rural, logging Democrats, Union democrats had been abandoned by a large swath of the Democratic Party who just gave up. And that outraged Marie. And I know that because I've worked with her personally before within the Democratic Party. And she was one of these leaders who stepped up and said, we can win these places back, but we have to win with authentic values that are rooted in these communities. She ran ads talking not just about working class values, about inflation - she also talked about abortion without hesitation, talking about how important reproductive rights were. And you would hear from Democratic consultants around the country that - oh, if you're in a district like this, you probably shouldn't be doing that. She proved them completely wrong. Even if she narrowly loses at the very end, the fact that she made it this far, that she made it close, and potentially even wins - proves her theory of change in rural America correct. And I think Democrats going forward need to listen to Marie and people from her campaign and people like her about how we reclaim these districts. Again, she may win ultimately based on votes in Vancouver and Vancouver suburbs, but she's not going to be close without running up some good numbers in rural parts of the district. Democrats like John Fetterman in Pennsylvania did the same thing. There's a model here that the party needs to learn from. [00:09:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And as you alluded to, this has impacts potentially down the ballot. We are seeing super close races in the 17th and 18th Legislative Districts. These are areas that are potentially in play for Democrats, if they do invest in expanding on the strategy that Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has started. These areas are ready to vote for Democratic policies if people just connect with them and talk with them, listen, and understand how to communicate how these values can be helpful. I certainly hope to see much more Democratic investment, Democratic engagement on the ground next year in the off year, the year beyond, in the next cycle - these are areas that we can win if we put in the effort and if we put in the resources. And so I am certainly excited and anticipating a significant effort to continue to turn Clark County and beyond blue. [00:10:18] Robert Cruickshank: I would hope so. That's going to take the established structures of the party to take it seriously. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has had to do this without that support - the Democratic campaign structures of the House didn't show up, they put in maybe a small token amount of money towards the end. But Marie built this herself with a great campaign team around her. This is not something where DC consultants parachuted themselves in. In fact, they've tried that in this district before in the recent past and lost. So I think another key piece of this is that those party leadership, those folks in leadership from Pelosi on down need to do a better job of listening to the voices of Democrats on the ground who know how to win, know how to win without compromising our values. That's, I think, one of the most important things Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has shown - we can win on our values with authentic voices, especially authentic working class Democratic voices in the rural parts of the country. May not win everywhere, but if you run up some better numbers, you make a lot of things possible. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: There were a number of other races that we saw - races that people were expecting to be close. Of course, Patty Murray versus Tiffany Smiley was not at all close. We saw some polling results that a number of people doubted and cast some doubt on. One polling firm had this polling on a one-point race a week before the election, which just never passed the smell test, and they certainly have a lot of answering to do. But this was a race where Tiffany Smiley and the case she was trying to make was pretty soundly rejected. And certainly, I think Republicans - I know Republicans genuinely thought they had a message that was resonating, particularly with suburban voters. And wow - suburban voters just flatly rejected just about everything they were throwing out - from the fearmongering about crime that was not at all attached to reality or evidenced-based practices about what actually does make streets safer, to the economy, to health care, and absolutely with abortion. That affected the Kim Schrier versus Matt Larkin race. Several races here where it just seems that what they had fell flat. And so just a pretty sound drubbing by Democrats to Republicans across the board - certainly in the Senate and in many of the Congressional races that were originally anticipated to be close. Now, the King County Prosecutor race is another interesting one. What did you see here? [00:13:14] Robert Cruickshank: Again, this is another one of those races that - going into the election - if you listen to some of the observers in the media, was expected to be very close, expected to be an example of backlash to efforts to reform criminal justice. Jim Ferrell, very much running on the Ann Davison platform of cracking down on crime and homelessness and things like that. Leesa Manion, running not as a bold reformer, but running certainly as a reformer - someone who wants to do criminal justice correctly and certainly better than it's done now. And the assumption was that Jim Ferrell would either make it very close or win outright. That's not what happened. Leesa Manion has won convincingly, and won throughout King County. This is not just a Seattle victory. Her victory is countywide. And I think that's a pretty big rebuke to the "law and order" politics that someone like Jim Ferrell has been running on, that The Seattle Times has been trying to push hard, that KOMO has been trying to push hard. King County voters aren't there - that's not what they're looking for in terms of how we address public safety. [00:14:20] Crystal Fincher: That's not at all what they're looking for. And once again, we saw a sound rejection countywide - certainly not limited to the City of Seattle - in every corner of the county, saying that, no, we don't want these punitive politics, punishment that is not at all connected to public safety, making the streets safer, reducing the amount of people who are victimized. And that really is the ultimate goal. There's a lot of talk about punishment. There was a lot of support from very conservative forces, a lot of talk about - hey, we need to enforce the law and put these people in jail and calling into question bail reform, any kind of criminal justice reform, any kind of alternative response that does not include police. We saw police unions rally around this campaign and really see this as a vehicle for increasing their footprint and moving away from some of the things that have been asked for for voters for quite some time. In 2020, we saw with the King County Charter Amendments that - once again, countywide - voters want accountability in terms of public safety. Voters want to address the root causes of crime. They understand that even those who are saying, hey, I'm fine with the amount of police that are there, I have no issue with increasing the amount of police, but we know they can't do everything. We know they don't have the tools to address homelessness. We know criminalizing homelessness doesn't make the problem any better. We've seen them try and fail repeatedly. It's time to do things a different way that actually do have a shot at making this issue better. We know that police don't have the tools to address behavioral health issues, mental health issues - and those services are too hard to find, completely underfunded, and not at all in the shape that they need to be to adequately address this problem. We need to invest in and expand those services and the availability of that. We know that simply throwing people in jail, especially when the issues are poverty, their health, they're related around education - that that doesn't help them and it doesn't help the community. It doesn't reduce the chance that they're going to commit another crime or that people are going to be victimized. We need to do the things that reduce the likelihood of those things happening. We need to do the things where there is evidence and data to show what the path forward is. We've seen plenty of examples of those in pilot programs in Seattle and in King County and have been promised that that was the way things are going - to only see, especially with recent administrations, including the current ones, moving in the opposite direction. And not only in King County, but we also saw propositions in Redmond, in Shoreline that also reinforced that people want accountability and investing in root causes and responses to issues that do need help, issues that do need intervention. If someone is having a behavioral health crisis, if someone is out on the street, that absolutely needs intervention - but by someone who can address the issue. And that's not a policeman in those situations. And so we need mental health professionals, we need service providers, we need all of those. We saw both in local initiatives in Seattle suburbs throughout the county and countywide that this is what voters want. I really hope that our leaders listen this time. I really hope that our media listens this time. And we stop having this conversation that is such a disservice to voters and members of this community that simply focuses on - are we recruiting, are we hiring, are we doing policing? Policing is not the whole picture of public safety. We have to address those other issues. We've seen many cities increase funding and address policing, but have left everything else unaddressed. And voters are practically begging our leaders to take action on a holistic view of public safety to keep us all safer where we all benefit. And I really do hope we start seeing coverage of what's going right, of what voters are saying - beyond whatever police union has the bully pulpit for the day. Talk to people on the ground. Voters are in a much more nuanced place in this than we hear in a lot of the public rhetoric and media. It is, certainly for me, been a source of frustration that this has been pretty obvious for a while and we keep not listening as a whole. I hope finally people will start to listen to what voters keep trying to say. [00:19:24] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think what you said resonates with voters, Crystal. It's also something we've seen in the election results. When you were talking, I was thinking of the signs I saw from a Republican candidate in the 32nd Legislative District up in Shoreline that said - at the top of her signs - Make Crime Illegal Again. She got a whopping 18%. You talk about the public wanting investment in alternatives - I think of a young man named Kenneth Mejia who ran for Los Angeles City Controller. He put up billboards all over LA and very prominent places showing with bar charts how much money was being spent on the police and how much was being spent on things like mental health services, and how the police were overfunded yet no one was feeling safe. And he ran against a conservative law and order type guy, and won by 20+ points. The public is making it very clear - they do want crime addressed, but they want violent crime to be addressed through solutions of root causes as well as an officer showing up in the right appropriate moment. And the public recognizes that sending a officer with a gun to a mental health crisis is not the right answer. Sending an officer with a gun because someone's in a tent somewhere is not the right answer. There are other solutions we need to be looking at and the public wants those. I think also what we're seeing is that candidates who address this issue, who don't try to duck it and hide from it, do better. Again, Fetterman was a good example of this. But we saw Leesa Manion here as well and we can even look at Oregon. When Democrats start talking about this, the public will listen. When they address it and say, yeah, I hear you and here's a solution, we're not going down this ridiculous law and order path that hasn't worked. Here's what we're going to do instead, and the data shows this works and this matches our values. Democrats do pretty well. And I think that's a lesson for Democrats in local state and federal races going forward. [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: We also saw, in a neighbor of ours, down in Oregon a really interesting race for governor. How did this shape up? [00:21:31] Robert Cruickshank: It was a race that was dominated by conversation about crime, homelessness - Portland got hit harder by the pandemic and certainly by Trump than we did in Seattle. Whereas we had a short amount of protests here in the city, Portland was where Trump sent in the Department of Homeland Security, picked people up off the streets, there's reports that he was trying to manufacture terrorism cases, working with local officials. They had 100+ nights of battles with protesters and police in the streets. What this led to was - you go to downtown Portland today and it's taking a lot longer to recover than downtown Seattle. There are real issues with folks living unhoused and not getting support services they need. And Republicans, who have come close to winning the Oregon governor's race in the past, thought they could capitalize on this. And certainly didn't hurt that Republicans had Phil Knight, the Nike founder and billionaire, funding them to the tune of millions of dollars. And Tina Kotek, who was the Democratic Speaker of the House from Portland, was being blamed for this. And the media and the Republicans and Phil Knight were all saying - it's your fault, Tina, that all these awful things are happening in Portland. Portland is dying. And what Tina did was she turned into it and said, here's actually what we're going to do, here are the solutions we're going to talk about. Yeah, we're going to get everybody housed and we're going to get everyone's needs met, because that's what Oregon is and that's what we do in Oregon. And she pulled out a victory. She won Multnomah County, which is where Portland is. She won Washington County, which is where the most populous suburbs of Portland are. It was called the day after the election. People thought that Kotek would lose outright or win very narrowly. She's won fairly, by a wider margin than people thought. Another example right there of - when Democrats take this stuff seriously, don't hide from it, but turn and talk about it and root it in our values, they can win. So I think looking at that victory there in Oregon with someone who has been very progressive as a Speaker of the Legislature in Oregon, who'll be a great governor, who's done a lot on housing policy, a lot on other issues as well. Tina's going to be a great leader for the West Coast - something we can learn from in Washington as we have our own governor's race coming up in two years. [00:23:49] Crystal Fincher: Now locally in Seattle, there was an issue on the ballot about how Seattle is going to vote. There was also an issue in King County on the ballot for how King County is going to vote. What is going to happen with how Seattle and King County run their elections? [00:24:06] Robert Cruickshank: We can start with the clearest outcome, which is King County. King County has very clearly - it's settled - voted to move elections for the King County Council and the King County Executive to even-numbered years - that'll start in 2026 - rather than having them in odd-numbered years. And what this will do is increase turnout. City of Los Angeles did this a few years ago - this was the first even year that their mayoral election happened and turnout is significantly higher. Higher turnout means more voters are involved in the process. Candidates have to speak to more voters. They can't just go talk to the old white folks who always vote. They got to talk to everybody. So that's good for democracy right there. In Seattle, the vote came down to a decision between approval voting and ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting is the clear preference with 75% support. But the first question that got asked is, do you want to change anything at all? No is very narrowly leading on that. I think that's partly due to - voters are still learning about things like ranked choice voting. You also have both The Seattle Times and The Stranger recommend a No vote for different reasons. The Stranger said they support ranked choice voting, but they wanted a different process to get there. But I think coming out of this, there is a very clear mandate from Seattle voters. We want ranked choice voting. The Legislature needs to figure it out, City Hall needs to figure it out. And in next year's legislative session, they're going to need to give not just Seattle, but other jurisdictions, more freedom and leeway to do something like that. [00:25:40] Crystal Fincher: This is coming, in one way or another, to the City of Seattle, clearly. That is a very clear message sent by the voters. Now, I do think there is a fair point to be made about the process by which it happens, just having some more time to really educate and give information about it - I think that's going to be helpful. But really figuring out the how of the implementation to make sure that it's smooth, to make sure there is sufficient outreach and education for voters beforehand, and to make sure that the voters are able to vote in a way that is fair, that there is a - with the Secretary of State - that they're adequately supporting Seattle and any other jurisdiction that wants to make this change and to help make these implementations consistent and successful. So I'm looking forward to seeing how this proceeds. I'm really looking forward to even-year elections. The difference that this makes in turnout is so clear and obvious. Again, you brought up Los Angeles. We are seeing the difference that that is making - so many more people are engaged in elections down there. Even in the primary, so many more people have been engaged and it has shown. And candidates who are not engaging with the public and relying simply on the old tried and true way of just speaking to a narrow slice of special interest supporters and having a big war chest of finances are not having the time that they thought they were. They're actually struggling in this election, and those candidates who have engaged with a broader selection of the public are much more successful this cycle. So I also think this is a positive thing just in terms of not just turnout, but in how candidates need to engage with the public and need to be accountable to their constituents. I think this is a very positive development that we've seen in Los Angeles, and I am excited to see it implemented here with county races and really hope that it expands. There's a bill also to do this in the Legislature. I hope we see that the success of this, and just the very wide margin of passage and support for this, really does help this get through in the State Legislature statewide. [00:28:03] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think it's a pretty strong mandate from King County to the Legislature as well - that we want that bill to pass to give local jurisdictions the ability to move their elections to even years. One thing you see in some of these small cities around even King County, going into the late 2010s - you had a lot of right-wingers controlling these city councils - Tukwila, Burien, SeaTac had Trump supporters sitting on their city councils in 2017, 2018, even as late as 2019. And even-year elections help mitigate against that because you get more people involved in the process. That's good for small D democracy. I think it'll also make the outcome more progressive, which is good for those who care about that. There's no guarantee that that happens. Ultimately, candidates have to speak to more people, and that's always a good thing. [00:28:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And in Los Angeles, we are seeing a very, very close mayoral race. As you said, this doesn't guarantee the progressive outcome, but there are a lot more people engaged. Turnout is increased - it's taking time to count those votes, but we'll stay tuned on what's happening there. Also here, we saw across the state, legislative races in these battleground districts turn out, frankly, much better than initially anticipated. For a midterm year, it's not just in Congress where the party in power traditionally struggles. And we just did not see the outcome that many feared at the start of this cycle. There were people wondering across the board, both in political circles and outside - are Democrats going to maintain the majority in both chambers of our legislature? And the resounding answer is yes. What did you see in a number of these races? I'm thinking of the 26th Legislative District, which is a district that is absolutely a battleground district - progressive senator there with Emily Randall, but who has been constantly under attack by extreme Republicans. The 42nd Legislative District in the north part of Washington, the 47th Legislative District where - full disclosure, we did work in that race - but here in King County, in one of the most diverse areas of the county, but one which is a purple district that has elected both Republicans and Democrats. What were your takeaways and what did you see in these races? [00:30:38] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think we're seeing Washington become a more stable blue state. And I think the Republican Party is in a permanent downward trend - doesn't mean they'll never win again. I want to make that clear. But right now, the fundamental trends favor Democrats, especially in the entire Puget Sound region. You mentioned the 42nd District way up in Whatcom County, all the way down to the South Sound - Democrats are winning consistently, and it's not just a rejection of the far right. You saw people like Chad Magendanz, who used to be a more moderate-ish Republican State Representative in Issaquah, in the 5th District. He wanted his seat back. And so he ran against Lisa Callan, thinking there's a Democratic woman I can easily beat her. No, you can't. He's losing by 10 points. He had the Seattle Times endorsement. The Seattle Times endorsed another fairly moderate-ish Republican to take on Manka Dhingra in the Redmond area - Manka's winning by a huge margin. You mentioned the 47th District, where Claudia Kauffman is winning against a more moderate Republican. And Republicans even got bounced out of the open State House race there. Federal Way is becoming much more safe for Democrats when it wasn't that long ago - 2014, 2015, 2016 - the most expensive races in the state for Legislature were happening in Federal Way - it was that close. You look at Emily Randall, who's done a great job representing the Kitsap Peninsula and that part of Pierce County out there - Gig Harbor area - really responsive to constituents, running on an unabashedly progressive agenda and winning. It's close, but she's got a pretty strong, stable lead. I think what you're seeing here is a Democratic party that is increasingly responsive. The people who are filling these seats are increasingly younger, more diverse, more representative and inclusive. And I think it is giving Democrats a more stable majority. Republicans are having a really tough time right now - finding a path to a majority. Now, that means Democrats have to deliver. They keep getting these victories at the State Legislative level, and then they fall a little short delivering on things. They did great stuff on climate, they had some good reforms on policing in 2020, which they then stepped back from the next year, which was a big problem. But there's a lot that they need to do on housing, right? Housing legislation died in the 2022 session - that's going to have to come up. We may be entering a recession and they're going to have to solve taxes. I think honestly, one of the most important victories is Noel Frame becoming State Senator. She's a huge upgrade over Reuven Carlyle. Reuven Carlyle spent his time working behind the scenes to undermine or kill progressive priorities left and right to help corporate power. Noel Frame, on the other hand, is leading the way to fix our broken tax code. And I think 2023 is the year finally for Democrats to fix that broken tax code. Now Senator-elect Frame has been leading the Tax Structure Working Group - they're expecting a report on what a new structure for the state could look like that's more progressive and brings in a bit more money. 2023 is the year to get it done - because going into a presidential election year, Democrats are not going to have a whole lot of seats at risk if they do something big in 2023. And given the fiscal forecast, they're going to have to. We have schools that need more funding, school mental health services that need more funding, a healthcare system in crisis. The Legislature needs to step up. Democrats now have majorities where they're not going into each election worrying about whether they're going to lose those majorities. They can keep them if they deliver. And now I think it's going to be on the rest of us who aren't in the Legislature, who are advocates and representing communities, to speak up and organize and make that Democratic legislature deliver in 2023. [00:34:25] Crystal Fincher: And I think you're right on - in addition to just one, being elected and having those majorities - Democrats have a mandate. We saw to a degree that we haven't before - to your point earlier - that Democrats ran hard on their values. And those who did and talked about a holistic view of public safety and bringing comprehensive public safety, who talked about housing being a human right, who talked about the absolute need to expand healthcare coverage, to house people - not simply temporarily shelter, but get people into housing reliably, to control out-of-control housing costs across the board - that these are things that Democrats across the state in battleground districts ran on and won handily on these things. Where there was some question - I know from some consultants, from some Democrats even in leadership - whether they did have a mandate to act on that, whether the public would support those things. We heard a resounding yes from voters. We saw candidates who pledged to take action on these things succeed. And we have leaders who are ready to take on progressive revenue that's going to be necessary to address all of these other issues, particularly in the event of an economic downturn, in the event of budgets going in the other direction. And I do think that we have a helpful blueprint here in the City of Seattle, who recently did implement new progressive revenue with the JumpStart Tax - that is now being used by people who originally opposed that to bail out the City from the consequences of an economic downturn, from budget shortfalls. That is actually providing the necessary revenue, providing stability throughout this downturn period. Progressive revenue really is the key to make sure that the City can continue to deliver services, to make sure that the City can continue to provide residents with the support and assistance needed, to handle infrastructure, to really start to address homelessness in a way that solves this problem, that gets people housed and doesn't just move them from place to place like sweeps do. Progressive revenue really is the stabilizer and the responsible way to handle this. And what I was gratified to see was that opponents, prior opponents of this have now come around and are embracing the JumpStart Tax, are embracing progressive revenue, and recognizing that this is a necessary element of budgets moving forward. I think that there's a lesson to be learned here, as we look at the county budget and as we look at the state budget, that progressive revenue really is the stabilizer here. [00:37:32] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I think we can also add in the capital gains tax, which the Legislature finally got done last year. And Republicans and their billionaire friends thought, first, that they could repeal it at the ballot box. So that fizzled out. It became really clear, both in terms of their slow going in terms of signature gathering, as well as the polling - no, the public supports taxing the rich to fund education and other priorities. The Democratic elected officials who voted for it haven't paid any price for it. Why would they? The voters want that. They support that. So now you have going into the 2023 session, where they're going to have to figure out how to fund programs and add more funding for things like public education, solve health care problems, and deal with overall budget - the public supports wealth taxes. Senator-elect Frame had a wealth tax proposal that she proposed in 2021 and 2022 - that should be a centerpiece of the discussion in 2023 and her larger Tax Structure Workgroup solution. There is no political downside to making this tax code more progressive. The public wants it. The public supports it. Democrats will face no political cost for doing it. They have no excuse for failing to act. And I think what you point out about Seattle is even people who were skeptical or opponents now understand this is a popular and useful source of revenue that can help solve some problems. [00:38:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I'm definitely looking forward to this coming legislative session and seeing people take action. And I also just want to call out that we saw more diversity in all kinds this past cycle in winning candidates. There has been lots of chatter that I've heard over the years, and even in this past cycle, talking about ideal candidates and candidates who fit their district - even by Democratic consultants. And usually that has been code for - this is an older white male who is a business owner, or a veteran, or previously a police officer. And really it sounds like code for - this is someone who Republicans can like, this is someone who looks like a Republican. And really if we focus on who looks like the community, who is in the community, who reflects the full diversity of the working class, who can speak to and connect with those issues. And we saw younger candidates. We saw candidates of various ethnicities. We saw candidates of various sexualities. We saw people who can speak to the communities of today who are not stuck in some of the old paradigms that are just not fruitful or productive and haven't been for anyone. If we don't make a case on what we need to do when we're running for election, we can't then govern on that. We can't then pass that legislation. And I think we have seen in prior sessions that being a sticking point and a barrier to governing. Yeah, you can have a Democratic majority, but if it is full of people or has enough people who oppose progressive revenue, who oppose comprehensive public safety, healthcare, education funding that's adequate and appropriate - all of these issues that we're facing - then we have just as much of a barrier than if we elected people from the other party. You have to build a coalition around the action that you need to take. You have to build the case for that action in campaigns. I'm so glad that we saw that done by so many candidates who were successful across the state, and that this can then motivate action on the mandate that they've been handed. [00:41:25] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think we may and I think we need to see a reckoning within the Democratic caucuses in Olympia on this. The Democratic caucuses have often been led by mostly older white men or older white folks, who have a lot of privilege and who spend their time telling these newly elected legislators who represent their communities more authentically and look like those communities, telling them - no, fall in line, you have to do what we say, you can't deliver on your promises. And that's been, frankly, a source of a lot of toxicity. You saw Kirsten Harris-Talley step away from being in the Legislature after only a single term and wrote a public letter in the South Seattle Emerald saying that the leadership lacked integrity. You've seen others like Jesse Johnson step away, Emily Wicks step away - but more folks keep coming in who represent those communities, who look like those communities, who aren't the older white folks of the past. And I think we who are outside of Olympia need to do everything we can to help change that dynamic, put the pressure on leadership - the old ways of standing on the tracks and saying, no, isn't going to work anymore. We've delivered the votes. We've delivered stable majorities. Now you have to deliver. We are not accepting no for an answer. [00:42:43] Crystal Fincher: Now there is another local race that we've talked about on the show before that is absolutely exciting and an example of what true grassroots organizing, true connection to the community, and what direct action and community action can do. And that's the Raise the Wage Tukwila campaign that was wildly successful. We have not seen a minimum wage initiative be this successful yet here in this state. This was something that included leaders from the business community in Tukwila, labor leaders in Tukwila, the Transit Riders Union leadership, and just a bunch of people who are really passionate about making sure that workers get paid fairly. What happened that you saw in this race? [00:43:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think what we see is that, again, King County - and it's not just Seattle - strongly supports higher wages for workers. You see worker organizing from Starbucks to Amazon is popular and people get it. Working folks are struggling. They're struggling before pandemic, struggling before inflation. And those two factors have made it only more important and more popular to raise the wage. And it's interesting that we've almost come full circle here. I think the national Raise the Wage movement took off in SeaTac in 2013, and grassroots organizations got the $15 an hour minimum wage passed there. And it was a very close vote. That was not a resounding victory by any means. And then grassroots folks led by Kshama Sawant and others in Seattle went 15 Now. And they got that done in part by gathering signatures to say - we don't have a solution that we like - we'll take you to the ballot and we'll win. Now what you're seeing - going to Tukwila - saying, 15 was a good start. It's not enough. We need to keep raising that wage. And voters are responding very, very strongly. And you can see this across the country now, even in deep red states like Arkansas, Missouri - initiatives to raise the minimum wage pass pretty easily. Voters understand that the wages are too low, that people need to be paid better for the work that they're doing, especially those in what have often been underpaid service sector jobs. The public is there. The public wants it. And again, here's another place where Democratic majorities should act. You look at the federal minimum wage, which has not budged since 2009, it's still stuck at $7.25. If Democrats hang on to the House and hang on to the Senate, one of the first things they do in 2023 should be to raise that wage. [00:45:27] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely should be. And it's something that they should move to advance, even if they don't take control of the House. Because to the point that you just made, we saw in a deep red state this year and on the ballot box, just this week, a minimum wage increase pass. We've seen these pass in deep red states. Progressive policy is actually popular with workers. It does materially improve the wages and the lives, living conditions of working people - regardless of what their political ideology is. And they recognize that and they support these things. If Republicans were smart, they would see that their voters, their constituents that they need to win, support this and they should also. And if not, then once again, they're going to be voting against the will of their constituents and something that could materially improve their lives immediately. So this is something that should be ripe for action from Democrats across the country in every state legislative house, every state legislative chamber, every - in Congress - just people from far and wide, from cities and counties on up. We need to see action on this. It's time. The federal minimum wage is pathetically and shamefully low. We can't support anything on that. It's at this point of poverty wage, and we need to do all that we can to move people out of poverty. We need to stop this exploitation at a time when we see record corporate profits with so many corporations and organizations. There is no excuse to be paying workers poverty wages at all. And communities agree. I also just want to call this one out because sometimes these efforts are kicked off and started in coalition with some really heavily moneyed interests that have positive change in mind. But sometimes they come with - it's a small group of people, the same group of people here and some individual interests doing this kind of across the board. This, to me, was really inspiring because we really saw this generate from the ground up. We really saw community activists, people with an interest in Tukwila, people who lived in Tukwila, people who worked in Tukwila deciding to do this, making sure that it worked for everyone in the community, all of the different stakeholders, really doing the work in canvassing and talking to voters. And that is critically important, and I think helped this initiative and is why we see it being so resounding - is having those one-on-one conversations with people at doors makes the biggest difference that can be made. This was a very intentional campaign. They knew that they had to do that work, planned to do that work, executed that work well, and it showed and it paid off. And so I certainly hope to see this model replicated across the state for a variety of things. My goodness, we can run initiatives to build sidewalks for people to be able to get around their communities, to advance transit, to take climate action, to address healthcare, alternative response public safety. These are all things that we can move on on the ballot box locally with initiatives. And what a great blueprint to be able to study and follow. And I really hope people do that. [00:49:19] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think Transit Riders Union and other folks who did a lot of that work in Tukwila really pointed the way forward for a lot of different types of organizing. Hats off to them for stepping up and getting this done. [00:49:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I'm just absolutely inspired and thrilled. And again, hope people really take a look at the work that was done, the planning that was done, and how they executed it - because that's the way to get it done. Okay, so overall, we saw Democrats have just a really successful cycle here in 2022 in Washington. My goodness, Republicans are struggling. What does this mean for both parties as they move forward? [00:50:06] Robert Cruickshank: I think what we're seeing is potentially a light at the end of the tunnel out of 12 years of the Tea Party/MAGA/Trump movement - this huge backlash to progressive policy, a backlash to a Black President, a backlash to a woman presidential nominee, a backlash to social change. We may be starting to see the other side of that. Democrats picking up seats in places like Ohio is promising. There's still a lot to be done. Things didn't go well in Texas. Things went really badly in Florida for Democrats. New York was a problem, but that's also partly because of the Democratic Party structure there that's ossified and really problematic. But the United States is a center-left country, but we have a Republican Party that is trying to use the laws and the courts to undermine that through things like gerrymandering, undermining voting rights, things of that sort. And it's really a problem. And I think if we're able to have a center-left majority represented in this country - now's a good time for Democrats, especially in Congress, to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, to step up and make sure the right to vote is protected, that gerrymandering is ended. Because what you can do with that then is have a stable Democratic majority in the Congress. We can keep the Tea Party, MAGA, Trump movement at bay and finally start to make some movement on the political, social, economic challenges of this country. So I look at this election as a really hopeful moment. I know a lot of us went into it with a lot of anxiety. I know I did. Coming out of it, I think we should feel hopeful about the possibilities that exist. There's still a ton of work ahead. Maybe we turned a corner - I don't know. We'll see. Trump may announce he's running for president next week, but I feel more hopeful right now about the direction of the country than I felt in a little while. I think that's a positive outcome. [00:52:12] Crystal Fincher: I also think it's a positive outcome. I do also see cause for hope. Obviously, we can't, we don't know what's going to happen with control of the House or Senate yet. We don't know what is in store there. But we did see a sound rejection of people who are that extreme. We did see a sound rejection by voters of some of the most extreme policies there. And so let's take that as a starting point and understand that entertaining those, entertaining any of that kind of talk, painting any of that as a both-sides issue, just doesn't work and is not acceptable. I think from the media to different candidates, we don't have to treat that as valid and reasonable at all. We saw a lot of that in the lead up to this election. And I hope that one of the lessons that we learned is that it's just absolutely unacceptable. So given all of the election information that we saw, with everything that happened in these races, what does this mean for 2023 races, particularly in the City of Seattle? [00:53:31] Robert Cruickshank: There are folks out there from the mayor, to The Times, to other observers and consultants who think that 2023 is going to be a more conservative year in terms of City Council elections. I think these election results challenge that. I think you can see that - even in Seattle, where in a place like Northeast Seattle, the 46th district - Darya Farivar, the more progressive candidate, is winning and winning clearly over her more conservative opponent. You see The Stranger's endorsed candidates winning all throughout Seattle legislative races. I think that what this suggests is that voters going into 2023 are not in the same place they may have been in 2021. I think that you're going to see voters want solutions on criminal justice, on public safety, on homelessness that are responsive, holistic, that treat people as whole human beings - not law and order politics. It's not going to be a year where Ann Davison clones are going to do well. I also think there are other issues that are going to come to the fore - you see Darya, Emily Alvarado doing really well because in part, they're strong supporters of building new housing and solving the housing crisis. Someone like Alex Pedersen in District 4 is going to have a real problem - a district that overlaps the 46th - Alex Pedersen being a hardcore NIMBY, deep opponent of new housing, opponent of bike infrastructure, opponent of transit. He's going to have his hands full in 2023. You have an open seat potentially if Debora Juarez retires in District 5. I think even Dan Strauss is going to have to figure out whether he wants to be more progressive or more conservative with his new district. And you see pundits say, oh, it's going to be more conservative district. Will it? That is potentially an open question. I think that going into 2023, there's an opportunity for progressive Seattle here to lay out solutions that the public wants, that are responsive to engage on these issues - not hide from them, but tackle them all directly, and speak directly to voters' concerns, and point the way forward to building a better city that we all know we can have. Some of these races may be very close, but then Alex Pedersen very narrowly won in 2019. If I'm progressive Seattle, I'm looking at 2023 as an opportunity, not as a time to have to play defense, but a time to go on offense and show voters what we have to offer. [00:55:57] Crystal Fincher: I think that is absolutely correct. And I think you're right to point to the 46th Legislative District results as a perfect example of why. This is a district in Northeast Seattle that a lot of people considered to be one of the most moderate in the City of Seattle, to be a NIMBY stronghold, to be the place where - other places in Seattle, other districts in Seattle, other areas may elect Kshama Sawant, may elect more progressive candidates, but that doesn't work north of the Ship Canal. That doesn't work in those areas where we have more established, higher income, single-family neighborhoods, and they don't want that to be destroyed. There have been a small number of very loud voices that have come from those neighborhoods traditionally. And we have seen in this election, really, a sound rejection of the arguments that they were advancing. We saw that rejection on all levels, from legislative races to the county races to the Senate races - the types of arguments and the type of change that they have said was going to be damaging, that they directly took on in these races, just did not land with the voters. And voters sent a clear message that they want to move forward in a different way. Absolutely a message to both progressives and moderates that this is a different day. And it's not good enough to just say, you know what, I want to listen to everyone, bring everyone together. We just need not to be divisive. We don't need to do anything big or dramatic. Let's just stay the course. No one is happy with the course that we're on. No one is happy with continued inaction on housing while prices continue to just escalate and rise to levels that people can't afford. Everyone is being affected by this in one way or another. We're seeing the symptoms of inaction and I think people are recognizing that. And so people who are building a strong case for what action needs to be done and saying - I'm going to be willing to do the hard work in getting this passed and getting this through - are going to be successful. The role of progressive revenue in these races and seeing forces who fundamentally don't want taxation for extremely high income earners, whether it's landlords or people who are making money in speculative gains, to the heads of these major corporations, to the corporations themselves that have reaped windfall profits especially through the pandemic and beyond. And their workers are still struggling or they're battling unionization efforts. Seattle and these districts are on the side of the workers conclusively. They're on the side of our community. And I think there needs to be a broader recognition of that across the board - from leaders to current politicians to our media - and really get connected with what voters are saying today. It's different. And so I'm really interested to see how these 2023 races shape up. I'm frankly interested to see what even the mayor of Seattle takes away from these elections, because he had previously said in some different venues, some in some leaked commentary that he's recruiting against these candidates. He signaled that he wanted to and was aligned with a more punitive punishment approach, that he was skeptical of some of the things that passed without any kind of controversy in this past election by voters. And so is he reconsidering the direction he's taking? Is he reconsidering those candidates who he is setting up to run, perhaps with platforms and advancing policies that were just soundly rejected? And is he reconsidering how he is aligning and allocating his budget that is currently being discussed now - from the sweeps that we're talking about to asking for frontline service workers' compensation to be reduced to just a variety of different things here - is he reconsidering that? It looks like he did start to reconsider progressive revenue, because he certainly relied on that to bail out parts of his budget and to keep it from being underwater and in a deficit. So it looks like there is acknowledgement that that was the right way to go and that we're going to have to rely on that revenue for stability. Hopefully he sees that moving forward. But I'm really interested to hear what our local leaders and existing leaders' takeaways are from this also. [01:00:53] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And the public wants homelessness solved - people in a tent are our neighbors - they need help, need housing, not punitive solutions. People want crime addressed, but they don't want it addressed with punitive hardcore law and order solutions. Sometimes that may be necessary here or there, but they want the root causes addressed. And I think that this is not a year, and next year will not be a year where sort of Eric Adams-style approach is going to work in Seattle. I think it's a real opportunity for progressives. If they speak directly to the issues, hear people's concerns, and show that we have better answers. And I think certainly comes down to questions of police accountability as well - SPOG contract is becoming an important issue that will come up very soon. And I think you're going to have to see candidates declare themselves. Are they going to be for tough reforms on the police department that hold them accountable? Or are they going to try let them off the hook? And I don't think voters want to see the police let off the hook in terms of them doing their jobs and doing their jobs responsibly, constitutionally, and with accountability. [01:02:06] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, November 11th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is chair of Sierra Club Seattle, a long time communications and political strategist, an excellent political mind, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on twitter @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get all of our shows. 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 - we'll talk to you next time.  

With Election Day looming and ballots due in a few days, this week's show is a Ballot-In-Review! Crystal is joined by perennial favorite Mike McGinn along with the rest of the Hacks & Wonks team - Bryce Cannatelli and Shannon Cheng - to discuss the recent political climate, break down the context of down-ballot races and why your vote matters. Listen in as the crew opens their ballots and thinks their way through the important choices in front of them. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's ballot party attendees: Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, Bryce Cannatelli at @inascenttweets, and Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Time Stamps Washington State Advisory Votes - 05:57 King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1 -  08:25 Federal Races - 16:54 Washington Congressional Races - 18:00 Secretary of State - 32:00 Washington State Legislature Races - 33:13 LD26 - 33:27 LD47 - 35:30 LD42 - 36:57 LD30 - 38:09 LD44 - 38:22 LD46 - 38:55 LD36 - 39:45 LD37 - 39:56 LD34 - 41:05 King County Prosecuting Attorney - 41:32 City of Seattle Municipal Court - 52:40  City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B - 1:01:48   Reminders Don't forget to vote! Visit votewa.gov for voting resources.   Institute for a Democratic Future 2023 applications are live! The initial deadline is November 2nd, and the final deadline is November 13th.   Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link and about King County's budget timeline here.   Student debt relief sign-ups are live! Visit this link to enroll.   Resources  Washington State Advisory Votes:  “Tim Eyman's legacy of advisory votes on taxes hits WA ballots again” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1: “King County considers moving most elections to even years” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   King County Proposition No. 1 - Conservation Futures Levy Washington Congressional Races: “Congressional candidate Joe Kent wants to rewrite history of Jan. 6 attack” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   Straight Talk bonus round: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Joe Kent from KGW News   “Rep. Schrier, challenger Matt Larkin clash in debate over who's extreme” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times Secretary of State: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julie Anderson, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Steve Hobbs, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Addressing Democratic criticism of Julie Anderson   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Thoughts on Ranked Choice Voting   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Experience to manage the broad portfolio of the SoS office Washington State Legislature Races: LD26 - “New ad highlights Washington candidate's past behavior against staffers” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune   Sign up to volunteer for Emily Randall's campaign here on her website.   LD47 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Claudia Kauffman, Candidate for 47th LD State Senator   “Boyce, Kauffman vie for WA senate in swing district with Kent, Auburn” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   LD42 - “Sefzik-Shewmake forum highlights abortion, health care” by Ralph Schwartz from Cascadia Daily News   LD44 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - April Berg, Candidate for 44th LD State Representative   LD46 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Darya Farivar, Candidate for 46th LD State Representative   LD36 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Jeff Manson, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julia Reed, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   LD37 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emijah Smith, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Chipalo Street, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   South Seattle Emerald 37th LD Candidate Forum   LD34 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emily Alvarado, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Leah Griffin, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Elections 2022 Resource Page King County Prosecuting Attorney: "PubliCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Leesa Manion" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "PubiCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Jim Ferrell" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "Leesa Manion, Jim Ferrell tied in the 2022 contest for King County Prosecuting Attorney" by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   "Leesa Manion Holds Razor-Thin Lead in King County Prosecutor Race, NPI Poll Finds" by Douglas Trumm from The Urbanist Washington Supreme Court: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener City of Seattle Municipal Court: Hacks & Wonks City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Candidate Forum   "Defense Attorneys Say Harsh Sentencing Decision Reveals Judge's Bias" by Will Casey from The Stranger City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B: City of Seattle - Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B   Ranked Choice Voting vs. Approval Voting from FairVote   The Stranger - City of Seattle Propositions Nos. 1A and 1B   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant - a busy one - and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full text transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host - and we're adding a little twist. So first, we want to welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks, the popular Mike McGinn. Welcome back. [00:01:03] Mike McGinn: Not quite popular enough - Crystal - you have to acknowledge that, but I think we need to go to the other guests on the show today. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so we're coming with you with a full Hacks & Wonks crew today. We have the incredible Bryce Cannatelli, who coordinates everything with the show and holds it down. Pleased to have her with us today. Hey, Bryce. [00:01:29] Bryce Cannatelli: Hey, Crystal. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: And we have Dr. Shannon Cheng, who is here to enlighten us also with her wisdom and insight, along with Bryce. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:39] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal - super excited to be here. [00:01:42] Crystal Fincher: You could probably hear the sarcasm in that - but this is going to be fun. We are having a Hacks & Wonks little ballot party - we thought it may be helpful - because we talk about several things on the ballot, we talk about several races. But a lot of times we open up the ballot and there are things on there that we haven't seen, haven't heard of, and are trying to figure out. So we thought we would all just open up the ballots, go through them together - some of us in this call are later-voting people because we like receiving all of the voter communication until the last minute, so we haven't turned them in - but we encourage everyone to turn in their ballots as soon as possible. As we go through this ballot, we will add timestamps and let you know when we discuss the different areas of the ballot. So if you have a particular question about a particular area, you can just go to that portion in the show and figure out that, because we actually have taken some time to discuss what is in this ballot and on this ballot. So good luck. Make sure you get your ballot in. If you can't find it, if something happens to it, if you have questions, votewa.gov, V-O-T-E-W-A.gov is a resource. Or hey, just @ the show @HacksWonks to reply to us and we will try and chase down any answers to questions that you have. So vote, make sure everyone you know votes. This is really important and a lot is at stake locally and nationally. And what we do locally is going to dictate what happens nationally. And with that, I will give a few reminders today. And yeah, number one is vote. Don't forget to vote. The election - Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th. You can go to votewa.gov, that's V-O-T-E-W-A.gov to get all of the information about voting. If something has gone haywire, if you can't find your ballot, if you're not sure what you need to do, if you need information about accessible voting, or if you need to figure out about how to register to vote - which you still can do in person if you haven't registered to vote or changed your address or anything like that - go to votewa.gov and you can get all that figured out. Also, the Institute for a Democratic Future is accepting applications for this coming year's new class. The deadline is November 13th and so make sure to get those in there. I've talked about this before on the show, the Institute for a Democratic Future is great for people who lean left and who want to learn about making a difference in their community, who want to learn about politics and policy, or potentially even having a career - it's responsible for my career in politics. So if you want to learn more about that, feel free to hit me up or visit the website, which we'll link in the show notes. Also, it is budget season around the state - and including in Seattle - and so we're going to include resources for the Seattle budget process as well as King County in our show notes, so stay tuned with that and make sure that you get involved in making your priorities and needs known to your elected officials who are allocating money for the next year or two there. Student debt relief - signing up is happening now. Don't forget to do that. Don't wait to do that. We'll put a link to that in the show notes. And Daylight Savings Time ends this Sunday at 2 a.m. We're falling an hour back. We're moving into darkness in dismay and it's a very sad time for some of us here at Hacks & Wonks who like the extra sunshine in the evening. So here we go into the dark months of winter. [00:05:31] Mike McGinn: But Hacks & Wonks will be on every week to bring some sunshine into your life. [00:05:37] Crystal Fincher: We will try. We will try. [00:05:40] Mike McGinn: Stay tuned in on a regular basis. Yeah. [00:05:43] Crystal Fincher: So let's open up our ballots, crew. Let's see what we have here and start to talk through - for those of you who still have to vote - some things that may be useful, helpful. So the first things we see on this ballot that we've opened up are Advisory Votes. Man, these Advisory Votes on every freaking ballot. We have two Advisory Votes here. How did we get into this Advisory Vote situation, Mike? What is this going on? [00:06:15] Mike McGinn: This was part of the Tim Eyman Full Employment Act where he was trying to find yet another ballot measure to put in front of the people. So what this one does - it is passed by the people - and basically they have the opportunity to have a second opinion on every tax that's passed by the Legislature. So that's why you always have all these Advisory Votes at the top. But everybody approves to-date, the public approves the votes that are passed by the Legislature. It's why we elect people, send them to the Legislature. It's really just turned into extra space on the ballot, which costs money and makes the ballot a little longer. And so we could all save a little space on the ballot if the Legislature changed this. In the meantime, don't upset that budget that your Legislature worked to craft - just vote to approve. [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. I cannot wait until we get to the time where we get the opportunity to repeal this. It makes our ballot longer. It confuses people. This is just anytime there is basically revenue passed, it has to appear as an Advisory Vote, which does not have any force of law. It doesn't actually do anything. It is basically a poll about something that has already happened. So yes, vote to approve. But also I would really like a movement to vote to eliminate these Advisory Votes. One thing it does is it makes the ballot longer, which is not pleasant for a lot of people. What do you think, Bryce? [00:07:49] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I wanted to hop in just to say that the choices are Repealed and Maintained. And so the suggestions to vote to approve them are to Maintain them as the maintain option. But yeah, no, I definitely agree. We've talked about it in past shows. We talk about it off the air. Getting people to vote down-ballot is always a challenge. And these Advisory Votes just get in the way of that. I think we'll have more to talk about when we get to the Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B question on the back of the ballot about what length might do to people answering those questions. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: All right. So we are here in King County. We all have King County ballots. The next thing I see on my ballot - I think you probably see the next thing on yours - as we travel down from the Advisory Votes, is actually King County, a County Charter Amendment. Charter Amendment No. 1 - even-numbered election years for certain county offices. Question: Shall the King County Charter be amended to move elections for the county offices of Executive, Assessor, Director of Elections, and Councilmembers from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years? Why is it important to move from odd-numbered to even-numbered years according to the advocates for this charter amendment, Mike? [00:09:10] Mike McGinn: The single most important thing you can do to improve voter turnout. When you look at election results in the state of Washington, Oregon, anywhere else around the country, so many more people turn out in an even year because you also have congressional elections or presidential elections. It's just a more momentous ballot than the odd year elections. And so if you think people should vote more, if you think democracy is a good thing, moving it to an even year is great. The county has the option to do that. Cities can't just do it on their own - they need a change in state law. Representative Mia Gregerson has been pushing for that and others have pushed for it. In addition to getting more people to vote, it also really improves the demographics of the ballot. We're getting more young people, more people of color, more immigrant refugees - who are here and can legally vote. We're just getting so many more people voting that we're getting a more representative ballot. So I've been a big proponent of this. You just get a different electorate. You get a better, more representative electorate. And if what you care about, and I do, is more affordable housing - if you get an older, more conservative electorate, they're going to oppose new housing and they're going to oppose new taxes for affordable housing. They're going to be more likely to say, keep the car lane and don't make it easier to walk or bike or use transit. So we need to get an electorate and get elections in even years where we have an electorate that more reflects where we need to go. And hearing from more people, if you believe in democracy, it's great. So big kudos to King County Council for - and Girmay Zahilay, in particular - for championing this. And hopefully we can move all the elections to even years. By the way, we'll save some money too. We'll have fewer elections that the elections offices have to step up for. [00:11:15] Crystal Fincher: I'd love to see it. What do you think about it, Dr. Cheng? [00:11:18] Shannon Cheng: I'm really excited. We talk a lot about - on this show - about how local elections really matter and that local government is really where you feel the actual changes and impacts in people's day-to-day lives. And so having some of more of our local elections in a year where more people are going to be paying attention to it, I think it will be super helpful. I know I talked to somebody recently who felt like they were in Washington state and so their vote didn't matter. And, we're going to get to these other races. And I was trying to tell them, no, we have things on our ballot that really do matter, like the King County Prosecutor and judges and all that. And I think just combining it in a way where people are going to be paying more attention to these things that really matter in their lives will be super helpful. [00:12:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well said - I agree. Next up on the ballot for King County is Proposition No. 1, the Conservation Futures Levy. So the King County Council passed Ordinance 19-458 concerning funding to protect open space lands in King County. The proposition would provide funding to pay, finance, or refinance acquisition and preservation of urban green spaces, natural areas, wildlife, and some salmon habitat, trails, river corridors, farmlands, and forests. And would reauthorize restoration of the county's Conservation Futures property tax to levy a rate that will be assessed for collection in 2023 and use the dollar amount from 2023 for the purpose of computing subsequent levy collections. So should this be approved or rejected? There are some really compelling statements about this, but this is really important for protecting open space lands in King County. There have been lots of conversations just about the preservation of land, the preservation of open and undeveloped land, and how important that is. These are conversations related to sprawl, related to just air quality, related to just people having the opportunity to recreate near where they live and not selling or developing all available land and the consequences that potentially come from that. So it is important, I think, widely acknowledged as important from people all across the aisle. It's important to maintain all of this. I see a statement submitted by Sally Jewell, who I believe is a former CEO of REI and served in a presidential administration, and De'Sean Quinn, who is a Tukwila City Council member, as well as Dow Constantine. And really, we have to take this action to protect climate change, to protect these last best places throughout King County. So far, this program has safeguarded over 100,000 acres of land, including Cougar Mountain, the Duwamish Waterway Park, and Sammamish River Trail. And they can accelerate that with this proposition. Statement in opposition to it really basically says that, hey, parks are having challenges being maintained, and we've already done enough. I don't know that there's a lot of people here in King County feeling that we've done enough to address climate change or that we've done enough to protect local land. Protecting farms and fresh water, and open space seems like a priority to so many people in this area - and what makes this area so desirable to the people living here and those who visit and eventually come here. What do you think about this, Mike? [00:15:08] Mike McGinn: It's a parks levy. I'm for parks levies, generally. I actually got to run one once, and it was just great. And there's so much more in it than you might think. And if we talk about community - that to me is ultimately what this is about. There's clearly the environmental protection, but that's the quality of life and the community gathering places as well. So yeah, and it's a renewal. It's an expansion and a renewal of an existing levy. And I think every time you get to go to a great county facility, you just have to remember that the money came from somewhere, and this is where it comes from. They really have to pass these levies to make it work, given the way finances work for county and municipal governments. [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And so this will cost the average homeowner about $2 more per month. There is relief available to qualified low-income seniors and other households. And the funding recommendations are made by an independent advisory committee and subject to external audit. So it's not just, hey, willy-nilly stuff happening here. There is accountability and oversight - looks like it is endorsed by the Nature Conservancy, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust for Public Land, the Wilderness Society, Seattle Parks Foundation, REI, Dow Constantine and council members - just a lot of support there. I find those arguments to be particularly convincing. But this is an important one that's flown under the radar for a number of people, I think. I've gotten a lot of questions from people saying, whoa, what should I do with these county amendments and this proposition? And so just wanted to make sure that we went through that. Next on my ballot are the federal races, which have gotten a ton of coverage. I think if you listen to the show, odds are you probably know if you're going to be voting for Senator Patty Murray or her challenger, Tiffany Smiley, but that is at the top of the ballot right now. Do any of you have anything to chime in with about this race? [00:17:22] Mike McGinn: It's really fascinating to watch how this race is starting to become part of a national narrative about whether or not there's a red wave - going to hit the federal elections. And then there's some counterarguments. And we could pundit all afternoon on this one. And I'm sure a lot of you, if you're politically oriented, have really been watching the national news about what will happen in Congress. Will the Senate remain Democratic or will it turn Republican? Is the House going to flip? Most pundits say it will flip to Republican control, but there are still some folks out there holding hope that it might not. So I think the real message just is - if you cared about the national scene, you have an opportunity to play locally too. There's a Senate election in the state of Washington as well. [00:18:15] Crystal Fincher: All right. And next up on people's ballots - is going to vary based on where we live. It's going to be the congressional races. So I actually live in the Ninth Congressional District. We have a very competitive Eighth Congressional District race between Kim Schrier and Matt Larkin. Kim Schrier, the Democrat, Matt Larkin, the Republican. We have other races. Who's on your ballots? What congressional districts are you in? [00:18:43] Mike McGinn: I've got Seven, which is Pramila Jayapal and Cliff Moon. [00:18:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think all three of you are in Seven there. Those races are a bit less competitive. I think two of the most competitive races here are going to be Kim Schrier versus Matt Larkin. And then down in southwest Washington, actually - in the Third Congressional District - between Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and extremist Republican, MAGA Republican Joe Kent, who is just... It's hard to do justice to him by describing him because I've tried to do it and then I've been like, okay, I can't do this. Here, watch this clip of him and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in this sit-down with a reporter, just answering questions. And it is wild. He does not think January 6th happened in the way we all saw it happened with our eyes. He thinks that it was a CIA false flag operation. He doesn't think that police officers were killed as a result of that. He's deep into conspiracy theories, deep into the election denial of the 2020 election. Just deep into so many things - eager to cut social security, eager to cut so many things, eager to defund Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia, eager to do all sorts of things at the border. This is someone who eagerly and has multiple times appeared on Tucker Carlson. This is not Jaime Herrera Beutler. This is not the type of Republican that people are used to seeing in this district, or even as people think about Republicans in this country now - even the more extreme version that people are getting familiar with. This is the tip of the spear of the most extreme. He models himself after Marjorie Taylor Greene, says he looks up to her and wants to do that, does not want to work across the aisle, doesn't see a point to it. Rarely does media outside of the conservative bubble, does not want to debate Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. This is a race where a lot is at stake. Jim Brunner just wrote an article about it this morning in The Seattle Times. Actually, he shared it - I'm not sure if he wrote it. But this is an important one for people to get engaged in. We've talked about the importance of - even if you don't live in a district, hey, why don't you adopt a district, make some phone calls, do some phone banking, get down there and canvass - do what you can. Don't let this slip away without doing everything possible. The Third Congressional District is traditionally a Republican district, but it's traditionally a Republican district that has elected Republicans like Jaime Herrera Beutler, who were nowhere near as extreme as Joe Kent. This is a closer race than we've seen there in quite some time. If enough people get involved and if enough people get engaged, who knows what could happen? Democrats seem energized down there. This is one where - don't let it go by without everyone pitching in and doing what they can to engage in that race. Any thoughts that you have on that one? [00:22:10] Mike McGinn: This race, yeah, it does highlight just where the Republican Party has been going. I think you see some of this in the Murray-Smiley race as well. I've been really impressed by the campaigning of the Democrat in the race and the way in which she's approaching the race. This is a district that is - it's a swing district, but it's a lean-R swing district, if that makes sense. It has the Portland suburbs, but it also has more rural areas as well. Yeah, maybe this - if this were on the East Coast, people would be looking at this as a bellwether of which way the trend is going in national politics. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to tell a little bit from the East Coast about how this race might work out by the time they start announcing results from this coast. But really, I think the D in this race - she's run a really solid race, speaking directly to people's economic concerns as a small business owner as well. And there's this thing where reporters want to talk about partisanship or polarized politics or divisiveness. And yeah, I would say the electorate is polarized - there are a hell of a lot of folks nationwide who are going to pull the lever for candidates because they want to see Republicans have charge of the chamber, regardless of the shortcomings of the local candidate. It's a really fascinating phenomenon that's going on. But I'm going to make an argument that it's - the Democrats look a lot like candidates I've seen in the past running. And the Republicans don't, in my mind, in terms of the extremism that we start to see on whether or not the election was stolen. The number of election deniers that are out there for the last election - there's just no credible evidence that there was any voter fraud. It went in front of numerous, numerous courts. It went in front of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats. There's just no evidence for this. And I don't know that the media knows how to handle this - that when you have one side that just denies reality and the other side is still operating mostly within the frame of U.S. politics, as I've seen it in the years I've been involved in U.S. politics, but they both-sides it so much. And I think this raises a great illustration of that. The Democrat is really a right down the middle-of-the-road type of politician, and the Republican here is espousing things that just aren't so, and it's one hell of a tight race down there, according to all the polls. And portraying this as Americans are divided or the politicians are polarizing doesn't capture what's going on. [00:25:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that is a good point. What do you think, Bryce? [00:25:23] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I just wanted to weave back in something that Shannon mentioned earlier, which is that there are still people who live here and who vote here, who think that they live in Washington - they live in Western Washington - they're pretty safe from things. And I think this race is an important reminder that there are people running with these extreme views. There are these people running here in the state with really far-right priorities and goals. And this is a federal race, so it's gotten a lot of media attention, but it just highlights how important it is to pay attention to local races as well - races that for the State House and for State Senate and other positions - and just pay attention to what people are running on and making sure when we see people coming with extreme and dangerous views, that that's called out, that we let people know. Election Day is still in a few days. There's still opportunities to inform voters in this district about the candidates. There are still opportunities for voters who are really worried about rhetoric like this and candidates like this to get out there and talk to voters and inform them about this race. [00:26:32] Crystal Fincher: This conversation reminds me of one other thing, and actually was having a conversation about this as we were punditing on Kiro the other day. And there are some Republicans who are going - well, they're calling everybody extreme. Yeah, they're calling Joe Kent extreme, but they're also calling Tiffany Smiley extreme. And they're not the same extreme, but they're painting them with the same brush - you're hearing that for everybody, all the Republicans. If you say it about everybody, it's meaningless. And the challenge is, and the thing that the Republican Party has set up, is that they do have these extremists who are out further than a lot of the other Republicans that are elected, at least outwardly, right? And saying things that have been openly covered as white nationalism, Christian nationalism, that have been anti-Semitic, that have been racist, that have been homophobic, anti-trans, anti-gay - just very openly blatant right? And that is absolutely extreme. And no, not every Republican is outwardly openly saying that. They leave that to the Joe Kents and the Marjorie Taylor Greenes. But what is striking to me is how they have not been reined in by the people who have previously been considered as moderate and have previously been considered as the adults in the room. Those adults in the room are doing nothing to contain that extremist element in the party, and in fact, have given them more power, more visibility. The Republican Party, all of their caucuses have pumped money into these campaigns. Their allied PACs and supporters have pumped money into these campaigns and have been apologists for them. So if you will not rebuke when you hear those things said, if you will not stand up and say, you know what, I'm standing for these principles, and that person is not doing that, and we're both carrying the same label - I don't want to carry the same label as a person who is saying that - that is not what I stand for. We're not standing shoulder to shoulder. We're hearing none of that. We're hearing silence. And there are some people who want to interpret that silence as, well, clearly they don't agree. And when I talk to them, they sound perfectly reasonable, and they've been moderate in the past. We're hearing some of the most troubling things that we have in a while. Just the open anti-Semitism, the open racism, the open homophobia and transphobia that we're seeing is alarming. They're passing laws against it. This is not theoretical language. And we're seeing political violence as a direct result. That, of course, was predicted, right? When we hear speech like that, it incites violence. We have talked about it inciting violence, and it incited violence in multiple places, in multiple ways. And we've seen that just in the past couple of weeks - from January 6th to Nancy Pelosi to the Michigan governor - we're seeing this all over the place, right? And so silence is enabling violence. Silence is not moderation. It's enabling this extremism and violence. So yes, when you hear them all being painted with the same broad brush, it's because they're doing nothing to stop this rapid descent into this cesspool that we're on the precipice of, and that some states have already fallen to, right? It's important to vocally stand up against this, against hate, whenever we see it. And that's not a partisan statement. And if a party is trying to say that when you say that you need to call out violence, that you need to call out political violence, that you need to stand up and talk against anti-Semitism and call it what it is, and somehow they're putting a partisan label on that, be very wary of a party that says that speaking against those things is speaking against their party. They're telling you what the party is about if those things they're labeling as a partisan attack. I think that's very important to be said. This is so far beyond a Democratic and Republican issue, and we have to be aware that these Republicans are caucusing together, right? They're voting together for a national agenda, and we've heard this national agenda articulated. We've heard the things that they're queuing up. We've seen the types of policies that they're passing in places like Florida and Texas. We have the preview of what's coming there, and it is ugly, right? And ugly to people who used to consider themselves Republican. So to me, this is beyond the conversation of just Democrat and Republican. This is a conversation that we have to have before we even get to issues, because if we're leading with that hateful rhetoric and we're leading with that extremism, it really doesn't matter what someone is saying about issues, because the things that they are saying about people in their community is already excluding people and already doing that. I think that's extremely important to say, that we can't say that enough, and that trying to dismiss this extremism, and dismiss criticisms of it, and dismiss the refusal to call it out for what it is - is extremism itself. All right. So next on our ballot, we have the state races, starting with Secretary of State, which is a lively race. Now, we have talked a bunch about the Secretary of State race, and have also been posting a lot about it on the Hacks & Wonks Twitter account this week. So for that, between Democrat Steve Hobbs and Non-partisan Julie Anderson, we're going to refer you to those other shows. We'll put links in the show notes. We'll put links to the little audiograms and snippets that we have of the candidates' takes on different things. Steve Hobbs was a longtime Democratic senator known as a moderate for quite some time - and Julie Anderson actually just released a new ad that talks about that and him as a moderate. And then Julie Anderson has been the Pierce County auditor in Pierce County for 12 years, I believe now, and has built relationships around that area. So that's an interesting race to follow. We'll put those links in there, but that's the next one on the ballot. And then we get into the legislative races, which are going to be different depending on which legislative district that you're in. I just wanted to mention a few of the battleground districts here in the state. So one of them is in the 26th Legislative District Senate race - very important - between Emily Randall, Senator Emily Randall, and current Representative Jesse Young, who's running for that Senate seat. Emily's a Democrat with a strong record and has been representing that community and been in the community for quite some time. Jesse Young is one of the more extreme Republicans in our legislature, has - in the mold of the Matt Sheas, who made a lot of news for his activity in domestic terrorism. And if you think that sounds like a euphemism or like a stretch of the truth, I mean literal domestic terrorism like running a camp training people for war and putting tracking devices on law enforcement vehicles, and making threats to political opponents - extremism - and advancing bills to outlaw abortion in Washington state under threat of putting doctors in prison - that kind of extremism. And Jesse Young, as we talked about last week with Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young, has actually been suspended from working with legislative staff because of his past behavior and harassment or abuse. He is no longer permitted to have legislative staff, which is certainly hobbling in one's ability to get their job done. They lean very heavily on those staff. And so not being allowed to have one and having to do or not get done all of the administrative work, preparation work, ability to meet with constituents, ability to review and prepare legislation and represent the community is absolutely hobbled by that. But that is actually a really close race. Another one where it makes sense if you can adopt a race, that 26th Legislative District is a really important one where people can get involved with and make their voices heard. Also, the 47th Legislative District is a hotbed of activity - a competitive Senate race there - open seat left by the exiting Senator Mona Das and is being competed for by former State Senator, Democrat Claudia Kauffman and Republican Bill Boyce. This has been a purple district, a swing district, has elected both Democrats and Republicans. This district has a history of extremely close races. And so we have a race here where we're seeing some of the dynamics that we see in Democrat versus Republican races. Choice is a huge issue here. Bill Boyce - being bankrolled by far-right Republicans - has been giving really mushy responses about what he thinks about a woman's right to choose. And so that is certainly on the ballot, as well as just the history of corporate giveaways, tax - as was quoted in the paper - tax breaks and sweetheart deals given to rich developers and donors. And so certainly looking at the donor rolls there, you get a different story of who those legislators would be based on the activity there. So another very important partisan race. 42nd Legislative District, a very competitive race between Sharon Shewmake and Simon Sefzik - another Democrat versus Republican race - very important here for the Senate and just a variety of things. And again, we're seeing just greater space between the two parties. Here in the state, we, I think, have seen Republicans who have considered themselves moderate and who have been less eager to engage in some of the social wedge issue rhetoric that sometimes we see on a national basis. There have been Republicans who wore it as a badge of honor previously to say, no, that's not me. I'm focused on these other issues, but stand up. And whether it's being pro-choice, whether it is standing up for marriage equality. There have been some before here who have done that, some who haven't, but some who have. We are not seeing that now. Things are following the direction of some of the national races. And so we have that there. 30th Legislative District with Claire Wilson and Linda Kochmar, as well as the race between Jamila Taylor and Casey Jones are close - and so engaging in those is important. And then the 44th Legislative District with John Lovick, the Democrat who was previously a representative, currently a representative, now running to be a Senator, against Republican Jeb Brewer. Republican Mark Hamsworth for the House seat versus Brandy Donaghy, who was appointed to that seat and is running to fill the term, this new term. And then April Berg versus her Republican opponent. So pay attention to those races. Please make sure that you're engaging in these battlegrounds. And then we also have just Seattle races and - that we've covered. So in the 46th Legislative District, we have a classic Seattle moderate versus progressive race. Even though those, when you get into it, the labels might be a little bit simplistic, but certainly someone who seems more resistant to taxation, more resistant to change in Lelach Rave versus Darya Faravar, who wants to take more of an active approach in addressing issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety - and move more in the direction of things that we've seen with the history of working versus those that have not. So that's a choice that we have there. We also have previously interviewed Darya, and so we'll link that in the show notes for your information. The 36th Legislative District features a race between Democrats Julia Reed and Jeff Manson. We've also interviewed both in that race. And we'll link that in the show notes. The 37th Legislative District is one where we did a primary candidate forum, have interviewed both of those candidates there - Democrat Chipalo Street and Democrat Emijah Smith. And we also did a debate in partnership with the South Seattle Emerald and others - hosted by the South Seattle Emerald - an in-person debate, actually. And we will link those there. I think that there are some interesting issues in that race, notable differences. We will also share kind of the lightning round stuff. But also, hey let's make sure that we're recognizing the full humanity of people and that we are not treating people who are in the LGBTQ community any differently than others. And that is an issue of difference in that race. So I encourage you all to do your homework about that and make sure that any candidate that you're voting for fully stands up for the rights of all people in our community. And that you communicate with the candidates about that and make sure all of your candidates know how important that is to you. And then we have the 34th Legislative District with Democrats Leah Griffin and Emily Alvarado. We've interviewed both of them. We'll link both of those shows in the show notes. So there are contested races throughout Seattle. Encourage you to vote in those races and make your choice. If you need help, refer to our show notes or to officialhacksandwonks.com. We have an Election 2022 page there and we'll put all of the resources on there. Next, we go to the County Prosecuting Attorney's race here in King County, that is between Jim Ferrell, who is the mayor of Federal Way, and Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Jim Ferrell has been endorsed by folks like the King County Republican Party, some mayors, King County Council member Pete von Reichbauer, like the Covington and Algona mayor. Leesa Manion has been endorsed by the King County Democratic party, former governor Gary Locke, local labor unions. So there's a little bit of a difference in the profile of their supporters that kind of indicates the approach that they're looking to take. One, being more in line with some of the data that we're seeing in the most effective approaches to addressing crime and accountability - that has yielded some results in what we've seen, especially with youth crime and youth intervention, which seems to be particularly effective with Leesa Manion and her managing this office and hundreds of staff and attorney, which is certainly in line with what the County Prosecuting Attorney needs to do. Jim Ferrell, coming from the mayor of Federal Way, has talked about more of a punitive approach to this and is talking about cracking down on some of the things that we have been seeing as successful. It's interesting in how this race is shaping up and what the candidates are talking about and what they aren't talking about with them. Certainly Leesa has been leaning into her experience, the type of coalition that she's building, whether it's people who are in support of more common sense gun reform and making sure guns don't proliferate on the streets, to those who are looking to maintain accountability but make sure that we're doing the things that give folks the best chance of reducing recidivism, or people returning, or revictimizing people who are committing further crimes. Jim Ferrell seems very focused on trying to apply longer sentences, lengthier sentences, talking about a more, again, punitive approach, prosecuting more, longer sentences - that type of stuff. So with that, what do you think? What is your take on this race, Shannon? [00:44:01] Shannon Cheng: So this race is between Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff for the outgoing King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg - she's been in that position for quite a time. And her opponent is Jim Ferrell, who is the current mayor of Federal Way. So when I look at this race, I see - with Leesa Manion who - it's a continuation of what King County has been doing, which I would characterize as incremental reform of the criminal legal system to be more fair and equitable. I think this can be embodied in initiatives they aspire to, such as declaring racism as a public health crisis or the goal of Zero Youth Detention. So I think with Manion, you will get a continuation of the slow work that the county is doing to try to make our criminal legal system more equitable and fair. Whereas with Ferrell, I see this as a candidate who's trying to throw us back to punitive tactics that have been proven to be ineffective. He wants to be more tough-on-crime and is riding this wave of Republicans pointing to crime as being the reason not to support the Democratic candidate. I think that Ferrell has specifically spoken about being against and wanting to roll back some of the diversion programs that King County has started to try to use, especially for youth. And I also - even if you don't - if you agree on this punitive approach, I think it's also worth considering that right now the legal system is kind of at capacity. So what Ferrell is suggesting is going to put even more strain on it. The courts are already - have backlogs coming from the pandemic and the jails are full and not functioning well and not providing people humane conditions to be in there. So I just fear that that will lead to a lot more suffering for many people across our county. And I think this is a really important race to look at and think about. [00:46:12] Crystal Fincher: So Mike, what's your take on this? [00:46:14] Mike McGinn: It's interesting to see the contrast here. It's a local version of this national debate that we have now seen - that the proper response to crime is to crack down harder. And we're seeing this here as well. I worked with Dan Satterberg and he was a really interesting elected official. And honestly, to me, I may not have agreed with him on every decision - I know I didn't agree with him on every decision he made. But he was a civil servant first and foremost. He was trying to figure out what was the right path forward. He was engaged in the discussion. He led on things like Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, people returning to the community from jail - getting their records cleared and restoration of rights. So he was really, and it's interesting, he was elected as a Republican, moved the race to a nonpartisan race and then was elected as a Democrat. So he clearly was somebody who was willing to go where the evidence led and not go based on ideology. So that's the experience we've had from that office, which is, I think, what you want in a prosecutor's office. It's a pretty important position. The effect it has on people's lives is immense. I think that really says something that we see someone looking to continue that tradition. And then we see someone coming in with - if only we punished people more. How's that been working? Really? We have some information on that, which is it doesn't really work. It takes a combination of the judicial system and community systems to really try to deal with root causes of crime, to deal with recidivism, to deal with the issues here. And I think that this is a little bit of a bellwether here. Are we going to try to be a progressive place, a progressive county that adopts and looks at new approaches? Or are we going to go to a more regressive approach to this? Because, yeah, that's worked so well in solving crime over the decades. [00:48:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. What's your take, Bryce? [00:48:37] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I don't know how much more I have to add to this other than just the importance of this race and the importance of making sure we have somebody who's really thinking about the - not just people's emotional concerns about crime, but the actions and the strategies and the programs that have been proven to address the things that actually lower crime. We've talked on a number of different episodes throughout this year about programs that have successfully reduced recidivism. And those are programs that often get criticized by people who claim to be tough on crime. And I just think that's something to interrogate our candidates about for this position, because the county prosecutor has a lot of influence in terms of how the county addresses crime in a way that's going to impact real people in big ways. [00:49:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I will chime in and say that we just got a new public poll here that was just reported on, I think yesterday, showing that this race is basically statistically tied. So turnout is going to be really important. Lots of people talk about - they look at the federal races - they wonder if their vote matters. They're going, okay millions of people are voting. Why does mine make a difference? Really what makes a difference are these down-ballot races, are these local races. If you care about the issues of homelessness, justice, equity, affordability, what our community looks like, who it serves - our criminal legal system is an essential part of that equation. And we're talking about, in so many of these conversations, how we intervene and address victims. And most people who have perpetrated crimes have been victims of them. And how we intervene when people are victims, especially early, and especially when they're young, dictates how their future goes and whether they end up on the path to criminalization and poverty or a better path. So the way we intervene in that makes a difference. The way we treat and handle these cases that come through and how we address accountability depends on whether our streets are made safer, whether our tax dollars are used in a way that makes it less likely that people are going to commit crime and less likely that people are victimized or more, right? And we're seeing the impacts of the status quo of a more punitive approach. And either we choose to keep doing the same thing, and polls keep showing that no one is satisfied with the condition of things today. And so we do need to consider that when we are making these choices. And I hope you take a long, hard look at that. And most of all, get engaged and vote, make sure other people vote. And talk about these races, talk about the county attorney races, talk about the judicial races that we're going to talk about in just a moment, right? These are very important. Turnout is not where we would love it to be. It's lagging behind some previous years here locally, especially among younger people. And I know that is concerning to some. So the more that people can do to make sure that everyone can - and the most impactful thing you can do is just text those close to you, call those close to you, talk to them. Hey, coworker - hey, did you get that ballot in? What are you doing for this race? Remember, this is important. Hey, cousin, hey, brother, sister, mom - it's those connections close to you and those personal contacts that actually make it more likely for those people to vote. External organizations can try and do all the voter mobilization that they can and that work is valuable and good and should happen. But hearing from someone who you care about and who cares about you saying, hey, make sure you do this, you have any questions, you need help - is one of the best things you can do to make sure that people actually turn out to vote. So with that, we can talk about a couple of these judicial races, which are next on the ballot. Now we see the state Supreme Court races and we see Justice Mary Yu, who - you probably hear affection and admiration in my voice because I have affection and admiration for Justice Mary Yu. We also have a great interview with her from a few months back that we will post in the episode notes. Justice Barbara Madsen, also wonderful. Justice Helen Whitener, who is just - look, I'm going to just go ahead and get personal. Justice Helen Whitener is everything. I just need everyone to know that Justice Whitener is everything from - just everything. Her experience - vast, broad experience - in so many elements and areas of the law. The thoughtfulness, the lived experience, the outreach into the community - just a beautiful human being and an effective and intelligent justice. I am a fan of Justice Helen Whitener and we've done a couple interviews with Justice Whitener. And fortunately this time she isn't being challenged by anyone mediocre like she was last time, so this is an uncontested race. And when I say mediocre - I mean just got his license to practice law in order to run against someone with a resume as vast and deep as Justice Whitener's. And so now we'll talk about the contested municipal judge races in the City of Seattle between Damon Shadid, who is the incumbent in that one seat - has been endorsed by a number of Democratic organizations, received Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of organizations, and is standing on his record. And a new challenger from the City Attorney's Office, Nyjat Rose-Akins, who is endorsed by the King County Republican Party and Jenny Durkan, and is wanting to make changes to some things and talking about the record of Community Court and changes that she wants to make there. In the other race, we have judge Adam Eisenberg, who has been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of the local and ethnic bar associations, but also has received a high number of negative feedback and surveys from the King County Bar Association and concerns about management and whether women are treated fairly under his management. And then Pooja Vaddadi, who is a newcomer and a new challenger, who has been - received a number of Democratic endorsements, but also has not received any ratings from local judicial bar associations because she has chosen not to stand in front of them for ratings. Bryce, how would you characterize those races? [00:55:42] Bryce Cannatelli: Like Crystal said, we got to hear from all of these candidates in a forum. I'll start with the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins portion of it - they're running for Position 7. Damon Shadid has been a judge in this position for quite a while. And the main point of difference between the two is Nyjat Rose-Akins often talked about during the forum criticisms of Community Court and her interest in making a lot of changes to the Community Court system, whereas Judge Shadid has defended what that court has been able to do and hopes to see it continue in its current direction. As far as Pooja Vaddadi and Judge Eisenberg, that's another kind of longtime incumbent in the position - I can't remember how long he's been in that role - and a newcomer. And Pooja Vaddadi brought up concerns about the way that Judge Eisenberg has handled himself in the courtroom. You can hear her talk about that in our forum specifically at the end - is something that her campaign has been highlighting as of late, but also just the need that she claims there is in the municipal court for some changes. [00:56:52] Crystal Fincher: What's your take on those races, Shannon? [00:56:55] Shannon Cheng: So I think - so for the Judge Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi race - Pooja Vaddadi is a practicing public defender. And I think her experience in being in the court with somebody such as Judge Eisenberg presiding - it was a maybe not great experience for her. And so she saw a lot of injustice there and felt called to try to step up and bear witness and call out what was happening and how she has a different vision for how that court could be run. I personally appreciate that because I think judicial races are just very low information. It's really hard - as Crystal just went through, there was a long list of uncontested judges on the ballot - and I often look at those names and I have no idea who those people are. And so it has been interesting in this race to get a window into how courts work. And I know for me, it's been very educational. And I continue to aspire to learn more about how courts are run and what matters. And yeah, so for the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins - as Bryce said, I think it comes down to the vision of how Community Court will be run in the future in Seattle. Whether you want somebody from the City Attorney's Office driving the vision of how to handle low-level offenses in the city versus the path that we had been on to to try to support people in need and not further entangle them in a system that kind of - a system that can snowball on people's lives. [00:58:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right on. And I think in these races, we are seeing a little bit of a difference. There has been a lot called out by Pooja Vaddadi's campaign. But in fairness, I think you referred to Pooja talking about how she was partly moved to run for this position based on some of the injustices she saw. But one of the issues in this race that has been brought up is that Judge Eisenberg was the recipient of the highest number of - basically highest amount of negative feedback. King County Bar Association does an anonymous poll of its member attorneys for judges and the highest percentage of attorneys returned negative responses for Judge Eisenberg - higher than all of the other judges and gave that feedback. Judge Eisenberg didn't seem to feel that that had any validity. And he talked about how he had been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified, which is the highest rating given by a number of different bar associations. And it being pretty standard that judges go before different bar associations and get interviewed and they evaluate their fitness for judicial office and provide a rating from Exceptionally Well Qualified, I think Very Well Qualified, just on there. And so he had a number of highest ratings. And Pooja Vaddadi decided not to sit in front of those. And she said it was because she felt that it was biased or tilted or they would automatically give high ratings to incumbents, but not give high ratings to people who weren't incumbents. So she didn't feel the need to sit before them, which is a bit different. A lot of first-time candidates do go before those bodies and are evaluated and come out with decent ratings. I'm trying to think if I recall first-time candidates getting Exceptionally Well Qualified - I think I recall a couple, but also some who haven't. So I don't know, there very well may be a role that incumbency plays in that, but that was an element in that race that came through. As well as prior coverage about whether Judge Eisenberg potentially gave someone a harsher sentence for exercising their right to a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. And that being a wrong thing - that is a right that people have to exercise. And whether someone pleads guilty to a charge on a deal or is found guilty on that charge, penalizing someone simply for choosing to go to trial is not something that should happen and is certainly frowned upon. And so there was some coverage in question about that. We can also link that in the show notes. So those are certainly interesting races. And I think Shannon summed up really well just what's at stake moving forward in the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins race. So now let's get into the meat of a Seattle big-time initiative - Propositions 1A and 1B, which are on the City of Seattle ballot. They are not on my ballot, but we've got ballots waving with Shannon and Bryce and Mike over here talking about this question. [01:02:10] Mike McGinn: Do you want me to take a shot at it? [01:02:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, go ahead. Take a shot at it, Mike McGinn. [01:02:16] Mike McGinn: Okay. We all know how ballots work - you get a choice between - in the primary, you normally get a whole lot of candidates to vote for and you pick one. And what this is proposing is that in the City of Seattle, whether you want a different way to vote that will give you more choices. So the first question is, and let me tell you what the two choices are. One is called approval voting. So you'd look at your ballot and you'd have multiple people on the ballot and anyone that you approved of, you'd vote for. So you could vote for one, two, three, four, to approve as many as you want. And the idea there is that you don't want to have to restrict your vote to one candidate. And I have to say there have been times when I've had multiple friends on the ballot - I just want to be able to say I voted for all of them. But there are other good reasons to want to maybe approve multiple candidates. The other style is something called ranked choice voting. So in that case, you'd rank the candidates - one, two, three, four, five. And they'd add up the votes, and whoever the lowest vote getter was would get dropped off. And so let's say - I'm standing here with Bryce and Shannon and Crystal - let's say I had ranked them Crystal first, and then Bryce, and then Shannon. If Crystal was the lowest vote getter, she'd be off the list. And my vote would now go to Bryce - my second vote would be counted. And you do this by a process of eliminating the lowest-ranked candidate until you get to a winner. And we'll probably get more into why - what are the differences between the two systems and why they're better. And there's a whole world of election nerddom, which is substantial - what is the best way to represent what the voters really want, but you're going to get to choose here. So the real question is, do you want to keep the existing system - and that's the first question on the ballot - or do you want a new system? And if you vote Yes, I want a new system, you'll also be asked - well, actually, no matter how you vote on whether you want a new system - you're then asked, which one do you like more, approval voting or ranked choice voting? So yeah, it is pretty dense and complicated. You probably want to sit down and look at this. But if I could break it down for you - if you think you want more ways to have your vote count and have more discretion in how to award it to people, you'll want to vote Yes on the initial question. And then you'll get to weigh in and decide which one of those two - approval or ranked choice voting - you like more. And that'll tee it up for people to offer their opinions on what they like more on the rest of the podcast. How was that? Did I do okay, guys, in getting the description out? [01:05:13] Crystal Fincher: You did! You did, in fact, do okay of getting the description out. And I think also just the - functionally on the ballot - what you said was really important and I just want to reiterate. So this - we're talking about - okay, there are two choices there, approval voting and ranked choice voting. But when you get your ballot, you're going to see that it is constructed in a way that's not just that simple choice. There really is an initial question and then a secondary question. The initial question - why don't you just read what's on the ballot? [01:05:47] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I could do that. I can also hold it up to you, so you can see the wall of text that happens beforehand. Shannon is shaking her head on the video feed, because - Seattle voters will know it if they've opened their ballots - there's a lot of text that goes before you can actually answer the question. So please read your ballot from top to bottom to make sure that you vote for everything. But the way that it's formatted is we get an explanation of both of the individual propositions. So it says Proposition 1A, submitted by initiative petition number 134, and Proposition 1B, alternative proposed by the city council and mayor, concern allowing voters to select multiple candidates in city primary elections. Proposition 1A would allow voters in primary elections for mayor, city attorney and city council to select on the ballot as many candidates as they approve of for each office. The two candidates receiving the most votes for each office would advance to the general election consistent with state law. The city would consult with King County to include instructions on the primary ballot, such as vote for as many as you approve of for each office. As an alternative, the city council and mayor have proposed Proposition 1B, which would allow primary election voters for mayor, city attorney and

Have you ever wished that animals or plants could talk to us? As it turns out, they can. The natural world is teeming with conversation, though many of it is beyond human hearing range. Scientists are using groundbreaking digital technologies to uncover these sounds, revealing vibrant communication in the Tree of Life. In The Sounds of Life: How Digital Technology Is Bringing Us Closer to the Worlds of Animals and Plants, Karen Bakker, Professor and director of the Program on Water Governance at the University of British Columbia, shares fascinating stories of nonhuman sound, interweaving insights from technological innovation and traditional knowledge: We learn how artificial intelligence can decode these sounds, and meet the researchers building dictionaries in East African Elephant and Sperm Whalish. We explore digitally mediated dialogues with bats and honeybees. We are introduced to the innovative minds who are using sound to protect and regenerate endangered species from the Great Barrier Reef to the Arctic and the Amazon. We are presented with shocking facts regarding the impact of noise pollution on both animals and plants. At a time where the natural and tech worlds are often presented as mutually exclusive, Dr. Bakker's book challenges that idea, calling upon interdisciplinary research that reveals more about the interconnectedness of it all and advising us to listen, not just look. After this talk, you may never see outdoor adventures the same way again. Karen Bakker, an award-winning professor at the University of British Columbia, earned her Ph.D. from the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. A tech entrepreneur and former Annenberg Fellow at Stanford University, she studies environmental governance and digital transformation. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Radcliffe Fellowship. An avid gardener and the mother of two daughters, she lives in Vancouver. Sally James is a writer and journalist who covers science and medical research. She has written for The Seattle Times, South Seattle Emerald, Seattle and UW Magazines, among others. For the Emerald, she has been focusing during the pandemic on stories about health and access for communities of color. In the past, she has been a leader and volunteer for the nonprofit Northwest Science Writers Association. For many years, she was a reviewer for Health News Review, fact-checking national press reporting for accuracy and fairness. She is most pithy on Twitter @jamesian. The Sounds of Life: How Digital Technology Is Bringing Us Closer to the Worlds of Animals and Plants (Hardcover) Third Place Books

Today's episode is a recording of a live debate between 37th LD Representative Position 2 candidates, Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street. The debate was hosted by the South Seattle Emerald on October 4, 2022 at the Rainier Arts Center. Hacks & Wonks' very own Crystal Fincher moderated the debate. Resources For links to the YouTube video, summary of lightning round answers and more, visit the debate's page on our website.   Campaign Website - Emijah Smith   Campaign Website - Chipalo Street   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more - click here.   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote - Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition.     Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hi everyone – this is Bryce Cannatelli from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode of the show is a recording of a live debate between 37th LD State Representative candidates Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street. The debate was held on October 4, 2022 and was hosted by the South Seattle Emerald and was moderated by Hacks & Wonks' very own Crystal Fincher. We hope you find it informative and thank you for listening. [00:00:41] Crystal Fincher: Welcome! Welcome everyone to the South Seattle Emerald's 2022 General Election Candidate Debate. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of the Hacks & Wonks radio show and podcast, and I'm honored to welcome you all to tonight's debate. I'm also excited to hear from our guests running for State Representative Position 2 in the 37th Legislative District. Before we begin tonight, I'd like to do a Land Acknowledgement. I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional land of the first people of Seattle, the Coast-Salish Peoples, specifically the Duwamish peoples, past and present. I would like to honor with gratitude the land itself and the Duwamish tribe. We'd like to thank all of our partners here this evening, including the League of Women Voters of Seattle & King County for their support as well. Tonight's in-person show is following numerous COVID precautions. All in-person audience members, volunteers, staff, and candidates have either provided proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test upon entry, and all audience members in attendance are wearing masks. We're excited to be able to live stream this event on Facebook and YouTube. The debate also features questions from our audience members and voters like you. If you're watching the livestream online, you can submit audience questions by going to seattleemerald.com/debate. If you're in-person, you can write audience questions down on the note cards that have been handed out to you - or will soon be handed out to you - that will be picked up partway through the show. Volunteers will collect written questions at 8:00pm, right after the lightning round, and again at 8:30pm. Please keep questions to one question per card. A few reminders before we jump into the debate: I want to remind you all to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th, and you can vote anytime until election day on Tuesday, November 8th. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at VoteWA.gov - that's VoteWA.gov. I also want to remind you that if you've had a previous felony conviction, your right to vote is now automatically restored after you serve your prison term, even while on community supervision. You do have to re-register to vote, but your right to vote exists. Go to freethevotewa.org for more details, and help spread the word. The candidates running for the 37th Legislative District State Representative Position 2 with us tonight are Emijah Smith and Chipalo Street - and we'll welcome them up to the stage right now as I explain the rules. So tonight's debate will begin with candidate introductions. Each candidate will have one minute to tell us about themselves. After introductions, we will enter a lightning round of yes/no questions, which candidates will answer silently by using paddles that indicate their answer. Just double-checking that you both have your paddles. Excellent, it's going to be a robust lightning round. Following the lightning round - at the end of the lightning round, each candidate will be allowed 90 seconds to explain anything you want to about what your answers were. Following the lightning round, we'll enter into the open answer portion of the debate. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer each question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Times will be indicated by a volunteer holding a sign in the front of the stage - right here. When a candidate has 30 seconds remaining, you will see the yellow "30-second" sign - right there. When a candidate has 10 seconds remaining, you'll see the orange "10-second" sign. And when time is up, the volunteer will hold up the red "STOP" sign, and I will silence the candidate. So now, we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Emijah Smith and then Chipalo Street. Emijah? [00:04:51] Emijah Smith: Welcome everyone. Thank you for being here. Thank you to all who are watching through the YouTube streaming. My name is Emijah Smith, please call me 'Mijah. I am raised and rooted in the 37th. I am a mother, I'm a grandmother, and a daughter of this district. Ever since I was a teen, I've been doing advocacy and community organizing - really seeing firsthand in real time that failed War on Drugs that is still continuing now, really seeing the devastation in my community. It was at that time that I said I want to bring healing, restoration, and resources back to the community. So my vision is healthy families and healthy communities, and in doing so, we have to look at multiple issues - prioritizing housing, fully funding education, pre-K, health equity, and really centering racial justice. I just want to highlight very briefly some sole endorsers within the 37th - Senator Saldaña, Girmay Zahilay - our King County Councilmember, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Kim-Khánh - thank you so much. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Chipalo Street. [00:06:01] Chipalo Street: Good evening. I'm an innovative problem solver, and I've been giving back to the South Seattle community for 15 years. We have some really pressing issues facing us, and we need to send a proven leader to Olympia to solve them. Housing prices are out of control, and it's displacing generational families and making renters pay more of their paycheck to skyrocketing rents. People are struggling to make ends meet, and the pandemic has only made this worse. The recovery, or so-called recovery from the pandemic, hasn't been felt evenly by all of us, and we need to protect working people so that we all come out of the pandemic better than we went into it. The pandemic's also made our schools worse and exacerbated existing issues. Just recently, Black and Brown kids tested three and a half levels behind their counterparts, and I want to make sure that all kids have a great public education system like the one that I went through. So I'm glad to be here tonight, and I'm honored to discuss how we move this district forward. [00:07:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Also, it's a useful reminder that while you do have 90 seconds to answer, you aren't obligated to always take 90 seconds. Feel free to take it if you want to, but you will not be penalized for finishing early if you desire. So now, we will move on to the lightning round - making sure you both have your paddles in hand and ready. All right, we've got a number of questions to go through. So we will start talking about homelessness and housing. First question, are there any instances where you would support sweeps of homeless encampments? Yes or No? Looks like Emijah is waffling there, or landed on No. And we have Chipalo with No. Next question, will you vote to end single-family zoning to address housing affordability? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says No. Would you vote to end the statewide ban on rent control and let localities decide whether they want to implement it? Emijah says Yes, as does Chipalo. Will you vote in favor of Seattle's social housing initiative, I-135? Both Emijah and Chipalo say Yes. Do you favor putting 400 additional units of housing and services for the unhoused in the CID? We've got a waffle with Emijah and a No with Chipalo. Do you rent your residence? [00:08:52] Chipalo Street: Sorry - as in, do I - am I a renter? [00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Yes, are you renters? Both say No. Do you own your residence? Mortgage or outright. Chipalo and Emijah both say Yes. Are you a landlord? Emijah says No. Chipalo says Yes. In public safety, would you vote for a law ending long-term solitary confinement? Both say Yes. Would you vote for a law prohibiting traffic stops by armed law enforcement officers for low-level non-moving violations such as vehicle registrations and equipment failure? Both say Yes. Do you support establishing an independent prosecutor for cases of criminal conduct arising from police-involved deaths? Both say Yes. Do you support investments in the ShotSpotter police surveillance tool? Yep, it is in Mayor Harrell's budget that he just announced - so both say Yes. Do you think police should be in schools? Both say No. Would you vote to provide universal health care to every Washington resident? Both say Yes. The Legislature just passed a law that will cap insulin costs at $35 per month. Would you vote to expand price caps to other commonly used drugs? Both say Yes. Will you vote to ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? Emijah waffled and Chipalo says Yes. [00:10:58] Emijah Smith: I waffle but I say Yes. [00:10:59] Crystal Fincher: Emijah waffles but she says Yes. For people wishing to change their name to match their gender, do you support removing the cost and need to see a judge for legal processing, name changes, and gender marker changes? Both say Yes. Will you vote in favor of an anti-extradition law that protects queer people, including children and their families, who flee to Washington from states where their gender-affirming care is punishable by law? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to increase funding for charter schools? Both Emijah and Chipalo say No. Will you vote for continued investments in anti-racism training for staff and students in Washington schools? Both candidates say Yes. Washington is facing a school staffing crisis and a funding crisis, especially with special education. Will you vote to increase funding in both of these areas? Both say Yes. Will you vote to enact a universal basic income in Washington? Both candidates say Yes. Our state has one of the most regressive tax codes in the country, meaning lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the ultra-wealthy. In addition to the capital gains tax, will you vote for a wealth tax? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote for any bill that increases highway expansion? Chipalo says Yes and Emijah is waffling. Would you vote to allocate state dollars to help accelerate the delivery of Sound Transit and other regional rail projects? Would you vote to allocate state dollars to help accelerate the delivery of Sound Transit and other regional rail projects? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to enact state investments and updating homes with more environmentally friendly utilities? Both say Yes. Have you taken transit in the past week? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says no. Have you taken transit in the past month? Chipalo says Yes. Emijah says her family has, but not her personally, so that's a No. Elections. Potential changes in the way people vote for elections in the City of Seattle will be on the November ballot. Will you vote in favor of changing the system in Seattle elections? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote in favor of ranked choice voting for Seattle elections? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote in favor of approval voting for Seattle elections? You can only vote for one. So both candidates say No. Will you vote to move local elections from odd years to even years to significantly increase voter turnout? Chipalo and Emijah say Yes. In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell? Emijah says Yes. Chipalo says No. In 2021, did you vote for Lorena González? Emijah says No. Chipalo says Yes. Did you vote in the general election in 2021? Emijah says Yes. Chipalo says Yes. In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas-Kennedy for Seattle City Attorney? Emijah and Chipalo say Yes. Will you be voting for Julie Anderson for Secretary of State? Correct - she's running against Steve Hobbs. That is correct. Both candidates say No. Will you be voting for Steve Hobbs for Secretary of State? Both candidates say Yes. Will you be voting for Leesa Manion for King County Prosecutor? Both candidates say Yes. And that means that you will be voting No - you will not be voting Yes for Jim Ferrell. Correct - both candidates will not be voting for Jim Ferrell. Have you ever been a member of a union? Both candidates say Yes. Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? Chipalo and Emijah both say Yes. Have you ever walked on a picket line? Both say Yes. Have you ever crossed a picket line? Both candidates say No. Is your campaign unionized? Both candidates say No. If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? Both candidates say Yes. That concludes our lightning round. Thank you very much for that - helps to level set for the open-ended questions, but before we get to those, each candidate will have 90 seconds to explain anything you want about any of your answers. We will start with Chipalo. [00:16:40] Chipalo Street: Sure. I think the only one that I would like to explain is expansion of highways. The reason I answered Yes to that is the qualifier of is there any reason that I would do that. In general, no, I do not support the expansion of highways. However, if it is to help freight mobility that helps our unions, then that would be something that I would consider. If it comes back to our economy and helping union jobs, then we should definitely consider that. But in general, no, I would not vote to expand highways. [00:17:10] Crystal Fincher: And Emijah? [00:17:11] Emijah Smith: So I think there was a couple of questions there that I waffled on. And for me, when it comes - because I center racial justice - I'm an anti-racist organizer, I have to always look at what are the unintentional consequences of any decisions that's made. So there's this yes or no - we have to bring context into the conversation. So if it unintentionally or intentionally causes more inequities and more harm to people of color and those marginalized, I have to look more deeply into that before I could just say a quick, simple yes or no. So I just want to share why there might have been a waffle there. And also, if I don't fully understand something and I need to learn a little bit more and lean into community organizations and lean into the community - we talked about the ID - that's a very diverse community, they're not a monolith. So if there's an issue that's happening in the ID, I need to lean and learn from that community before I just make a decision as a legislator to do so. So I definitely - my style, my servant leadership is definitely to listen from community, learn from community, and be accountable to community. So I don't just do yes or no. Thank you. [00:18:13] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. So now we'll start the open answers portion. Our candidates will get 90 seconds to answer each question and they may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. So starting out - in the Dobbs decision that obliterated the right to abortion - in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion, he identified decisions he felt should be re-evaluated after their ruling in Dobbs, cases that established our right to same-sex marriage, rights to contraception, and rights to sexual privacy. What can our State Legislature do to proactively protect these rights? Emijah? [00:18:55] Emijah Smith: Thank you for the question. And I definitely do not agree with the decision that was made. I think as state legislators and state leaders that we have to go directly and correct our Constitution to prevent these type of things from happening. Washington does a lot of talk. I think that our community, particularly in the 37th, is really intentional about our racial equity and about equity overall and fairness and all the great words. But we have to be actionable about that. And so putting something in the written language in our Constitution, we have to move in that direction. And I believe that our legislature for this 2023 session will be centering and very active around the Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs decision. [00:19:36] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:19:38] Chipalo Street: Yeah, what I found interesting about Justice Thomas's dissent or concurrence was that he did not also include same or biracial marriage into his writing, even though that is based on the same logic of the other cases. Ironically, he is in a multiracial marriage. So the hypocrisy there, I don't think is lost on anyone. And I'm a product of a multiracial marriage - and so making sure that these rights are protected is deeply important to me. In terms of gay marriage, I am glad that we have a strong legislature and that passed marriage equality. In terms of Roe, I think we should fund clinics to take care of the increased traffic that we'll see in our state from the states that have - around us - that have banned abortion. I have background in technology. I would love to make sure that our data isn't used to go after people searching abortions or providing abortions. There's plenty of providers who provide telehealth. And if they are consulting with someone across state lines into a state that has banned abortion, I would be super scared about whether I could be sued, whether my data could be subpoenaed, if I could lose my license. And so making sure that we protect our data and protect our providers, I think, is paramount. Also making sure that we have security around our clinics - just as we'll have more traffic from people looking for abortions, we'll have more traffic from people protesting abortions. So those are some of the things that I would do to protect gay rights and the women's reproductive rights. [00:21:12] Crystal Fincher: And I just want to circle back to one thing for both of you in a 30-second rebuttal. Specifically when it comes to contraception, is there anything that strikes either of you - we'll start with Emijah - that you think the Legislature could do to help ensure and guarantee access and availability? [00:21:31] Emijah Smith: Well, definitely education. I definitely think that we need to ensure and continue to make sure that we're educating our youth in schools and making - contraception needs to be available. It needs to be available to all birthing parents, but we also need to make sure that we are including and not fighting to have education for our youth to understand sex education. And so that's been a big deal before the Roe V Wade issue had came up, so I'm a supporter of making sure our families are talking to each other, because this is a family issue. It's not just a woman's issue. It's not just anyone's issue. It's an issue about our bodies and our rights of what we want to do. [00:22:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you very much. And Chipalo? [00:22:08] Chipalo Street: Yeah, I agree. Education is a big part of this. Funding is also another part. Making sure that contraception is available to anyone who wants it. Making sure that preventative medications like PrEP is available to anyone who wants it as well - that goes a little bit past reproductive rights and into sexual rights for our folks, but making sure that it's just available to everyone, I think, is very important. [00:22:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. What will you do when you're - [00:22:35] Emijah Smith: We need some call and response in here - this is, you know - [00:22:40] Crystal Fincher: What'd you say? [00:22:40] Emijah Smith: I need some call and response. We in the 37th, we are very diverse - this is how we move, so I'm just - go ahead, sorry. [00:22:48] Crystal Fincher: What will you do in your capacity as a state legislator to help small local businesses? Chipalo? [00:22:55] Chipalo Street: So, I'm a small business owner myself and I understand the problems of balancing books, the stress that the pandemic has put on different small business owners. And so - number one, making sure that when we look around at other types of businesses - like we have incubators for tech businesses, we have incubators in high-tech businesses. Why don't we have incubators for smaller businesses, for communities of color? Access to capital is one of the issues that holds businesses back - where I think we saw in the video - the guy who founded WeWork completely did a scam and then got another $350 million to go start Lord knows what. So making sure that we have access to capital in community is really important. Working with organizations like Tabor 100, who provide incubation-type services is really important. And then working to make sure that our communities foster businesses - so for example, businesses that are in walkable and bikeable areas get more traffic. Not only will that increase business to those businesses, it will also get us towards a greener climate future if we have an environment and community that encourages us to get out of single-occupancy vehicles. [00:24:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:24:11] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I am a member of Tabor 100. And one thing I've learned - I've been a member for a number of years - is oftentimes the resources only go to a couple of places, right? So a lot of our small businesses are pop-ups. So a lot of, even through COVID, the money that's coming from the federal government or from our local government agencies are not making it to the small businesses. Similar to what Chipalo was saying, you need capital to even get a loan, but also the money that was coming to support the businesses, it wasn't reaching those businesses. It seems like the same million dollar companies, people who always were getting the money kept getting the money. And also, when I think about the displacement that's happening in our community, I would like to see some restrictions or some policy that is not targeting our small businesses in neighborhoods or communities that have been historically gentrified and displaced. Similarly like the Central District, but all throughout the 37th - all the constant building could be harming - it has harmed our communities, most marginalized, but it also, in some ways, makes it harder for them to start up and rebuild. So there's education and awareness. Sometimes small businesses do not find out about the funding until it's too late. And so I'm hearing from business owners all the time about they're seeing, they feel like it's a scam. They feel like even though they've had some opportunity to try to start something up in cOVID, that it's gonna go away. It's gonna be the same old, same old people getting it all the time, the same status quo. So we gotta figure something out. We have some small business owners here in the neighborhood. Even in my campaign, I learned, the small businesses cannot unionize because it costs so much money. We should be figuring out a way to make sure our small businesses can get themselves the access in the door. [00:25:49] Crystal Fincher: And that is time. [00:25:50] Emijah Smith: You said we can keep going. It wasn't a penalty, correct? [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: No, the red is stop. [00:25:55] Emijah Smith: Okay. [00:25:56] Crystal Fincher: You get a 10-second sign. That 10-second sign is like, okay, we gotta wrap up. [00:26:00] Emijah Smith: Well, thank you very much. That's call and response. I just want to say that I definitely value our small businesses. I stay aware and I try to stay connected as much as possible. And I would do any and everything I could in my role as a legislator to make sure that those investments are being made in our small business community, particularly the 37th and people of color. Thank you. [00:26:18] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Chipalo. [00:26:21] Chipalo Street: Oh, sorry. Do we - I think we took a fair amount of time. [00:26:24] Crystal Fincher: Oh, yeah, we just did. Sorry. [00:26:25] Chipalo Street: I didn't necessarily have a rebuttal there. [00:26:26] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question. Washington State has seen an explosion of traffic violence in the last two years with an extraordinarily disparate impact on those who live in our districts - the 37th district. For example, there are major Sound Transit investments coming online in the district at Judkins Park that are surrounded by unsafe freeway entrances on Rainier Avenue. It's not if, but when that folks in the 37th will be injured or killed by cars at that station entrance. And I should clarify, this is an audience question submitted before. What will you do as a member of the legislature to ensure that our streets are safe for pedestrians and cyclists? Emijah? [00:27:07] Emijah Smith: I appreciate that question. Living here in the 37th, living here near MLK where the light rail has been placed on top, when the community organized to have that light rail put underground. And the community won that fight, but with promises of housing and business investments and all the things that did not happen from Sound Transit, we have it on top. And so there's been - I see, oftentimes, those accidents. I see those fatalities. My heart goes out to the family of the mother who was killed at the Mount Baker station. I knew her before she was a mother. So these things are near and dear to my heart. When I think about traffic safety, I think that we have the data - Sound Transit does. They have the data that we should be - as things are being built and created, they should be co-designed with community, and then we should be making decisions while we're implementing these light rail stations, these new highways, whatever, it's not a highway, but these new ramps. All that should be taken into consideration in the beginning because the lives that are being lost mainly are BIPOC lives, Black and Indigenous people. And so our lives are being sacrificed for something that we never even asked for here in South Seattle. But I also want to think about traffic safety. I think about when our young Black men, who are the most targeted to even get on Sound Transit, being harassed because they're looking for ID or for payment - that to me is a safety issue. That's why oftentimes you may see me driving or driving my children somewhere because it's a safety issue because they may be harassed by the police, as well as those who tend to cycle. [00:28:41] Crystal Fincher: That is time. [00:28:42] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:28:43] Crystal Fincher: I just want to double check just to be clear. So we got that yellow 30-second sign, the orange one - okay. [00:28:50] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:28:51] Crystal Fincher: Cool. Chipalo. [00:28:53] Chipalo Street: So bike and pedestrian safety is something that I lived on a daily basis. Before the pandemic, I tried to bike to work from the CD all the way to Microsoft two times a week. And that exposed me to some very nice bike trails, but also some very dangerous streets. And so if I'm elected into the legislature, I would want to make sure that we have a comprehensive network of connectivity. So regardless of what type of transportation network it is, it needs to be connected. We built a monorail from downtown to the stadium - like Climate Pledge - that doesn't do much. For a long time, our two streetcar networks weren't interconnected, which means people didn't want to use it. So we need to make sure that all of our infrastructure is connected. We need to invest in bike transit and infrastructure. And this is particularly important to the 37th, because we have two of the most dangerous streets in Rainier Ave and MLK Way, 40% of the injuries there are pedestrian. And I think this is a place where we can, I mentioned before, find a win-win with business, because businesses that are in bikeable and pedestrian-friendly areas get more business. So I believe this is a way that we can build a coalition around fixing the problem of safe streets in the 37th. And it's also an issue for our kids, because we have 10 or 11 schools that are on both of those two most dangerous streets. So we can make sure that our kids are safer today as well. [00:30:22] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. One of the biggest things we can do publicly to fight the spread of all airborne illnesses, including COVID and the cold and flu, as well as protect against poor air quality days because of wildfires - which we've seen over the past few weeks - is to improve ventilation and filtration in public buildings. What will you do to ensure that public buildings, including schools in the 37th district, meet recommended air circulation and filtration standards for good health? Chipalo? [00:30:57] Chipalo Street: To me, that sounds like a question - if I could be appointed to the Capital Budget, where we have the power to change our physical infrastructure. I would love to set aside money for that. When I look at committee assignments, we can start all the great programs that we want, but if we don't fund them correctly, they will not have the desired outcome. So making sure that whoever comes from this district gets put on Appropriations or gets put on Capital Budget is really important so that we can bring the money back to the district to make sure that it is used in community to make us better. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:31:32] Emijah Smith: Thank you. In my experience being in Olympia, we can make the decision. So Senator Saldaña, of course, is leading the HEAL Act - that's an environmental justice issue, but it's about implementation. So it's easy - it's one thing to put in a law, then you do have to fund the law, but you also have to implement it. So when it comes down to the other municipalities locally, sometimes they're stuck. So we have to make sure we're following the legislation all the way down to the community or to the district that you want and make sure that it's being implemented in a way, in a timely fashion as well - not three years, four years, five years down the line, but immediately. That should be part of the planning. So of course we have to fund it, but if we're not able to implement it, it's just words. So I would like, in my leadership role, is to make sure that there's language in the bill that makes it more accessible to our municipalities so that they can actually do something about it. If you put in the bill and it can't be ambiguous, it needs to be really focused and maybe restricted funding to air quality in the schools, rather than just saying, Here's some money to your school for air quality. Because they'll use that money any way that they choose to use it if the legislature does not direct them with restricted funding. So I would target it. Thank you. [00:32:48] Chipalo Street: Can I provide an example of how we would do that? [00:32:51] Crystal Fincher: I will give you both 30 seconds to rebut. Go ahead, Chipalo. [00:32:53] Chipalo Street: So a good example of how we can do that and how that has been built into some of the laws that have been passed is - recently, we passed the cap and trade bill. And one of the things I liked about that bill is that it built equity into it, so 30% of the funds that are created from the cap and trade go back to investment in BIPOC communities and an additional 10% go into investment in our Native nations. So that is a source of revenue that we could use to improve air quality in our schools and I think aligns to the point of that funding. [00:33:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:33:28] Emijah Smith: Yeah, my follow-up with that would be - I just want to also say I'm solely endorsed by the Washington Conservation Voters. So they're looking at this issue across - and so I would definitely, again, lean into the organizations and to the leaders to help direct being a servant leader into doing this work. But nevertheless, what I have found in my experience - when there's a law passed - it takes the community to still apply the pressure on the entities and organizations to make something happen. So I have that experience, that organizing experience, and building those partnerships on the ground level to make sure it's being implemented. Because once they move it from the state, the state lets their hands go. So they need more guidance and direction, and that direction needs to come from community. Thank you. [00:34:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. How will people tangibly feel your impact as their legislator? What is one concrete thing that people will be able to see is different by the end of your term should you be elected? Emijah? [00:34:28] Emijah Smith: So are you asking what has been done already or what you plan to do going forward? [00:34:31] Crystal Fincher: No - if you are elected, what will people see is different by the end of your term than it is right now? [00:34:38] Emijah Smith: I think people will continue to see - at least for me - they'll see a continuation of the work. It's not something I'll start to do, it's something I will continue to do. So first and foremost, I think, doing racially justice-centered justice reform work - and that's all interconnected. So when I think about our healthcare and the doulas, the doulas have been seen as a medical profession led by Kirsten Harris-Talley, but we need to put money in the budget to make sure that they're being reimbursed for their services. I think in these two years - that you will see that that definitely happens. My granddaughter was born during COVID. My daughter almost lost her life during that birth. It is a well-known fact that Black women are three times as likely to lose their life during childbirth. So having a doula, having somebody there with culturally relevant care will make sure that the lives are not being lost. In addition to that, I am a board member of the Tubman Health Center - this is another place - making sure that we have capital investments to make sure that we create a clinic that is going to center Black and Indigenous community and bring culturally relevant care, and that will also serve our LGBTQ community. That's something that you will see, I believe, and I strongly believe within the next two years as a representative, if I am honored to earn your vote. Thank you. [00:36:00] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:36:03] Chipalo Street: So technology has been changing our lives from the way we communicate, to the way we move about the city, to how we get health care, or even go about banking. And I'm excited to bring my expertise in the tech industry to make sure that technology opens doors for all of us, but also prevent technology from rolling back the rights that we have. So I mentioned earlier that one of the first things I would do is work to make sure that our data is protected so that it can't be used to go for people looking for abortions or providing abortions - that is something I would start with. And then continue to do the work that I have done in the tech space. When I got out to Seattle, I volunteer taught computer science at a school in South Seattle. We started with a Intro to Computer Science program and then over six years built it up to an Advanced Placement program. So I would make sure that we distribute the wealth of tech to make sure that everyone in this community can take part in the industry that's been changing our region. The 37th has also been a strong supporter of kinship care, and so I would build on the work that Eric Pettigrew has done to make sure that kinship care and kinship providers are funded at the same rate as a foster care parent. [00:37:12] Emijah Smith: May I follow up? [00:37:13] Crystal Fincher: You may. I'll give you both 30 seconds to follow up. [00:37:16] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I, first and foremost, want to say that I would love to learn the school that you served, 'cause I think that's a wonderful thing that you've done. But just being a resident in the 37th and living in South Seattle for a number of years, it's important for me to know what school you're mentioning. Also with regard to kinship care, I've held relationships throughout the years with our grandmothers for taking care of their kids every single day. And so there has been a gap of care and service for our kinship care program once Representative, our former representative, Eric Pettigrew had stepped back. [00:37:50] Crystal Fincher: And that is time. [00:37:50] Emijah Smith: So I've been in relationship with the community and I am definitely going to continue to serve that community. Thank you. [00:37:56] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:37:57] Chipalo Street: So the school is Technology Access Foundation - it was started by Trish. When I was working there, it started on Rainier Ave - right on Rainier and Genesee - and now they have bought a building down a little farther south in South Seattle. So it is a very well-known technology - [00:38:14] Emijah Smith: It's not a school. [00:38:14] Chipalo Street: Excuse me? [00:38:15] Emijah Smith: It's not a school. [00:38:16] Chipalo Street: Technology Access Foundation is a school. Technology Access Academy is the school. [00:38:21] Emijah Smith: Yeah, it's not in South Seattle. And actually they started right up here. [00:38:24] Chipalo Street: It started on Rainier Ave. [00:38:26] Emijah Smith: But - [00:38:26] Crystal Fincher: Let's allow Chipalo to complete his answer. [00:38:28] Emijah Smith: Okay. [00:38:29] Chipalo Street: So, okay - [00:38:29] Emijah Smith: I just wanted - [00:38:29] Chipalo Street: Technology Access Foundation is the foundation that started Technology Access foundation Academy, which is a school that started on Rainier Ave - which is in the 37th - and then was moved down farther south, which is still South Seattle, and serves people who have been displaced in the 37th. So it is still serving our community. I served there for six years, which is a long time, to go from a start of an Intro to Computer Science to an Advanced Placement Computer Science program. [00:38:58] Emijah Smith: I just want to - [00:38:58] Crystal Fincher: And we'll call that at time, and that is the rebuttal time that is there - [00:39:00] Emijah Smith: Okay, but they're not a school though and my daughter went to TAF Academy -. [00:39:03] Crystal Fincher: Emijah, please respect the time limits. [00:39:06] Emijah Smith: We're going to center time, or we're going to center the issues that are really in the 37th. I live in the 37th. I raised my daughter here next door. [00:39:13] Crystal Fincher: I have a question from a resident in the 37th that I'm going to ask. [00:39:16] Emijah Smith: Okay, I'll be respectful, but I also want us to bring - let's bring the real issues forward. [00:39:21] Crystal Fincher: So how would you help address the affordable housing crisis? Starting with Chipalo. [00:39:27] Chipalo Street: So when I think about housing, I think about three buckets of issues. This is something that we hear at every door when we go out and canvass. We were just talking to an elderly gentleman who is part of - he was a state employee, and so he has one of the oldest pensions, but we have not funded that pension so that he cannot keep up with the rising housing prices. So when I think of housing, I think of how do we stop harm, how do we get more units on the market, and how do we tide ourselves to the way there. So stopping harm looks like anti-displacement measures, so making sure that seniors can afford the rising taxes, making sure that - right now what we have is we allow seniors to defer taxes, but once they die, then they have to pay all of those back taxes, which essentially forces a family to sell the house, unless you have $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 lying around. We also need to increase renter protections - landlords can do some crazy things. Even though I'm a landlord myself, I live that business through progressive values, so we can't allow felons to be disqualified from having housing. I have a tenant who's a felon, he's one of my best tenants. We should lift the ban on rental control, we should - rent control statewide. We should limit the types of fees that a landlord can charge their tenants. In terms of long-term measures, we need to invest in low-income housing through the Housing Trust Fund. We need to figure out something about workforce housing because even two teachers who are underpaid already - if they're living together, they can't afford housing in the district - and we need to invest in mass transit to increase density around it to get us towards a greener climate future and have more houses. [00:41:04] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:41:05] Emijah Smith: Thank you. So what I've been doing and currently been doing is really - with community members, locked arms, going to Olympia, going to our state-level Washington Housing and Finance Commission - and demanding that they release the funds in our community. So what I have done with community, because it's a team effort, is to release the funds to make sure Africatown Plaza has been funded. Community development for us by us - the Elizabeth Thomas Homes of Rainier Beach, the Ethiopian Village here in South Seattle - these are all housing developments - low-income, stable housing opportunities in the 37th. That's one thing. The second thing is - I agree - lift the ban on rent control on the state level. Number two is definitely providing increasing - no, lowering the income level for seniors to qualify for these tax deferments. I've talked to multiple seniors who are living on Social Security and who cannot qualify for King County's tax exemptions or deferments, and so that's a hardship on our seniors. In addition to that, I do agree with middle housing, but what I want to see is that we're not continuing to displace community as we're bringing more density in. We need to be more equitable and look at the houses in the communities on the north side of the Montlake Bridge - let them carry some of the weight of some of the housing developments, because what we don't want to do is continue to keep displacing folks. But I've been doing the real work - I sit on coalitions that are looking to remove the barriers for felons or any person who's just trying to rent. But rent should not be our goal - home ownership is the goal in order to create generational wealth. Thank you. [00:42:41] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question - from the audience. What is the State Legislature's role and responsibility on digital equity and addressing the digital divide? Emijah? [00:42:54] Emijah Smith: This is a multi-pronged question or answer and solution, because it's around making sure that our kids' education is fully funded. Because in order to close the digital divide, which I have done and supported as a co-convener of the Black Community Impact Alliance. We have just recently did our open house in the William Grose Center - that is a hub to make sure that we have a think tank and provide opportunities for our youth for the tech world. But that took community building, going to the City's office to get the land transferred - that took organizing. It also means you have to make sure that our children are prepared for kindergarten and making sure their reading and their math is on par at third grade. Making sure our freshmen are finishing their freshman year. So really being an advocate in Seattle Public Schools, making sure the strategic plan and the resources are going to those furthest from educational justice. That's what I do in real time. But the William Grose Center is what the community locked arms and myself as a leadership on co-convening the Black Community Impact Alliance - that's what we've done for the digital divide. And my children have benefited from the opportunities from coding, from change makers, from all the different things that our public schools do not offer. And our school system needs to be fully funded, particularly making sure those who are receiving special education services get a real opportunity - because you can't close the divide if you're dropping out of school or they're sending our kids to prison. You can't get the opportunity if you're not graduating. So that's my goal - is to make sure that we're fully funding our education and utilizing our education system and doing community building at the same time to make sure we're closing this. Thank you. [00:44:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Chipalo? [00:44:35] Chipalo Street: Yeah, I agree. There's a ton that we can do for education. I'll speak specifically about what we can do to close the digital divide. It's crazy to think that more than 50% of our students aren't competent in math and sciences - that is just plain scary. And we have to change that. And that's in high school. And so we have to make sure that we improve our STEM education. We have to make sure that we do public-private partnerships to bring tech education into our junior highs and high schools. It's an embarrassment that we have so many resources here in this area, but yet our tech education lags behind many other places in the country and the world. When we also look at STEM and tech, we can't only afford to have people getting a good job out of tech. We need multiple ways for people to get good jobs. So to me, that looks like creating pipelines to the trades. For too long, we've sort of said, Oh, you went into the trades because you can't hack college. No, you went into the trades maybe because you like to work with your hands, or you want a job that can't get offshored, or you want dependable hours - two of my best friends went through four-year college, got jobs, hated them, came back, became journeymen electricians, get paid more than those jobs that they had going to college. One's about to start a business. And so making sure that the trades are a respected option for our kids is important, just like it should be an option to go into technology. And then we should also fund free two-year college. Free four-year college is great - we should definitely get there. However, we need to start with free two-year college, just like the Seattle Promise, because 50% of Seattle graduating seniors applied for that, and 1,000 took part in it. [00:46:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. [00:46:10] Emijah Smith: Can I follow-up? [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: I'll give you 30 seconds each for a rebuttal - go ahead. [00:46:13] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I just wanted to also add - on the state level - that determines the college-bound scholarship money, right? And right now, it's saying you need to have at least a 2.7 GPA - it keeps going up every year. But also is saying that a young person cannot have a felony on their record. And so I really, truly want to get that removed, because how are we going to expect our youth to graduate and get to these opportunities, but we're already setting them back because they made a mistake? And we understand the brain science and the development there is that their brains are not fully matured. So we're kind of setting them up for failure, so that's another place I would like to work on. [00:46:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you - Chipalo? [00:46:50] Chipalo Street: She's right. And it shouldn't only be our youth, it should be our brothers and sisters getting out of jail. We should not be limiting the professional licenses that people getting out of jail can attain. And then we should also make sure that University of Washington is funded with the Allen School. We have great resources there - or teachers and staff - but we don't have the resources to scale it out the way we would like to. [00:47:13] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Another audience question. Crime has been increasing across the state, and people are concerned about their safety and whether the right things are being done to address current levels of property and violent crime. Given that the Legislature has already voted to increase public safety funding, largely devoted to policing and prisons, do you feel that we need to invest more in that area, or would you also take a different approach? And we are starting with Chipalo. [00:47:45] Chipalo Street: So I think we need to think about public safety comprehensively as more than just police. This is something that is near and dear to my heart. When I was at Brown, we had an open campus - me and my best friend were walking around campus onto a public street and Brown police came and asked me and my friend for our IDs. I didn't do anything wrong, so I continued to walk. My friend stopped, told him who I was, showed him his ID, but that didn't stop Brown police from calling out for backup. Providence police got that call, caught up with me and beat me so badly that they had to take me to the hospital before they took me to jail. Despite that experience, I still think police are part of public safety, but we have to be able to hold the police force accountable, or we're not going to have trust with the police force. I want to work with them to make sure that we set them up for success, so that we are sending a mental health counselor out to mental health crises - because they are trained to deal with these situations - and the person receiving a service will get a better service than sending three or four cops. We don't need cops in schools, we need counselors in schools. And so I think if we think more comprehensively about public safety, then we'll get better outcomes for the community and a better relationship with the police force. We should also fund like violence preventer programs. We should get guns off the streets - one of the sad things about gun violence prevention is that there are very, very common sense gun laws that 60, 70, 80 percent of people agree on. However, federal legislators can't get their act together, so we need to make sure that those laws pass here in our state. [00:49:14] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Emijah? [00:49:16] Emijah Smith: Thank you. When I think about public safety, I think about community safety - it's not just a conversation just about what the police are doing in community. It's also about how does the community feel safe - with the police. So there has to be an accountability conversation. So on the King County Community Safety Violence Prevention Task Force that I've served on, really it came down - of all their research and all their conversations and co-design - it really came down to families needing their basic needs met. Housing, education, food security, the basic needs - they believe that that's what it's gonna take to really bring prevention. So our state has already been working at some things with regard to guns and taking, looking at how many bullets, a clip - I don't know, got so many words coming - reducing how many bullets that you can have. I think that we need to make sure that every person who gets a gun needs to have a class - similar, if you want to get your driver's license, you need to learn how to drive - we need to learn how to use a firearm. You also need to make sure that it is locked up. Again, I am solely endorsed by the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. So community safety, also - we need to look at the funding that's coming from the State Department - so there's federal money that was brought down to the state, they've started a new division. We need to work with that division to make sure that it's meaningful in the 37th, because the 37th has different issues. We're not looking at machine guns and going into the schools in that way. What we're looking at is handguns that we gotta get removed and get them off the street. Thank you. [00:50:53] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question - from the audience. Washington State funds only about half of what Seattle Public Schools spends on special education and only about one-third of what Seattle Public Schools spends on multilingual education. What is your commitment to fully fund public schools, particularly special education and multilingual education, and how would you get that done? Starting with Emijah. [00:51:20] Emijah Smith: We gotta get out, we gotta go on the state level, we have to be loud and proud, and we have to make sure that the funding is fully funded. Of course, special education is not being resourced. Our special education students tend to be the main students that are getting pushed into the prison pipeline. So I am definitely gonna be loud and proud up there to make sure that that occurs, because we can't waver there. But Seattle Public Schools is also advocating to our state legislators right now, because the issue is that there was a tweak in the formula - that Seattle Public Schools is not getting as much money that it needs, but we also want to make sure our teachers are getting livable wages. And so it's coming to a point that if something's not addressed and more funding doesn't come into the education system, then maybe the public education here at Seattle Public Schools may falter. They're not sure what to do, teachers may go onto a strike. So we will have to figure it out, and we're gonna have to figure it out without taking away our children's basic needs - we should not be taking healthcare out of our schools, we should not be taking our social workers and mental health counselors away from our students. We have to do all the things, and we just have to figure it out and get creative. There are some great leaders there around education, but I'm a fierce advocate as well, and I don't think we should leave any student behind, especially those who are receiving special education services. Thank you. [00:52:34] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Chipalo? [00:52:35] Chipalo Street: So currently there's a funding cap on how much Seattle Public Schools gets reimbursed for special education funding, and if we were to remove that, Seattle Public Schools would get another $100 million that it would be able to put towards that. That is just a start. We - McCleary got us closer to funding education, but we do not fully fund it, and this becomes a revenue issue. Washington State has the most regressive tax code in the whole country, despite how progressive and liberal that we claim we are. We need to make sure that every corporation and person pays their fair share - so that looks like closing corporate tax loopholes, making sure that we keep our capital gains tax, which is - the revenue from that is used to fund early education, which is a necessary part of the education system - and then also implementing a wealth tax. Personally, I would prefer an income tax because an income tax is - you can withhold that. It's been tried before, we know how to implement that - however, there are constitutional issues with that. So in lieu of an income tax, we should be able to try a billionaire tax. And the thing that gives me hope is while things get stymied on the federal level, we've seen localities and states try out new things, and so maybe this is something that we can pilot here in the state, and at the end of the day, a billionaire tax and an income tax aren't mutually exclusive. We can still work towards an income tax, even if we have a billionaire tax. [00:53:58] Emijah Smith: May I follow-up? [00:53:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep. You each can have 30 seconds. [00:54:02] Emijah Smith: Thank you. What I want to share is that our community - I agree - Washington has the worst tax setup and structure. And we have been, in Washington State, been trying to bring forth initiatives multiple times to the state to address this issue so that we can make our wealth more equitable. And our community members and residents and citizens have been voting it down. So I'm thinking with this inflation, with the impact of COVID - but now it could be a really great time that more of our citizens and our residents will see that this is really necessary and will vote in their best interest instead of voting it away. Thank you. As well as our legislators making a move in our best interest. [00:54:43] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:54:45] Chipalo Street: I'm good. [00:54:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Next question. What is your connection to unincorporated Skyway? If elected, how will you support the development and investment in this neighborhood? Starting with Chipalo. [00:55:00] Chipalo Street: So if I was to be elected for this State Rep position, I would basically be one of three elected representatives for Skyway. So Skyway is unincorporated - that means it does not have a city council person to whom they can go for local issues. That basically means that myself, Representative Santos, Senator Saldaña and Councilman Zahilay would be the elected representatives for that area. So I would love to work with them in partnership to understand what development needs they would like to see. It was great to see that we went through a community budgeting process where folks were able to actually vote on how money was spent. And so supporting community involvement in how money is spent, making sure that we can advocate to get money set aside for Skyway because we know that it is not going to come through the City of Seattle, it's not going to come through the City of Renton. Those would be the ways that I would partner with the community to make sure that we develop it in a way that the community members see fit. [00:56:00] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [00:56:01] Emijah Smith: Thank you. I love that question - yeah. So I'm connected with Skyway for the simple fact that I shop at Grocery Outlet, I get my taxes done over there, I patron the restaurants over there. My mom has recently moved, but had lived there for about 15 years - family's there, people use the post office there, banking there, utilizing the library there - Skyway is my community. And so that's my relationship. Second part to that question is - again, part of being Chief of Staff with King County Equity Now and just having relationships in that community - making sure that we got money from the state level to support Petah Village - early learning development, and also just the new outside - door - preschool, right? There's leadership there, there's expertise there, there's churches there, there's a nail shop - there's all the things that are near and dear to my heart, to be honest. That community is mine - not mine, but it's shared. I was on the Community Investment Budget Committee for King County's participatory budgeting to make sure that money was stored in a way that was definitely led by community members and getting the input from community members to see how they want to move that and looking to make sure that King County does it again in the future. So that was $10 million. We had a celebration about a few weeks ago, naming the projects that were funded. So yeah, this is near and dear to my heart - has been neglected, Skyway has been ignored. I'm thankful to King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay, another sole endorser, for the leadership that he's had there, as well as Senator Saldaña, KHT - Kirsten Harris - I gotta stop, but all the legislators who have been pouring into that district. And let me shout out to Cynthia Green Home there - Center. [00:57:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Another audience question. Will you use your position at elected office to uplift more progressive voices in the office? And that question goes to Emijah. [00:58:01] Emijah Smith: Will you repeat that please? [00:58:03] Crystal Fincher: Will you use your position in elected office to uplift more voices into office, and how will you do that? [00:58:09] Emijah Smith: Yes, most definitely. I see this opportunity as being a bridge builder, right? If I'm in Olympia, you'll have a space in Olympia. The work that I've done over the years has definitely been providing workshops, not only in my professional capacity but in my personal capacity, to make sure that our everyday people understand how a bill becomes a law, right? Also the nuances - how to effectively communicate with your legislators - how do I go into those spaces and really center racial justice, knowing that I am a descendant of stolen ones in this country? I can't go into those spaces and just talk A, B. I have to go in there and really give them the nuances, the impact of what it means to be a Black mother in this community and navigating these systems. So I share that expertise and I share that knowledge with others, as well as being a pTSA president - always constantly talking to families about how they can strengthen their partnerships with their teachers, strengthen their partnerships with their principals. That's just the natural work that I do. So in order to be successful in this role, I need the community to come along with me. I need y'all to be the wind behind my back and be in locked arms. That space is our space. That's my plan - if I'm there, they comin'. [00:59:18] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. [00:59:19] Emijah Smith: Thank you. [00:59:19] Crystal Fincher: Chipalo? [00:59:21] Chipalo Street: For sure. Building a pipeline of people to come after is something that I've always done in everything that I've done. So for example, when I got to Brown, I noticed that the pre-med students had a great support group to help other students of color get through pre-med, but we did not have that in the engineering. So I restarted our chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers so that we had a community to not only get us through, but also pull in the next class of freshmen and sophomores to get them through. I've continued to do that in Seattle. I serve on the board of a program called Institute for a Democratic Future where the goal is to increase the Democratic Party across the state. I loved that program when I went through it, but one of the reasons I joined the board was to make sure that we had more equity in the fellows and the board members. And in my six years, we have dramatically changed what the class makeup looks like, both racially but also geographically, so that we have a stronger Democratic Party across the state so that we can win in every district. And then on the board itself, we have drastically increased the number of people of color and women of color on the board. And we actually now have our first woman of color who is the Board Chair. So this is something that I've been doing in all aspects of my life - even at Microsoft, equity was a huge thing for me. I required that we interview a person of color or underrepresented minority for every opening on the team that I led, and we ended with a team of 40% people of color or underrepresented minorities. So yes, I would continue to do that in Olympia. [01:00:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. [01:00:55] Emijah Smith: Follow up, please. [01:00:57] Crystal Fincher: You can have 30 seconds - yes. [01:00:58] Emijah Smith: Yes - I also wanted to just include that - in my organizing and advocacy work, it's definitely bringing the youth along. My children have been in Olympia with me since they were in preschool - up there advocating for better school lunches - really understanding that process and understanding that they too, at one point, will be there in a leadership role. So I wanted to also include - it's not just - families include the children and includes the elders in that space. Thank you. [01:01:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next question. What is the most important climate legislation that should be passed by Washington in the legislature? And what climate organizations will you partner with to make that happen? Starting with Chipalo. [01:01:43] Chipalo Street: So I am glad that we have passed cap and trade. I think the next hurdle there is to implement cap and trade, especially the equity measures around the money that is brought in through the tax on carbon. So making sure that we implement that holistically - and groups that I'd work with are folks like Washington Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, the Environmental Climate Caucus - those are all groups that understand what's going on and can provide guidance and have been working to move this legislation through Olympia for multiple years. I'm also glad to see that the HEAL Act passed - and one of the things I loved about the HEAL Act is that it specifically called out that we need to gather data. As a scientist, I have a background in using data to address problems and for too long we've just sort of waved o

We all do it, but we hardly ever talk about it. After all, human feces isn't exactly a popular topic of discussion. We'd simply like to flush it and forget about it. Researchers, however, want to change all that. That's because our body's natural byproduct may be the key to solving some of today's biggest problems. Local, award-winning journalist and microbiologist Bryn Nelson, Ph.D., is determined to shift our mentality around poop. In his book, Flush, Nelson shares how human waste holds potent medicine, sustainable power, and even natural fertilizer to restore the world's depleted lands. New science shows that within this lowly, underused resource lies effective ways of measuring and improving human health, identifying early warnings of community outbreaks like COVID-19, and reversing environmental harm. It turns out that poop is very much worthy of conversation; Nelson even argues that it could be the world's most squandered natural resource. But unlocking poop's enormous potential (poo-tential?) will require us to overcome our shame and disgust, embracing our roles as the producers and potential architects of a more circular economy. Could our lowly byproducts become our salvation? A dose of medicine, a glass of water, a gallon of rocket fuel, an acre of soil: sometimes hope arrives in surprising packages. Bonus! In a pop-up science fair of sorts, nine local organizations will join us in The Forum to share more about biosolids, wastewater treatment, and everything you ever wanted to know about what happens after you flush. Joining us will be Sally Brown with the University of Washington, King County's LOOP program, NW Biosolids, the Water Environmental Federation, the Institute for Systems Biology, the Bullitt Center, Stoup Brewing, RAIN Incubator, and The Nature Conservancy/Ocean Sewage Alliance. Bryn Nelson, Ph.D., is an award-winning science writer and former microbiologist who decided he'd much rather write about microbes than experiment on them. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Washington, he shifted course and completed a graduate program in science writing at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Since then, he has accumulated more than two decades of journalism experience, including seven years at the Newsday science desk where he covered genetics, stem cell research, evolution, ecology, and conservation. Nelson has written for dozens of other outlets, from The New York Times, NBCNews.com, and The Daily Beast to Nature, Mosaic, and Science News for Students Sally James is a writer and journalist who covers science and medical research. She has written for The Seattle Times, South Seattle Emerald, Seattle and UW Magazines, among others. For the Emerald, she has been focusing during the pandemic on stories about health and access for communities of color. In the past, she has been a leader and volunteer for the nonprofit Northwest Science Writers Association. For many years, she was a reviewer for Health News Review, fact-checking national press reporting for accuracy and fairness. She is most pithy on Twitter @jamesian. Flush: The Remarkable Science of an Unlikely Treasure (Hardcover) Elliott Bay Books

On this midweek show, Crystal chats with Emijah Smith about her campaign for State Representative in the 37th Legislative District - why she decided to run and her thoughts on addressing issues such as community representation, housing affordability and zoning, homelessness, public safety, mismatch between passed policy and subsequent implementation, education funding, and climate change. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Emijah Smith, at @ElectEmijah.   Resources Campaign Website - Emijah Smith: https://www.electemijah.com/   South Seattle Emerald's 37th LD Representative Position 2 Debate (October 4, 2022) - Moderated by Crystal Fincher: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/sse-37th-ld-debate-2022   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'm very excited to have a guest joining us from the 37th Legislative District who's a candidate for State Representative. Thank you so much for joining us today, Emijah Smith. [00:00:49] Emijah Smith: Thank you - I'm happy to be here. [00:00:51] Crystal Fincher: Happy to have you here. I guess just starting out - I would love if you could just share what experience you're bringing to this race and why you decided to run for office? [00:01:03] Emijah Smith: As you know, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother. I'm raised and rooted, been living in the 37th my whole entire life basically. I have historical context of the community, as well as current context. I chose to step into this role because I've been in Olympia for over 10 years - locked arms with families, bringing our youth forward - to really advocate for meaningful change that we want to see in our community. Advocating for universal preschool, advocating for stable and affordable housing, food security, the broken tax system, racial justice - you name it - the things that are important to really ensure that our families are healthy and our communities are healthy. So I've been doing the work and I want to - I'm here to be a bridge builder, really - to say, I'm in Olympia, this is your space. I'm told when I'm out here canvassing all the time that we really - the 37th wants to transform status quo. So people are like - I'm a great champion for the voiceless, they know I have the credibility and the consistency of doing the work. So having that current real lived experience of the lives of the 37th, having demonstrated experience in Olympia, and really having some really powerful relationships with families and our children in the 37th is the reason why I step into this opportunity. [00:02:29] Crystal Fincher: And it is a unique opportunity and you bring up something important - which you talk about - the context of how the community used to be versus how it is today, which is different. The district has grown, it has changed, the composition of people who are there are different. As you look at how the 37th Legislative District has changed, what do you think is the most important thing you as a representative can do to connect with the community today, while not displacing any further the community that has been left out and preserving the culture and heritage and history of the district? [00:03:10] Emijah Smith: Thank you for asking that question. I am from the historic Black community of the Central District - raised there, grandparents there, parents there - and really seen firsthand, really, the love and the investment in our community. Although it started out with redlining, that's how the community came to be. It's been a very joyful childhood experience that I had there - it felt safe - until that failed War on Drugs came into the community. And I believe those policies - steeped in racism, the over-policing, the criminalization of addiction, and the lack of resources - just as a young person, I was committed and committed myself to say, I'm going to go to college, I'm going to do any and everything I can to bring resources to the community, bring healing to the community, as well as restoration. So in that process of those policies, I believe that's really key to what started the displacement and the gentrification - because of those poor policies that were just really targeting a community that I believe was vulnerable at the time. And so being - having the privilege to stay in my community, I have not been pushed outside of Seattle - doing all that I can to ensure that me and my children can stay in place with regard to the taxes and things. I have really seen and built relationships with the new faces in community - so through my, as a PTSA president at my children's elementary school as well as my kids' school currently, really seeing the families that are coming in, having the opportunity to learn some of the issues that they care about. But in addition to that, along the way - again, since as a youth - been advocating for community building and development and making sure that folks can stay in place. So fighting for or advocating that taxes can be reduced for low-income communities - a Black community's average income in Seattle is around $50,000, probably a little bit less. How can one - how can anyone - survive and live in Seattle with the rents and the cost of living? It's impossible. And so our elders and our seniors are just holding on. But I will say - going to Olympia, really, with King County Equity Now and other organizations in our ecosystem - really holding the Washington Finance and Housing Commission accountable to ensure that our dollars were coming back to community so that we can get the developments like the Africatown Plaza, Ethiopian Village, Elizabeth Thomas Homes, Petah Village - these are all community investments that are in the 37th. And so to be on the frontline doing that work is what we have to do, is what I do. This is a people's campaign, this is about people-powered policy. And I have found along the way, although I have a Master's in Public Administration - seen on the professional side of the academic side of how to move policy - I have found the most meaningful policy has always come from community voice and community's power. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: I would agree with that. And you talk a lot about the need to make sure people can afford to stay in there. You just talked about the average income of Black families being around $50,000, which is half - less than half now - of what the median income is in the entire City of Seattle. So there is a huge gap, with historical reasons behind that, and that absolutely needs to be addressed. When it does come to housing and just the ability for people to continue to live where they've been living, to stay in the housing that they currently have, to age in place - what are the most impactful things you can do to help to keep housing affordable? [00:06:52] Emijah Smith: Again, it's - there's a few things. I currently sit on state-level housing justice coalitions and Housing Trust Fund coalition - really speaking to those policy teams in Olympia designated by the governor to look at housing, really speaking - so this is a statewide collective, but we speak directly to the barriers that are at hand. We speak to the historical racial injustice and marginalization as well as policy that has created such barriers and marginalization. We bring the real lived experience of folks of - this is the barrier to even applying for housing, these are the reasons people are denied housing. But your system, through the Department of Commerce, also has these barriers because it's set up for organizations that oftentimes don't look like the most marginalized to get the funding because they've had the decades of opportunities to build the capital or had the experience. And right now, in order to develop housing from communities that are marginalized, they have to - in order to apply, you have needed to have already built some housing. Well, how does one do that if the resources are barred, or I won't say that they're scarce, but they're limited. So we're trying to talk to the Department of Commerce and really advocating there - those are the things that I'm doing. Also looking at taxes, right? Too many seniors have reached out - just trying to stay in place, they're on limited incomes - either retirement, social security - and they just cannot afford the taxes that keep going up in prime areas, particularly like the Central District. But I would love to say that all of the Seattle proper, the taxes keep rising because property values keep rising. I'm even speaking with families who are new, who are the new faces who've come in and bought a home and they're like - they're concerned if they can even keep the current home that they've had maybe for the past five years because the taxes just keep rising. And when taxes rise and you're a property owner, of course you're going to pass that on - most do - to the renters. So property taxes are definitely to be in place, we need to look at incomes - provide a level of income of how much your property taxes need to be, some things need to be exempt - particularly for our seniors. The cost of living is already so high - people are having to choose between prescriptions, food, or rent, or mortgage, or paying those huge taxes. So those are the things that I'm looking into. My value is that everyone should have a home. No one should be unhoused. And I know people are making choices due to other reasons to choose if they should be housed or not. But nevertheless, housing should be available. I'm heartbroken to even share, but just two weeks ago I came across a family - a mother, two children, 4 and 10, living in tents just - not too far, maybe a couple miles from my home - and not for me seeing the child being rejected to going to the bathroom maybe to wash up. I was like, Can I speak to your mom? The mom was willing to share the story and I immediately reached out to some people I know who professionally work sheltering families and luckily they answered the phone, then they called someone else and that person answered the phone, and we were able to get the family into at least some emergency shelter. But I'm telling you, a 4-year old and a 10-year old out in the woods in tents - that is unexcusable and that was in the 37th. And I'm willing to do any and everything that I can to ensure that that's not happening to anyone else. But the reality is I know that it is. [00:10:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there are a lot - there are a lot of things that need to be done to address this issue. Legislatively, in your capacity as a legislator, certainly legislation that is in process that could potentially help a lot of other things that are needed. I guess one of the things that will be coming up in this upcoming session, should you be elected, is the missing middle housing bill, sponsored by Representative Jessica Bateman, to address the shortage of housing supply which experts say is a necessary component of addressing this, not necessarily the only component, but one of the necessary components. Do you support that missing middle housing bill? [00:11:20] Emijah Smith: I do support missing middle housing. I also support some level of rent control. We have to create a pause - again, I'm meeting single people who are afraid of - what can I do? So yeah, I do support that. I think that those things are happening. I've also talked to families just in general throughout my years of engaging in community - where there's low-income housing - there's not enough low-income housing, first and foremost, so people can even apply for that. But there's a lot of low-income working class families in the 37th who need to stay in place. Then there's also affordable housing and if you need to make $80,000 or more just to try to get into that one-bedroom, things are impossible. So middle housing is definitely needed. Whenever I look at legislation, I have to look at the racial equity impact of that legislation. I don't like to jump on anything without understanding the unintentional harm, 'cause we don't want to create more inequities. We don't want to increase the disproportionality on anyone. So that - one thing about me as a leader, as a legislator, in that role representing community will definitely be looking at the fuller impacts, not just quick looks, let's just move and make a quick decision. 'Cause what we don't want to do is invest a lot of time and a lot of money and still causing more harm in community. [00:12:41] Crystal Fincher: And then in terms of addressing housing, we need to get people sheltered - first and foremost - no matter what people are dealing with. I think you have expressed several times that people do deserve housing, period - even if they're dealing with an addiction, dealing with behavioral health issues. Not only do they deserve that, but that's helpful in stabilizing or getting to the point where they can stabilize the issues that they're dealing with. We do have challenges with availability of services to help people - whether it's behavioral health services, substance use disorder treatment - we do wait for people to fall through all the cracks and maybe even become involved in the criminal legal system before they have access to any kind of intervention and then it's much harder to address that problem by that time. How do you plan to address the availability of those services? [00:13:39] Emijah Smith: Wraparound services are definitely necessary. I have family members with behavioral health issues and recovering from addiction. And what I have found to be successful is that people can have stable housing, have stability at least for a year, have something stable to be able to address some of the other issues. I've spoken with firefighters who are concerned that they're going to the housing that is being developed for folks with the multiple issues that have disability, mental illness, whatever - there's different issues - but they're being called for something that's not oftentimes a fire or a heart attack or a health issue, and so there's these reservations. Clearly it's showing that we need more investments - we need more investments in our mental health across the board. And we definitely need more wraparound services for those who need it. And I also would include those who are re-entering from the carceral system - they're given $40 of gate money. If they are not - have a strong support family or community network that could provide housing, oftentimes those folks are really right out in the streets and they're unhoused - and that doesn't support success, that supports recidivism. So the things that I'm looking at is how do we increase vouchers for those who are coming out - it was increased from 3 months to 6 months - but I am a believer in a year's time for stability because I've seen firsthand what it did for family members and community members to stay stable and in place. I also think about our children. When COVID first happened, there was a lot of children who were even in these tiny homes - they might be sheltered, but how can one learn in such a small space in our weather? So as you know, that just really touches my heart. So we have to utilize the revenue, we have to address our backwards and broken tax system to create the dollars and bring them there. I love Washington State - I'm not someone who wants to leave and go to another state and live. It is vibrant here and I want to do everything I can do to invest - not only in Washington, but in the 37th - we have the revenue, we have the marijuana dollars. So I was advocate last session that provided that $400 million to come to our communities, to go to organizations that can also continue to keep investing in community. So we have the revenue, we have a broken tax system that if corrected, or repaired or fixed - whatever you want to use - we can make some serious change. And if we center that revenue on our basic needs - housing, healthcare, education - our families can be healthy, our communities can be healthy. So that's my mindset. These are some complex issues because of who holds the purse strings, but also who's in place to make those decisions. But my value is where I share with you before - everybody deserves housing, healthcare, education, and I do any and everything I can do to champion and support to ensure that happens. We also have to look at the policy language, though - that becomes the issue. These big values and these big systems - who's going to disagree? No one would disagree. But oftentimes our institutions are working in silos instead of working together. So a quick decision can come from housing, but you didn't look into Department of Corrections to see - can that really work. And so again, there's unintentional harms that are created and then we have to go back and it takes a long time to keep going back. So we have to be better at talking with each other and looking at the language that's going to make sense for our state and for those people who are most marginalized. And the way that you do that - to save us some time and save us some money - is you talk to the people with that lived experience, 'cause those who are closest to the problems are the best ones with the solutions. [00:17:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree - and that feels relevant to some of the challenges that our legislature is having in terms of passing legislation, but sometimes not quite landing the implementation of that legislation in a way that can delay funds getting to the people who it was designed to help, the building of infrastructure to deliver that - where certainly good intentions were there and the policy itself may be sound, but the actual implementation - the how do we deliver this help to the people - has some missing elements that make some complications. How do you think your experience can help address that issue? [00:18:12] Emijah Smith: I'm a - not to be a pause - to me, the first step is always making space and allowing space for people to be at the table, co-designing with community. I do agree with implementation 'cause once the law is happened and it's going to be sent down to the next group to try to figure that out. We should be having conversation to whoever's going to be sent down to. I think about some of the housing projects that are in the 37th and when they started to change - think it was HOPE VI or HOPE IV - and that started to change. The things that weren't considered at the time is like credit history - when you push people out of where they're staying right now, where are they actually supposed to go? There was housing vouchers that were provided, but the new system of how the people will get the housing wasn't taken into account - first and last month deposit. If you have those type of conversations from start to finish, where can we - that's implementation - so what are some of the the barriers or some of the the snags that we can work out along the process? We would've saved ourselves some hardship, and I think that although with the best of intentions of creating and designing these spaces and building community, we also created a lot of unhoused people. We also pushed people into the carceral system because we weren't talking with each other. So the way that happens and another example, I believe, is the LFOs - these are called legal financial obligations. There was a lot of advocacy on the state level to ensure that those who were coming out - the big fines - to reduce some of the interest there. Because if someone still has interest and their legal financial obligations were not complete, they could still almost be put right back into jail - and not almost - some people can go back and be jailed for not making payment. Well, how can you make payment if you're just trying to enter? You already can't - might be limited on the job that you can receive, the housing you can receive, you can't even get stable because of that. The implementation once the law changed was that you have to understand how to ask for that when you were being sentenced. And a lot of people did not know - that's part of the implementation. It has to be addressed at sentencing, not after the fact. 'Cause if you try to appeal it, then you can be denied of those legal obligations being removed. Legal obligation interest has somewhat, has been changed - it's being improved as we're moving along, but what does that look like for the people on the ground - that's a whole 'nother story. So that's - those are the examples that I want to share around implementation. I also think about implementation for our education dollars. There might be some dollars that were sent out to some districts, but if that money is not specified to that department and really restricted to say - family engagement - then the district can use it any way it likes. So the language in the bill has to be very clear and legislators who are representing their communities have to really fight for that language versus families like me - in Seattle Public Schools, we were fighting for family engagement dollars, but the district had put it into other places where there was a priority and a need, but there was a miscommunication, clearly, or implementation issue because we're saying, You have this money you can invest here - where they're like, Well, actually it wasn't restricted - we were able to do what we wanted to do with it. [00:21:29] Crystal Fincher: That makes a lot of sense. And you also bring up a good point about the district and public schools, which certainly have their own issues, but the State - the Legislature - plays a big role in how education is ultimately delivered because they're funding it. And even though there are some issues with how that funding is allocated, part of the problem is that there is too little funding - and so choices are being forced in some situations that shouldn't be choices at all. And usually it's the kids with the least, the kids in areas where they don't have parents with a lot of generational wealth and excess income that are donating to their kids' schools, and education can look a lot different in different areas of the district and even things like turnover of teachers and administrators is unequal in different parts of the district. And especially in the 37th, those schools are paying for it. In your capacity as a legislator, if you're elected, what can you do to increase funding for schools? And where is that in terms of a priority for you? [00:22:43] Emijah Smith: Oh, it's a top priority. It's a top priority. It's top three, top four priority. Education has always been a huge issue - because when I was that teenager in school watching my community, the devastation from that failed War on Drugs - when I committed myself to advocacy, I committed myself to making sure that people had an opportunity in education because I believe that education is an opportunity to change your circumstances. But I also understood that education - the system that I saw - can also track you into the prison pipeline. So I did everything that I could to educate myself about the education system - so as an undergrad, as well as getting my master's in Public Administration. I studied Seattle Public Schools - how money funnels down, what those disparities look like for the new teachers versus senior teachers, what the budget looks like, how budgets are created. And really engaged myself in Seattle Public Schools, to be honest, as a parent, because it became really apparent once I had my own children what it looks like to navigate that and what money followed your child. If your child is special education, then there's certain dollars that come from the federal government that's supposed to provide you more resources, but actually it goes into a fuller budget of a school's budget, as well as a district's budget. So when I think about those things, I think about central offices that tend to carry a larger portion of the budget. How can we try to balance that out? How do we support our teachers to make sure that they're properly trained and well-equipped and want to be in "Title I" schools, which tend to be in the 37th, because those are schools that tend to have higher free reduced lunch. With the population changing, less schools are Title I, but nevertheless you still see this pattern of teachers coming in and leaving and then going back maybe to a North Seattle school, a school that seems to have less diversity, maybe learning styles, what have you. And that's an issue - and to me, I look back at the systems - that is a design system, and we have to work to see how we can make things more equitable. And the PTA right now are looking at how they can share funds, right? My PTA Mercer - I'm the president of the Mercer PTSA - and we're sitting there, we're talking about what schools - do we want to apply to join with these schools to put on certain events and then they split the money. So that those schools who have less revenue with regard to PTSA can have more of an opportunity to support the families that are there. So I first wanted to say that - from a parent perspective, I've been advocating on the special education taskforce at Seattle Public Schools, which helped bring the recommendations forward - what they're negotiating with the SEA in Seattle Public Schools. I've been on the OSPI, which is a state-level education department around bringing in ethnic studies for our students. I'm a strong proponent with regard to apprenticeship opportunities for those families who may not want to jump right into college, can't afford college but want to invest in having livable wage employment for their student. Education is a serious issue. In every way that I can be involved, I am. I also was a catalyst for the current strategic plan at Seattle Public Schools to really look at equity, ensuring that our students furthest from opportunity are being supported. Also with the McCleary Act - to make sure we're fully funding our education - we have a long ways to go and particularly the gap is with special education students and services. So I'm a strong proponent there. I think if we can properly fund our schools, we won't have the same disproportionality that's going on with retaining teachers and retaining good administrators and staff and making sure our children are doing well. A big issue that comes up on the state level, like you said, is the general fund. If you take money here, where you're going to get it from? 'Cause it might come away from our mental health services, it may come away from our health services, it may be something you want to look at for food - and hungry kids can't learn. If kids aren't getting the services, they can't learn. So we as leaders in the state capital - and I say we, because families are leaders and our voice is strong and because of our voice, we have made some meaningful changes. I particularly think about the pre-K and getting working more access to childcare - that has come from really fierce families that say, We need this, we have a ways to go, but we're making progress. Community has to continue to keep advocating for the needs and say, Don't take away our healthcare, don't take away our nurses in school, don't take away our counselors. COVID has allowed this to be a much bigger issue across racial backgrounds, I would say. Before someone might think of it, Oh, it's just more marginalized communities. No, it's all of us, it's all the families. And I love that my leadership and my advocacy has such a strong background of diverse bodies - from, I would say, from white families to Asian American families, Black families, you name it. What I love about my leadership though, is I'm going to make sure we're going to bring forward that Black and Indigenous nuance that oftentimes is ignored and neglected. But from immigrant, refugee, English language learners - I'm an advocate for all of us, not just for my job, but for all of our children, because it's our children who are our future now. 'Cause me - that high schooler whose passion and commitment has me here today. So there's a lot more stories, there's a lot more I can say - it is a complex issue, but at the end of the day, we must fund and invest strongly in our public education to ensure that our children have an opportunity and have a chance to thrive. [00:28:47] Crystal Fincher: I'm also looking at - we have the conversation about climate change. It really is a conversation about equity injustice, because no matter what element we're talking about, it is BIPOC communities, low-income communities, those who are most marginalized, who are experiencing most of the impacts right now and will continue to be without intervention. And this is - we're seeing this happen right now - it's not something to come. These are consequences that are happening right now, whether it's exposure to extreme heat or cold, whether it's exposure to pollution and particulates that contribute to asthma and heart disease and lung disease. We have life expectancies that are years shorter in some areas of the city - some of those in the 37th Legislative District - than there are in other areas of the city. So reducing pollution, greenhouse gas emissions are critical to everyone, but in particular BIPOC communities being able to thrive and live a healthy and productive life. How do you plan to address greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and pollution? [00:30:05] Emijah Smith: Definitely a supporter and value climate change and environmental justice. I truly understand that it's really steeped and centered around - it's a racial justice issue. It's been an issue and we've had guidance - I feel like, from forever - from our Indigenous brothers and sisters and community members around this issue telling us and warning us about the importance of what's going to happen in our lives if we do not take care of the land. So I just want to first give honor and recognition there. I, myself, and my children - I was diagnosed with asthma at the age of two months. I live - what I designate as South Seattle - if you're not, if you haven't been here a long time, it's really - it's not quite Rainier Beach, it's a little bit past Franklin High School. Just really aware of the air quality here. The soil quality is poor. Today the smoke is ridiculous - I just think something's burning wherever we are. I'm needing to have to stay inside and keep the door closed, and still the air quality is an issue. I'm a neighbor and a community member that's fighting to keep our trees - Beacon Hill - the more that we build, because density, keeping housing and keeping people in place is important. But if it's at a cost of tearing down the trees which are helping a habitat, which is helping clean our air - that's an issue. Senator Saldaña, who's a sole endorser for me, is leading on the HEAL Act. I would support that. There's legislators out there doing that, there's organizations - I've been endorsed by SAGE Leaders also, I take leadership from Got Green, South Seattle Climate Advocates - they have a network - really listening to those who've been really leading this charge. But I will say that I'm not one to get in the way. I do see that a lot of things that are coming up oftentimes are saying, Fine, fine, fine the big companies that are causing a lot of the pollution and the problems. But we have to be thoughtful about some of the other ways because the more that they make the money and pay the fine and keep doing the thing, it doesn't stop the harm that's being caused. Most of the issues are complex because we talk about 'em as issues and oftentimes we don't talk about 'em as a racial justice issue. We don't talk about it from a place of normalized anti-Blackness or the steeped racism of how this country was even started. We don't talk about that sometimes, we kind of leave it to the side - so we have to be willing to talk about the issue, be willing to fund the issue, be willing to bring in more green jobs because we're doing a lot of repair. So we need to do the repair of these issues, but at the same time, we need to be creating policies and implementation in a way that is equitable, that is going to change the dynamic that's happening in this country. So for me, this stuff is strongly intersected, but yeah, I'm not one that's going to be in the way. I'm here to support the crew for the cruise ships, the airplanes - there's a lot of issues that have been targeted in the 37th, and why? Because it's been historically a traditional place where people have been pushed to go there because they - we've been othered. 'Cause before it was Black folks, there was Jewish folks here. But people who were being pushed here were othered. And othered meant you had less value, so then you can come here too. Oh, you're an immigrant, you're a refugee - we're going to push you over here into these housing projects. Instead of looking at - this is a great place to be. I love the diversity, the power, the vibrancy of it all, but it comes with a lot of detriment that we have to constantly keep fighting. And for some reason they want to just keep neglecting and ignoring what the community is calling for. And really, we're calling for health. We're calling for - we want our communities healthy, we want our families healthy, we want to be safe. So I'm just sharing with you my values around it. I'm sharing with you that there's work. I'm in the community petitioning with my neighbors now to sign something to say, Let's not - if you're going to build this 5-story, market rate building over here in our community, why would you do it in the 37th anyways? Doesn't seem equitable. But if you're going to do it, don't cut down our trees. If you're going to do it, let's make sure we're implementing something here to make sure our streets are safe. Engage with us, understand that we're powerful, understand that we are deserving - and we don't have to beg you to be deserving, but we need to - but the way this is set up, you make us force and demand for you to pay attention. So I'm locking arms with Puget Sound Sage, I'm locking arms with the other environmental justice organizations that also center racial justice in these issues, and utilizing the power of my vote and the leadership representing the 37th District to move us forward. [00:34:52] Crystal Fincher: Now as we wrap up today, there are a lot of people who are struggling to make a decision in this race, who are looking at you and your opponent and saying, Okay, what are the differences? Why should I make the choice for one over the other? What is your message to those voters as they're trying to decide who they should vote for in who's going to represent them in the 37th? [00:35:21] Emijah Smith: I would say to the voters that there is a clear distinction. There's a distinction of a people's campaign versus a status quo campaign. I've been engaged, vetted, incredible in the 37th. I've been here my whole life and I'm currently demonstrating the work that it takes to do legislative advocacy - not only do I lock arms and go to Olympia with families and community members, I also provide the training to help families and community members understand the process there - how a bill becomes a law, how do you effectively talk with your legislators? Like I'm arming, we're gearing each other up. I'm also a parent and a grandparent who's lived the lives of our community, who understands sacrifices that are being made to make sure our community's thriving. To me, that's what's really clear - I'm here at a campaign to really transform status quo. The 37th, across all the backgrounds - our community has said we don't want status quo. So I'm here to represent not status quo. My campaign is based on people-powered policy. It's to have a bridge to make sure that those who feel voiceless have a voice, for those who want true representation of our lived experience understand that that is myself. So I can provide you with the education, the demonstrated experience - but I also have the relationship that's important across our bases. So that's what I would share. I would also want to share with y'all that I have sole endorsements from current 37th leaders - our Senator Rebecca Saldaña, King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay, our City Councilmember Tammy Morales. Kim-Khánh Van, who's a Renton City Councilmember, 'cause the 37th does have a sliver of Renton. I have sole endorsements - One America Votes, the Washington State Labor Council, Pro-Choice Washington. These are coming because of the work that has been demonstrated by me, because of the consistency, because of the commitment around us as community. And you can check out my website at ElectEmijah.com to see more of the leaders and endorsers that I have. I do want to also add the Honorable Larry Gossett - he's a sole endorser. And I have others - Dr. Ben Danielson. There are others, but I just wanted to share that people are putting their name behind me because they see the work that's done and they understand that status quo has to change in order for us to really advance to a place where we're really tapping in and seeing the humanity for each other and really caring about each other and caring about our community. It'll be an honor to have your vote - thank you. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you - we will include the link to your website for people who want to learn more information in the episode notes. And thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us today. [00:38:28] Emijah Smith: Thank you - it was an honor, again, for the invitation. Thank you and have a wonderful day. [00:38:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow me @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal Fincher is joined by transformative justice advocate, community organizer, writer, and sociologist Evelyn Chow. We start off the show with a reminder that Crystal will be hosting a candidate forum for the Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7 races, featuring Position 3 candidates Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi, and Position 7 candidates Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. The forum will be streaming live on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube on Wednesday, October 12th at 7:00pm. See our blog for more details: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/blog/municipal-judge-forum-october-12-2022  Also, starting this week, applications for the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF)'s 2023 program are now live! You can find more information at IDF's website at https://democraticfuture.org/.  In national news, President Biden has announced his administration is pardoning people who have received federal simple possession charges for marajuana. In the announcement, Biden asked state governors to do the same for state charges, and requested the secretary of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Attorney General to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. This is a big step that will help many people, and will hopefully be emulated by the states, but it has its limits - pardoning doesn't equate to ending prison sentences and doesn't include expungement, which has logistical and financial hurdles for people to climb.  In county news, while we've heard stories from other parts of the country facing issues with clean water access, King County is facing its own water crisis. For the past week, the King County Jail in Downtown Seattle has been without clean water. People in the jail have been forced to use water bottles, and the schedule at which they can refill them is unclear. This is another terrible example of how our jails do not provide rehabilitation, and instead subject people to inhumane and dehumanizing treatment. This story also follows many other instances of horribly under-resourced and under-staffed King County jails leading to outrageous conditions for people staying in the jails. We have to do better. This is inexcusable. This week saw some very informative reporting following up on Harrell's proposed budget putting $1M into the controversial ShotSpotter program. Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City and Melissa Santos from Axios both put out stories, linked below, covering the program's history - which shows it's not only ineffective in its purpose of catching gunfire as it happens, it's also incredibly wasteful of police resources. ShotSpotter has no positive impact on gun crime or public safety, and none of its alternative surveillance programs are any more effective. It's budget season! Evelyn gives us an in-depth explanation of the City of Seattle's participatory budgeting process, and encourages folks to get involved and make their voices heard! If you want to speak your mind about the city's budget, you can send written emails to the City Council at this email: council@seattle.gov. You can also attend Budget Committee meetings in-person and remote on October 11th and October 25th at 9:30am. In addition, there will be public hearings on the budget, also remote and in-person, on October 11th at 5:00pm, November 8th at 9:30am, and November 15th at 5:00pm. See here for more info: https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/select-budget-committee   In local homelessness news, we look at the on-going story of King County's planned expanded enhanced shelter and behavioral health services hub in the SoDo neighborhood, which has seen a lot of pushback from local residents. This is a complicated story about providing care to those who need it, while at the same time making sure that the county works with local communities about what happens in their neighborhoods. The CID has faced heavy burden during the pandemic, and has dealt with a number of government projects that have been pushed through with little community engagement. If a community is telling us there wasn't enough engagement, there wasn't enough engagement, and we need to remember not to dismiss these grassroots community voices just because there are bad faith actors trying to take advantage of them. 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, Evelyn T Chow, at @evelyntchow. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Resources Hacks & Wonks is hosting a Seattle Municipal Judge Candidate forum on October 12th at 7:00pm! Please see the link here for more details: https://www.officialhacksandwonks.com/blog/municipal-judge-forum-october-12-2022    The Institute for a Democratic Future is now accepting applications for its 2023 program! The Early Application Deadline is November 2nd, with an application fee of $35, and the Final Application Deadline is November 13, with a fee of $75. See their site for more details: https://democraticfuture.org/    “Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law” by Michael D. Shear & Zolan Kanno-Youngs from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/politics/biden-marijuana-pardon.html?auth=login-email&login=email    “In a Sign of Worsening Conditions, Understaffed King County Jail Has Lacked Water for a Week” by Erica C. Barentt from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/10/06/in-a-sign-of-worsening-conditions-understaffed-king-county-jail-has-lacked-water-for-a-week/    “Proposed Surveillance Tech Can Lead to Biased Policing” by Amy Sundberg from News From the Emerald City: https://www.getrevue.co/profile/amysundberg/issues/proposed-surveillance-tech-can-lead-to-biased-policing-1383779    “Seattle mayor budgets $1M for controversial gunfire detection tech” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/10/07/mayor-million-shotspotter-gunfire-detection    “$30M Seattle participatory budgeting effort gears up with staff, workgroups, and a steering committee” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/10/30m-seattle-participatory-budgeting-effort-gears-up-with-staff-workgroups-and-a-steering-committee/    Learn more about how you can get involved in the Participatory Budget process here: https://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/select-budget-committee      Seattle Solidarity Budget: https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/    “Chinatown International District pushes back at expanded homeless shelter. Officials ask where else?” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/chinatown-international-district-pushes-back-at-expanded-homeless-shelter-officials-ask-where-else/    “OPINION | Hooverville Then and Now: Who Is Worthy of Space?” by Caedmon Magboo Cahill from The South Seattle Emerald: https://southseattleemerald.com/2022/10/03/opinion-hooverville-then-and-now-who-is-worthy-of-space/    “King County planning expanded enhanced shelter and behavioral health services hub in SoDo with new lease“ from King County's Press Office: https://kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/news/release/2022/March/23-SoDo-Enhanced-Shelter-Transmittal.aspx    Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time today, our co-host, Evelyn Chow. Hello! [00:00:51] Evelyn Chow: Hi, thanks for having me. [00:00:53] Crystal Fincher: Hey, I am excited. Just so people understand who you are - you're a transformative justice advocate, community organizer, writer, and sociologist. You were born and raised in Hawai'i, moved to Seattle 7 years ago where you received your degree in Sociology from Seattle University. Currently work as the District Director to Councilmember Tammy Morales, representing Seattle City Council District 2. Previously, they worked for non-profits Real Change and Ingersoll Gender Center, and did communications work for several local and state political campaigns. You are a force to be reckoned with. [00:01:34] Evelyn Chow: I appreciate that praise. I don't feel like such, but - [00:01:41] Crystal Fincher: I am so thrilled that you are here on the show today 'cause I have appreciated and admired your work for a bit here. So I'm excited. [00:01:51] Evelyn Chow: Thank you, Crystal, for having me. [00:01:53] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Before we get into all of the stuff, there are two reminders, or upcoming things that are coming up. One is the Municipal Judge Forum that we are putting on next week - it's a live candidate forum that will be streamed via Twitter and Facebook - and it will be a Municipal Court judicial forum. So the two contested seats are Position 3 and Position 7 - Adam Eisenberg vs Pooja Vaddadi and Nyjat Rose-Akins vs Damon Shadid. So we will be hashing it out, talking about what they believe in, want to do on Wednesday, October 12th - that's this coming Wednesday - at 7:00 PM, which will be live streamed online. So pay attention to that. Also want to remind you about something we've talked about before on the program. The Institute for a Democratic Future, or IDF, is opening its application period. This is a six-month program, with about 10 weekends over those six months across the state of Washington and in Washington DC, covering politics and policy from all vantage points throughout the state - how policy passed is actually implemented and impacts the people on the ground. Great network, great education - it's responsible for my career in politics. Just a great preparation, whether you want to work in the political sphere as a candidate or staff, policy - wide variety of options there, even in the nonprofit or advocacy space. Just great preparation - helps you get a great understanding and connections to people in a great network. So if you're interested in that and - you don't have to want to work in politics, but maybe you just want to advocate for policy or explore what options may be - I highly recommend the Institute for a Democratic Future. We'll include the information in our show notes. Feel free to @ me, email me if you have any questions, but just wanted to make sure that is on everybody's radar and the application deadline is in November, so you have a little bit of time. But now is the time to get started on that if you're interested. Now we'll get to the news of the week. So there's a lot that has happened in a lot of different areas. We had a couple chaos days with news this week of every kind, but looking at politics and policy in the state - want to start talking about some big news that broke yesterday with Joe Biden pardoning federal simple possession of marijuana. What did you see as the most important takeaways from this settlement? [00:04:33] Evelyn Chow: What we saw yesterday - huge news, in terms of Joe Biden setting his agenda by making the statement that, on a federal level, simple possession convictions of marijuana will be pardoned. And I think across the board we've seen a lot of different parties, people, interests react. On my end, while I'm really hopeful that states will follow suit across the US and do the same thing, which will impact more people, I also want to. acknowledge also that pardons don't mean, necessarily, released from prison. Nor are they expungements of criminal records. And the administration does say that about 6,000 people will be pardoned. And which is really again, huge - it means you're forgiven - but it's still on paper. I would love to see the expungement of it from records, though we also know, just from doing work in community, that expungements are costly. Lawyers have to file the expungement, on top of cost of filing, and they know that this is a cost that a lot of working class people might not be able to afford. And the method becomes like a fiscal generator for municipalities. Sorry, now we're going down the rabbit hole of the negative or maybe the under-the-surface, but I think on the surface this is really huge. I do hope to see more states follow suit in that - this is not nothing. For a lot of, I think, abolitionists and criminal legal system reform advocates, I've seen a lot of this just kind of brush through. And I understand where that sentiment comes from and at the same time, this is not nothing. This just - it's a something that will hopefully evolve. [00:06:31] Crystal Fincher: It is, absolutely - I think that's exactly right. It's something that is positive, that hopefully continues to evolve here in Washington State - we've been more fortunate than a lot of other states in the country. There are states where you can go to jail for possessing a joint, where there is no legalization at all. We're used to the ability to go to the store here and pick out our selection of weed - that is not the case in a lot of the country. And there have been recent - pretty pointed - efforts on behalf of the Republican Party in several states to roll back marijuana legalization. So it is not even like legalization, in one form or another, is even safe in places where it has been implemented. So I think this is important - one, as you said, in setting the agenda and really urging states to move down the path of decriminalization, which I think is important, and just puts a little bit of external pressure on different states. I was surprised to hear about this just because of the news, previously, that Biden didn't have the friendliest marijuana policy for his own administration and looking at issues with that. But I do think that this moves the conversation forward across the entire country. We're ahead of the conversation a little bit in Washington State, but a lot of people are not there and this is meaningful for a lot of people in states where the population - the people there - want this change, but they have leaders who are very, very resistant. Also, looking at the rescheduling of this - to keep it from being classified similarly as heroin or fentanyl - it clearly is not. All the public health data shows that, and it's a barrier to research and a bunch of other things. So this is a step in the right direction, I think. Still have a lot more to go, but it's a fight that Biden is willing to take on even before we get to these elections. It's a winning issue and it's the right thing to do. So if you can - absolutely, if you can win on an issue and it's the right thing to do, should be moving forward with it. And I'm glad to see that this happened. So in other news this week, we saw that the King County Jail is lacking water. They've lacked water for a week. This is a story that PubliCola broke on Thursday, I believe. And we've seen news and lots of people have made their opinions known about the water crisis in Jackson - sometimes it's just, Oh my goodness, that's horrible there, it could never happen here. It's happening here. It's happening in a place where people have literally no other choice, no other option about what to do. They're being given bottled water instead of being able to access the water, because there are currently health issues. And there are questions about whether people are even getting enough water - it looks like they're having to choose between hydration and hygiene. What do you see with this? [00:09:52] Evelyn Chow: I have a status as a volunteer at the women's prison down in Purdy, in Tacoma. And was a volunteer for a few years until COVID, in which - none of us have been able to get back in for programming, except for a few of the churches - which is a discussion for another time. But, I think often the way that we see punishment in this country is, in a way, a just sweeping things under the rug - putting people in prisons and jails is this. And when you put people there, there's that perception of - all of the stigmatization of what you put on a population that has often done things that maybe you have also, but maybe I've had the privilege of not being caught for. And what happens to those people is they get forgotten, or they get put into conditions that we would never ourselves want to be in, regardless of any of the harm that we have caused as individuals. I think in this issue - sorry to get philosophical with it, I just needed to set that context of - [00:10:59] Crystal Fincher: No apologies necessary. [00:11:01] Evelyn Chow: This is not, obviously, the first time in the US or even across the world where prisons, people who are getting placed into prison, are experiencing extremely degrading and violent circumstances, right? From the article, we hear that there are women in the jail who are getting their period and they're unable to get a change of underwear for the week. And this is also something that is across the board even pre-COVID, pre-pandemic times, of people needing to spend the very limited resources they have on hygiene products - things that should be guaranteed rights for people. It's inhumane, it's also just a clear liability for the county. [00:11:47] Crystal Fincher: It's infuriating. It's infuriating because - one, this could have, this started and went on for a week before it even caught notice. And thankfully for PubliCola's reporting, it did - otherwise it would've gone on longer - that inmates often have no voice in our community. We make it so hard for people who are incarcerated to communicate, to advocate for anything. They frequently face punishment for just bringing up issues of clear illegality, or challenges just in terms of health, violations of policy - and too many people in the community who just feel like we can discard rights of people who are incarcerated or that somehow they're deserving of it. And if someone is incarcerated, the sentence is the incarceration. That does not in any way absolve all of us because they are being held, on behalf of our society with our tax dollars - this is a community responsibility to make sure they are treated as humans. One, because it's the right thing to do. They should not be subjected to harsh, inhumane, insufficient - facilities, supplies, regulations, any of that. We should be treating them and making sure they have all of the provisions they need. And it's wrong morally not to do so, it's also highly ineffective and increases the chances that they're going to come out when they get released - because everybody's, just about everybody's getting released - and are not going to be able to successfully integrate into our society and contribute to the problems that so many people then complain about on the other side. We have to invest in people, treat people, make sure they have resources - access to education, access to therapeutic programming, arts, lots of different things. We need to make sure that they come out more whole than they go in, if they are going in. That is what's best for our community, that's what's best for the safety of everyone, that's what's best for legal liability resources. And so this is just infuriating. And on top of this, the jails are understaffed. And so there's a big question about - are people dehydrated right now? They don't have a way to tell us most of the time. They are limited to receiving one bottle of water at a time - I'm assuming these are small, 20-ounce bottles of water that we normally see - because they're afraid of affiliated, associated safety concerns. They can exchange an empty bottle for a full bottle. How frequently is that opportunity to exchange? Why are we rationing water to people? It just doesn't make sense, we have to do better - this is - we have to do better. And so this is on Dow Constantine, this is on all the employees there, this is on every elected official - the King County Council. We have to do better - this is inexcusable. [00:15:22] Evelyn Chow: And I'd also, if I could Crystal, just point out - this recent, this ongoing water shutoff is only the most recent example of the different types of problems that they've been experiencing at the jail over the past few years, if not since the jail has been there. We've been hearing from folks there that they are getting limited access to medical care, to their attorneys, to even spend time calling people like family members and loved ones. All of this has been exacerbated by COVID, but is a statement of the existing conditions at a lot of these jails and prisons. So I agree - there has to be a better way of - people need to do better, our electeds need to do better. [00:16:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and these are public resources that are being spent or misspent in these ways. We need to demand better. They must do better. And to your point, this is the latest in a litany - and as a reminder, both public defenders and the corrections officers in our King County jails came together earlier this year to ask King County to release more prisoners 'cause they're woefully understaffed. This is a safety issue for the corrections officers, it's a safety and health issue for the people who are incarcerated there. It is working for nobody and ignoring this is only allowing those conditions to get worse. Someone is going to end up injured, ill, or worse. And this is entirely preventable. In other news, more discussion this week about Mayor Harrell's budget proposal, including part of the proposal that he has to address gun violence with the ShotSpotter surveillance program. What is this program and what is your perspective on this? [00:17:12] Evelyn Chow: Shotspotter is a private program and it's - over the past years - been marketed to dozens of cities across the US. However, they've proven to have little investment on their return. So the description of what they are proposing that this technology does is - it's a microphone system and it triangulates the location of where they would hear supposed, or alleged, gunshots. And that would allow first responders, specifically the police, to show up to that scene quickly and supposedly de-escalate the situation or apprehend whoever had fired a gun. I think the system, as we've seen in cities across the US like in Charlotte and in others that have actually used this technology - we've seen that the system generates a lot of notifications when the sensors are triggered. But there's very little evidence that that data leads to any arrests, convictions, or even - most importantly - victim assistance. Cities across the US have already been canceling their contracts with ShotSpotter for the past few years, citing the poor results. And I think even in New York City, the system had triggered enough false positives that the NYPD Deputy Commissioner a few years ago was like - this is an unsuccessful system and it just logs noise. It was logging things like an exploding volleyball - like a popped volleyball - or a car backfiring. And so I think, before we choose to invest a million dollars in this upcoming budget cycle in a technology that is proven time and again and again that it doesn't work - perhaps that million dollars could be better spent in other places that will actually promote community and public safety. And I just also want to make the point that there is already increased surveillance technology equipment in SPD, especially around South Seattle communities, but citywide. And the data that it collects is not transparent in any way. With existing technologies and this new proposed, or not necessarily new, but proposed technology - we need to, at least - the public deserves to know how that data will be used and who will have access to it. I know a few years ago, when the ShotSpotter was being proposed, they talked about how it, as a private entity company, owns that data. And so there's a lot of repercussions that I can see coming up with - if the city decides to move forward with implementing ShotSpotter. And I also hear a lot of people who have very fair questions, candidly, about whether this is going to be effective at all. And, my answer is no. [00:20:17] Crystal Fincher: Your answer is no. And so many different entities' answers are no. An AP investigation earlier this year found serious flaws with prosecutors using ShotSpotter for evidence - noting, as you said - it can miss live gunfire next to its microphone, but misclassify the sounds of fireworks or cars backfiring as gunshots. A study published last year in the peer-reviewed Journal of Urban Health found that ShotSpotter appeared to have no significant impact on firearm-related homicides or arrest outcomes in 68 large metropolitan counties from 1999 to 2016. It has no impact on gun crime, it has no impact on public safety. A separate study on Philadelphia's use of SENTRI, a ShotSpotter alternative - and it's important to note that there are different alternatives - they all experience these problems, so if they substitute another one with ShotSpotter, these surveillance programs that are essentially trying to hack public safety and hack a solution to gun violence are just not effective - that found that the technology increased police workload. At a time where they keep complaining that they're overworked, that they don't have enough police to address public safety concerns - it increased police workload by sending officers to incidents where no evidence of a shooting was found. So once again, we're in a situation where Bruce Harrell has the opportunity to define what his plan for public safety is going to be and we're hearing things, that not only have no evidence that they're going to work, they have evidence to the contrary. While lots of people are suggesting things that are backed by data, backed by evidence - when he came in office, he said, Look, I'm going to be evidence-based, data-driven. People are like, So here's that evidence that you said you wanted, and here's this data that you had said you wanted - let's do this. And it's, No, let's go to this thing that has been demonstrated not to work. And we do need public safety solutions. We do need to make our streets safer. We do need to reduce the amount of people who are being victimized urgently. And we can't afford to waste this time and money on solutions that have proven not to make people anymore safe. We just can't afford this. And I am asking, I'm begging public officials to - yes, follow the data. There is so much available that shows what is helpful and useful to do. And I will note that some programs - Bruce has defunded, that have been effective in doing this this year, so it's just frustrating to see. And I wonder - this is me wondering, obviously - a lot of people have moved here over the last 10 years and may not remember Bruce Harrell being on the City Council. He was for quite some time. And I think that we are hearing a number of proposals that were talked about 10 years ago when he was on the council. And he was on the council for several years - for a decade, basically. [00:23:39] Evelyn Chow: I think three terms - yeah. [00:23:41] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and so it's like we're bringing back the hits from 2010, 2012 - and sometimes, there was even some promise for some of those things at that time. Wow - they've been implemented in so many cities across the US, we've had the opportunity to gather data and figure out what has evidence of effectiveness and what doesn't. And that just doesn't seem to enter into what they're proposing. It's really confusing and we're waiting - we're waiting on proposals that will make people more safe - and more than just hiring more police, which can't even happen until next year. What is going to happen now to make people more safe? It's frustrating, as I am sure you deal with in a very immediate and present way on a daily basis. [00:24:35] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, absolutely. Everything you said - public safety, community safety is an urgent issue and they keep trying these tried techniques, right? Tough on crime didn't work in the nineties, it's not going to work now. And investing in all of these things that are scientifically, with data and evidence, proven not to work is just not the way we need to move forward. And I think similar to King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay's op-ed in the Times, I think a few weeks ago now, talking about how public safety is not about scoring political points. I think the executive put out this proposal with a very specific - I guess, his specific base in mind. And that does not encompass the lived realities of a lot of people across, especially South Seattle, but across the City as well. [00:25:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to keep our eye on that. Also, it's budget season in the City, in the County - which you are in the middle of and steeped in. And so, there was an article in Capitol Hill Seattle this week covering the $30 million Seattle participatory budgeting effort that is now gearing up. What is happening with this, and what is happening just in the budget process overall? [00:25:53] Evelyn Chow: The mayor gets eight months to put together his proposed budget and then it comes to Council - it came on September 27th, a few weeks ago now - and we get about eight weeks in the council to splice and dice that budget. And you brought up participatory budgeting - I am glad to see that - I think the context, to just set a little bit of groundwork for participatory budgeting - this was money that was allocated in September of 2020, following the protests that sparked nationwide after the police murders of George Floyd, of Brianna Taylor, of too many others. And it really came as a demand from community to the council to direct money into community-led safety initiatives. And this is an opportunity for the community that's most impacted, that's usually furthest away from being able to make decisions about how their money is spent, to be engaged in that process. And the Seattle City Council allocated $30 million into this participatory budgeting process, and this is going to be the largest undertaking in, I believe, North America with a similar initiative. And so just a little bit more of groundwork before I get to where we're at - King County Council did the same allocation on a smaller scale of $11 million. And they've already executed their contracts and that money has gone out into community. I believe it was about $11 million to 45 different community-based organizations. And where we are now - it's been a couple of years since the money has been allocated, and I know that some people are starting to ask - what's the status update? And I know in the Neighborhoods, Education, and Civil Rights Committee on the Seattle City Council - we recently held presentations to get that status update from the King County Council and the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, where that contract is now housed. And so - I believe they're in the design process and that they are working to make sure that community engagement is really steeped in this step and every step along the way to direct this funding. I think at this point, it sounds like the group that got contracted from the City is called the Participatory Budgeting Project. They're a national organization and they are currently working to hire local staff to help on their steering and working group committees, which will in turn shape and launch this effort. So I'm excited to see - I think at a time when we're talking about the budget season in Seattle, on the county level - and a lot of folks are feeling particularly enraged at several of the proposed line items in the mayor's budget around these new technologies, around the caps for service workers on their raises. This is an opportunity - participatory budgeting - to put funds towards, quite frankly, where the executive is not going to invest right now - in these types of solutions that we know community has already been working on, for years, to address violence on an interpersonal and on a state level. So I'm excited to see this continue to be underway. [00:29:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm excited too and I'm broadly in favor of the community being actively engaged, actively involved in allocations that impact them and that they should have a voice. All neighborhoods in Seattle should have a voice. Traditionally, some have had much more of a voice than others. And there are some that have had many more resources, that have had close relationships, the time and ability, and frankly privilege, to get familiar with budget processes, engagement processes - which can be very exclusionary and hard to figure out how to even become a part of it. And they're not necessarily friendly to someone just walking up trying to figure out what's happening. Making sure that we reach out to every single community in the City and that they have a voice in shaping the investments is really important. I'm also excited to see this, excited for this money to get distributed and for this process to actually get started. And then for the budget process overall - so we've talked about this participatory budgeting, but this is in the context of the larger budget process overall, which is a big process - lots of resources there. I guess we'll talk about specific hearings and stuff in a moment, but what would your personal advice be, if people are looking to become more involved in budget decisions in the City, and how money is invested and where it's involved? [00:31:26] Evelyn Chow: That's a great question because it's - I don't see it enough, especially in communities where there's intentional, whether implicit or explicit, ways to de-incentivize people from being civically engaged. Where I've seen the people build the most power - and we saw this in 2020, as well as when people with their specific values and interests come together - and really work on contacting their elected representatives, setting up meetings throughout the year, making sure they're being held accountable to the votes they're taking in committees, in Full Councils and being like - here are the updates that I see on the ground, as people who are doing work as - at community-based organizations and non-profits, etc. And here's the needs that we see emerging in our communities, and here's what you can do about it in the budget season. [00:32:16] Crystal Fincher: So I'm glad that participatory budgeting is hopefully going to be getting underway. At least they're hiring - hopefully the money actually gets distributed soon. Engaging in budget processes is always complicated overall. I'm sitting here - I've worked in politics for a while, I've worked with tons of people who've worked with budgets - and budgets are so opaque and so complicated, and so - these are documents over, that are thousands of pages long, oftentimes. You have to have a deep and intimate familiarity with everything to even understand what they are. You can see the numbers on the paper, but is that more than I spent before? Is that less? What does that mean? Where did this money come from? Is this continuing? It's a complicated and convoluted thing. And we have this budget process, which is at a certain period of time during the year. One, I always just want to reiterate and reinforce with people, 'cause we don't talk about this enough, I don't think - is that a lot of the groundwork, whether it's budget, whether it's legislation, or anything - there's a period of time where there are hearings and everything to discuss it and that's valuable. But a lot of the groundwork, a lot of what actually shapes that - happens long before that process. And so the importance of engaging within community, within organizations that are familiar with the budget and advocating there, being familiar with your County Council person, City Council person, mayor and keeping that line of communication open - and anyone can call your elected representatives. They are your elected representatives. If you are a resident - you don't have to be documented, you don't have to be anything else. If you live in whatever jurisdiction, they represent you and they should be responsive to you. But you can ask questions, you can do all that kind of stuff and start there. That's always helpful to do and sometimes that helps to get an understanding of things so that when these processes do officially ramp up, that you know where everything stands and can be prepared to advocate for what you want - hopefully already getting that and how it's shaped in there. But if you don't, you're prepared to advocate. For people who are getting engaged in this process now - now that this process has spun up - what are ways that people can get involved, whether it's hearings or anything else? [00:34:43] Evelyn Chow: Couldn't have said it more eloquently - thank you, Crystal. I can give a vague overview, or I can give a timeline of the budget process. Anyone in the public gets to provide feedback on the budget. You can call your representatives, you can send emails into their offices. I will say that mail form responses don't receive as many individual responses as just a personal - Hey, I'm concerned about this - you know what's going on. The Seattle City Council does have public hearings. There will be three in the next few weeks. The next one is coming up next week on October 11th, which is a Tuesday, at 5:00 PM. And then in November there will be two public hearings on November 7th and November 15th. The Select Budget Committee will be meeting throughout these weeks. And on the first meetings of the Select Budget Committee, I believe there will also be public comment allowed. Now this is a shift from, I think previous years where, people could give public comment at each committee hearing, and so I've definitely heard some pushbacks on there. I think a lot of the reasoning is just that - we are still in COVID but - yes, there will be those public hearings. And folks are able to give feedback in public comment during the Budget Committee hearings. And the first one had already happened on September 28th. There will be another one coming up on October 11th, similarly, but in the morning. And those Select Budget Committee meetings are happening all week. And next week is when the Council is going into, going to deep dive into basically every issue area with the Central Staff. And so it starts next Tuesday - I believe Tuesday is just going to be a general overview of the General Fund and Capital Investments. And then each day throughout the week - Wednesday, Thursday and Friday - they'll be covering several different issue areas, whether it's SPD, homelessness, Office of Planning and Community Development. And so - folks are really encouraged to stay on top of the Budget Committee meetings as well - there is a link on the City of Seattle's website to stay on top of when these committee meetings are happening throughout the weeks. So just to summarize, there will be Budget Committee meetings that folks can give either remote or in-person public comment to - for the Select Budget Committee, which is just made up of members of the Seattle City Council. And there will be public hearings on the budget specifically. The first one is set for next Tuesday, and then there will also be on - November 8th and November 15th. And at any time throughout the budget process, folks are encouraged to reach out to their elected officials, to stay on top of their representatives - either social media, newsletters, mail - all of the different forms to get information. And partnering up and joining up with these organizations that you specified, Crystal, that have been doing this type of advocacy work and have dedicated staff people to dissect those year-round. Just a number of ways - [00:37:56] Crystal Fincher: There are - number of ways - not the simplest process to follow, but there are ways to get engaged. One of those groups with the Seattle Solidarity Budget - we'll include all of this information and all of the dates that Evelyn just talked about in our show notes - Solidarity Budget is another effort involved in this budget process, a more community-focused budget that they're advocating for. The website will also link to - has information, ways to advocate, you can look through that - also, ways to help - social media stuff - with alt text provided for the social media graphics that they provided, which I appreciate. But just a lot of different things. So I encourage people to get involved because we all talk about the impacts and effects of there's not enough funding here, and we need to do this, and why aren't we doing this? And this is how these decisions are made, this is where those funding decisions are solidified, and this is the time to engage if you have an opinion about what is happening within your city. That's a lot there. It's a lot to go through, but definitely worth it. I also want to cover news - it's been making news throughout the past several weeks. Just talking about the SoDo shelter expansion and some pushback from within the CID. Starting off - what is happening, Evelyn? And then we can talk about some thoughts about what's happening. [00:39:32] Evelyn Chow: Yes, I'm happy to give a quick overview of that. King County is planning to expand their - this enhanced shelter, that is currently housed in SoDo. It's right along the bottom edge of the CID, under where the Uwajimaya is on the south end. And the proposal is to expand the shelter - it currently has 269 beds, they want to add an additional 150 beds - mind you, these are congregate shelter. And they want to expand into having a behavioral health services center, as well as support for RV residents and Pallet shelters, which are essentially tiny homes. So that expansion of 150 that has been talked about by the executive - King County Executive - is going to bring the total number of people at that site to approximately 419 people. So that's just a high-level of what's happening. [00:40:36] Crystal Fincher: And it's also known as the Megaplex, correct? [00:40:39] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, I guess a lot of folks have been trying to call it the Megaplex. Yes. [00:40:44] Crystal Fincher: But just for people's familiarity, if they happen to hear that term - this is what that's in reference to. [00:40:49] Evelyn Chow: Yes. Yeah. I didn't really like that term because I feel like it dehumanizes the people who live there. [00:40:54] Crystal Fincher: It does. [00:40:55] Evelyn Chow: So I just call it the SoDO shelter. [00:40:56] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:40:57] Evelyn Chow: But you are correct that that is what it's being called by a lot of more clickbait media. The Seattle City Council allotted funding from their federal ARPA - the emergency, the American Rescue Plan Act - funding towards this. And last year, I believe that Councilmember Tammy Morales did propose an amendment to divert that funding from where it currently is to the Salvation Army Shelter, to instead Chief Seattle Club for them to build a unit or several units of non-congregate shelter. But that amendment did not pass. And towards the late summer of this year, I think around September, is when we heard of the plans for expansion. That is when the county had announced, more fully to the public at the CID Public Safety Forum, and there are claims of doing community engagement before these plans started moving forward. The county claims to have done community engagement prior to the implementation of these plans. And I think a lot of community folks have pushed back being like - No, we actually didn't hear about this at all. They have their list of people that they've reached out to and we've heard some critiques be - Yes, we did hear about a plan to expand a shelter, but I think if we had known the size of this project, we would've had more engagement. And so I think, just on the government side, there hasn't been a lot of authentic community engagement with folks in the CID. And there are other players in this situation, namely some right-wing think tanks of the Discovery Institute that have been trying to co-opt what is happening in the CID for their political agendas. And so it's created this extremely tense environment to be able to talk about the dynamics of - yes, everyone deserves housing, everyone deserves shelter - I think there's no doubt there. There are indeed some people who don't believe that, who are part of the pushback. And the CID is a really small neighborhood, it's also the third CID that the City of Seattle has seen, right? They've already relocated two times. And throughout the pandemic, a lot of folks in the CID have burdened a lot of the the impacts of the pandemic. And businesses have been slow to open back up if they have it all. There's boarded up windows everywhere and people generally have really valid concerns around public safety in the neighborhood. There are a lot of other government projects that are taking place in the neighborhood that have been plowed through without also similar meaningful community engagement. Most recently, the Sound Transit expansion of the West Seattle Ballard Link extension, where their proposed Fifth Ave or Fourth Ave options still do propose closing businesses - and all of this to say, and I'm sure there's more to say - there's a lot of moving factors around what's happening in the CID right now. I think some of the bottom lines are that the community there does not feel like engaged in these decisions that are being made. Going back to our conversation earlier around participatory budgeting, it's really important to have dedicated forces of people who will meaningfully take what people have to say and propose solutions, have meaningful dialogue. And people also need to be housed and it's an urgent crisis. So this is where we're at. I will say, just in the blog put out by the King County on this project, they stated that the lease renewal for that site in SoDo, which currently encompasses the Salvation Army Center as well as the surrounding block - it is supposed to be a one-time lease for five years. If they did not use the funds they secured to renew this lease, they would've had to close this already-existing 270-bed shelter which seems like a terrible ultimatum to give in a lease - it's like they had to renew the lease and take that additional property. And so now they're trying to find uses for that property - and so that's where I've seen the county's messaging come through. [00:46:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that overview - it's good kind of level setting for the conversation. I guess thinking about this - one, I've seen a lot of reactions to this. I've seen a lot of commentary. And a lot of it has just been dismissive in one way or another. And looking at the situation and - Oh, these are people, this shouldn't be anywhere and this isn't the solution. Or these are NIMBYs just not wanting this there. And I think we have to be real. And sometimes, oftentimes, these conversations aren't simple. One, as you said, engagement is so important. You just talked about the West Seattle Bridge extension - even with the deep bore tunnel and that issue was hard on that community - that community homes so many services and service centers overall there - just so many different things involved there. And we keep asking a small percentage of the communities in Seattle and in King County to bear the majority of the brunt of infrastructure challenges, infrastructure disruptions - public safety concerns aren't being held, or being heard, or being dismissed. And yes, there are challenges everywhere in the City, including there, with people who need housing. Yes, there are challenges there and so many places in the City with people feeling unsafe in their neighborhood. But there seems to be a divergence between how those concerns are heard and what is done in response. And what I continue to hear from people in the CID, people in the Rainier Valley, people in other places are - Hey, people in Magnolia are saying this and we are saying this. And they keep getting listened to over there and somehow projects always get diverted away from there and then land here. Projects always get picketed somewhere else and then land here. And we have been doing our fair share and other people have not. And so once again, you're asking us to bear the brunt of this without even having a conversation with us first. And kind of news flash - if the community is saying you haven't done adequate engagement, you haven't done adequate engagement. That is the community that wants you to engage with them. You gotta go deeper than the organizations that you have - like that's a flag and a signal to the organization - you have to go wider and deeper than you have before, clearly. At the same time, there are also people with bad faith criticisms. There have been some King County GOP efforts - they showed up with picket signs and basically astroturfed some stuff and are joining onto this effort to try and get publicity to try and characterize it in their own way. And so certainly, that's a bad faith effort and they're not coming with the same concerns. They're not rooted or invested in that community and they're exploiting that community. But that does not give us the right, or I guess the moral authority, to then ignore the concerns that are genuinely rooted in that community. And so there should have been better engagement, there needs to be more engagement clearly. There need to be more alternatives cited. There need to be invest - we have to look into how we determine where potential sites for this are. We talk after the fact - well, these requirements or specifications for a desirable location say it can't be near this, and it has to be that, and it can't be near this. Well, yeah - they're written that way to exclude certain communities. How do we make this impact more equitable? How do we make sure that we don't unduly burden individual communities and ask people to continue to bear the brunt of what other neighborhoods say that they don't want. And how do we make it work all over the place? So I do think this is not a simple solution. We do have a crisis of people on the street and they do need to get housed. We need to take action on that quickly. We can't do that without listening to community, and we can't shortcut this process by just saying, Okay, we'll just put it over here again. We can do it over here and maybe they won't yell as loud as some people in other neighborhoods, or maybe because they may not have enough financial resources, that they won't be, they won't have enough time to engage and they won't be as much of a "headache" to us as other people will consistently - it's just not good enough. And we have to engage with that reality. We have to talk within communities. And that doesn't mean that those communities are automatically NIMBYs for that, right? They have valid concerns that we have to listen to and work through. [00:51:34] Evelyn Chow: Yeah, and something else on this issue that I just, I really wish I was seeing more of - from both the county and other local partners on this - is engagement with the actual people who are living unhoused by that shelter. I think in terms of the the people who are involved in these decisions, that's one entity. The people who are housed in the neighborhood, or provide services, or have businesses in the neighborhood - that's another one. Also, I want to hear also directly from the people who are living outside - what their thoughts of - a lot of, and I won't say this is either in good or bad faith, but we've been seeing protests outside of the existing Salvation Army shelter for the past few weeks now, since the news broke. And the shelter is right next to a large, I guess, unsanctioned encampment of folks who have to listen to these protests day in, day out about just the circumstances that they're under in life. And I can't imagine what the relationship would continue to look like or evolve between those who are living there because they seemingly have no other options currently - and that site is also close to other services that they are receiving - and the residents and business owners of the neighborhood, many of whom have developed extremely tense relationships and antagonistic relationships with each other over the past years, especially since COVID when just socioeconomic conditions across the nation have worsened. And I just think, in moving forward with these conversations, the engagement has to be inclusive of the whole CID community. I think a lot of the folks who are very vocal now are the ones who are also historically vocal in a lot of decisions. And that's not to say it's a good or bad thing, it's just there's a lot more to folks in the CID than the three dozen people who show up to protest because they have that time every week. [00:53:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - well said. So I hope that engagement does happen with this - continued and for all the future stuff. And we have to look at why we keep having to have these conversations in the exact same communities and they're telling us that, repeatedly - Hey, there hasn't been enough engagement and now you are just implementing something, ramming it through, and we're paying the price. We're happy to do our fair share but why are we doing the majority of it when the rest of the City exists? And that's with this issue, that's with so many issues. It's with issues surrounding public safety, around environmental and climate change, impacts around education, around so many things. And the reasons why are related and share the same root cause. So I hope there are better conversations about this while also - no need to entertain the bad faith conversations, but engage with community. [00:54:57] Evelyn Chow: Unfortunately, the bad faith conversations are really good at co-opting narratives right now. So I think it's on - [00:55:02] Crystal Fincher: Yes, they are. [00:55:03] Evelyn Chow: - people with, it's on people to, if they don't already have existing relationships, build those and continue to show up, especially our elected leaders. To make sure that everyone is being served in the best possible way. [00:55:17] Crystal Fincher: And with that, I want to thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 7th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Evelyn Chow. You can find them on Twitter @EvelynTChow, E-V-E-L-Y-N-T-C-H-O-W. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just search "Hacks and Wonks." 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 a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thank you for tuning in - and we'll talk to you next time.

Two years later, we're still untangling the Seattle Police Department's response to the 2020 racial justice protests. Carolyn Bick, a reporter for the South Seattle Emerald uncovered a mismatch of messaging. SPD published a video with information they knew to be false. The message in the video got picked up….nationally. Remember the so-called anarchist zone?

This week, King county shrunk for the first time since the 1970's.There's a new way for you to report those annoying robocalls. And pickleball is the state's first official sport. Seattle comedian Monica Nevi and publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and columnist with The Seattle Times Marcus Green break down the week.Like listening to Seattle Now? Support the show by making a donation to KUOW's Spring Membership Drive: https://www.kuow.org/donate/seattlenow