Podcasts about tacoma city council

WIAA finally does what’s right and proposes a league for transgender athletes. Renton police performed a sexual abuse sting operation and one of the suspects is a vice principal at Seattle Public Schools. The Tacoma City Council approved funding in their budget to keep the fire department’s rover program in place. // A Seattle man dressed as a cat asked Jason to support Amnesty International… it didn’t go the way he probably thought it would. // There is a new attack against Pete Hegseth.

AGREE TO DISAGREE: Was RTO worth it? // Should kids stay on campus? // Should there be a public street racing venue? // 23 candidates for one Tacoma City Council position // WE HEAR YOU! and WORDS TO LIVE BY 

What's Trending: Gov. Jay Inslee has signed a bill that aims to combat graffiti in Washington. This is a pilot program that will test different methods and see which is the most effective to decrease the amount of graffiti. Activists in Tacoma are pressing for the Tacoma City Council to sign an initiative to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. // LongForm: Guest: King County Guild President Dennis Folk says the Executive is purposefully keeping people out of jails. // The Quick Hit: Planet Fitness has seen a huge overall value decrease by $400 million over the issue involving a transgender person using an improper locker room. A mother took pictures of the transgender woman and then had her membership revoked for taking the pictures.

In a recent interview on the "Hacks & Wonks" podcast, Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz provided an insider's guide on how to prepare and run for elected office. Drawing from over a decade of experience in political campaigns and advocacy, Diaz offered detailed advice for prospective candidates. Diaz stressed knowing your "why" for running as a motivating force. "Think about what problems you're trying to solve or what communities you're trying to represent," she said. Align your passion with the appropriate position, whether school board, city council, or state legislature. Assembling the right team is critical, according to Diaz. This includes identifying trusted people to handle key roles like communications, field operations, fundraising, and campaign compliance. Diaz advised being intentional about building a team that reflects the diversity you want to see.  Once committed, assemble a "kitchen cabinet" of trusted family, friends, and community leaders to comprise your core team, Diaz advised. "You need to figure out who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable asking for help." Budgeting is crucial, and Diaz recommended using unionized vendors and allocating at least two-thirds of funds for direct voter communication like mailings and advertising. "Yard signs don't actually vote," she quipped. On fundraising, Diaz's top tip was simple: "You don't get any money that you don't ask for, so ask everybody unabashedly." This includes calling personal contacts like friends, current and former colleagues, as well as adversaries of your opponent. Authenticity in messaging is paramount. "Be authentically who you are all of the time and be willing to own where you might disagree with people because I think that matters as much in governing as it does always agreeing with people. People respect you more.” But running for office is just the first step – Diaz also offered advice for translating campaign advocacy into tangible policy actions through ordinances and legislation. She recommended focusing first on achievable goals to start delivering wins while getting accustomed to the new role. Throughout, Diaz emphasized building bridges and bringing more people from underrepresented communities into the process as future leaders. Diaz also emphasized building a diverse campaign team that creates opportunities for mentorship. "The more of us there are … the better our policies can become."   Resources Public Disclosure Commission | Training and Resources   National Political Women's Caucus of Washington   Emerge Washington   Washington Institute for a Democratic Future   Build the Bench WA   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. The Washington legislative session for this year just ended and we've received news about several legislators who are not running for re-election. This opens up opportunities for new candidates to run this year to represent their communities in the legislature, in addition to hundreds of local elected positions across every community in our state. So we thought this was a great time to talk with Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz about how to run for office. Olgy was born and raised in Pierce County to parents who immigrated from Guatemala. Throughout her career, she has worked to foster a more reflective democracy and expand access to power through work with local nonprofits like One America and Planned Parenthood, in the Washington State Legislature, and in candidate campaigns across Pierce County. Over the last 13 years, she has talked to voters in English and Spanish all over Washington. Olgy is passionate about conservation, tribal sovereignty, and wildlife, and serves as the vice chair of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition. She served on the City of Tacoma's Human Rights Commission, worked in the Washington State House of Representatives and Senate for five years, and is the Immediate Past President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington. She spends most of her spare time building up future civic leaders through key leadership roles and has trained hundreds of political candidates across our state. We both serve on the board of the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future, an organization that does just that. Olgy has been effective in advocacy, productive in governing, and successful at winning elections, which is why I'm so thrilled to welcome her to this show about how to prepare for a successful run for office. Welcome back to the show, Councilmember Olgy Diaz. [00:02:38] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Hi, Crystal. How's it going? [00:02:40] Crystal Fincher: It is going well because I'm talking with you this morning - thought this would be a good opportunity to talk about how to prepare to run for office, what the most important things are to consider - because a lot of people don't have any exposure to this - the things that are visible about campaigns aren't necessarily the most important things. Lot of times when people think about running, they think about yard signs and parades and delivering speeches, or they have this picture of the West Wing in their head, or Parks and Recs, or Veep or whatever it may be. But a lot of times it's just not reflective of what running a campaign, particularly a state or local campaign, a local government or legislative campaign looks like. So just starting out, Olgy, what do people need to do to prepare to run for office? [00:03:33] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I think the biggest things that folks can do to prepare are really sort of reflect - think inward - and think about what problems you're trying to solve, or what communities you're trying to represent, and where that is needed. So the thing that's going to get you through the hard days - the days where you feel betrayed or left behind or just generally out of energy on a campaign - your why is what's going to get you through. And so you've got to really think about - if I am deeply passionate about making sure that kids have access to classrooms that don't have moldy walls or leaky ceilings, and that they've got a curriculum that makes sense, and that they've got maybe some access to after-school services, that's probably someone who's deeply passionate about running for school board, not Congress. So making sure that your interests align with what you're wanting to govern over - I think is the deepest and hardest part of getting ready to run for office - because a lot of people will gravitate towards some of those offices that look shiny or feel like they are name in lights, really sexy. But really, if you're deeply passionate about climate change, you might be the best fire commissioner and not the best state legislator. And that's not to push people out of some of the bigger races, but it's also helpful to start at the ground level and work your way up - makes it much easier to have been elected to something else before you go and run for governor. It really is a nine, ten month, however month long you're running for office job interview. And actually in any good job interview you're doing, you're going to want to see what this job actually does - read the job description, read the budget, read the minutes, read the notes of what the people who are doing this job already do - so you can prepare yourself for that work. A lot of offices, I would say more offices than not, in Washington state don't have staff. So you're going to be the expert in your thing - so be prepared to be savvy, be researching. And get ready - so think about, if I've never served on a board, even my little PTA board or my nonprofit board - go sign up. I don't know of a single government who doesn't have a board or commission that they're looking for volunteers who are passionate about work. And that's where you can meet people in the community, it's where you can build a network, it's where you can learn about different topics. Sure, a lot of these positions are unpaid, so you've got to find the volunteer time to do it. But running for office is also unpaid, unfortunately. So at some point, you do have to be wanting to serve the public - so I think it's really helpful to try to start serving on boards or commissions at any level of government to try to just get that - How do we work together? Understanding - How does this governing body work? How do you organize? It can be one of those early tools of learning how you put your teams together and how you build coalitions. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you raise a number of important points. I really do want to underscore you talking about - just know why you want to run, what is motivating you. It's always a bit dismaying to have someone come and be like, Yeah, I really want to run. I really want to be on the city council. Then you asked, Okay, so what do you want to do? What do you want to accomplish? What do you want to do to help the community? And they haven't thought that far yet. All they have thought about is that they want to be elected. That is a red flag for me. It's a red flag for a lot of people. Know how you want to help. And like you said, it should be something you're passionate about. And then you have to align that with different positions. There are so many jurisdictions and positions up for election - city councils, school boards, parks districts, port commission, state legislature, county council, all of these different things - and they're very different positions at different levels of government. So are you interested in public and community safety and want to do that? That's probably going to happen more at the local level. Are you interested in intervening with climate change? That may be something you can impact a lot at the port. Or like you said, it doesn't have to be statewide lands commissioner - could also be fire commissioners, different things like that. Know if the role is a legislative position or an executive position - those are two very different types of roles. Are you going to be making decisions together with a team? Are you the one who the buck stops with and you're doing that yourself? Those are all things to consider and you have to think about - do your interests and skills align with that particular position? So for someone who has thought about - Okay, I am really fired up about this specific set of issues, I have identified what positions seem like they match best for me. I think I do want to run. I think I do want to do this. What's the next step that they should take? [00:08:32] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: They should absolutely get sign-off from family and friends - whoever that chosen family is, whoever that internal family is - because it's going to take everyone. And sometimes, especially in smaller races, you don't have the ability to get a high-paid consultant. And so your mom might also end up being your speechwriter. I think oftentimes folks do the best when they have someone who is closer to a normal voter as opposed to a political junkie actually listen to their speeches, listen to their answers, really listen to whether or not you're giving jargon or whether or not you're giving something that really resonates with the average person. And so your kitchen cabinet of folks that you assemble is going to be some mix of family and friends, plus people in the community - prominent folks and leaders and activists - I think those are some of the best assets that you can have, especially in these smaller races where you're not going to have a bunch of paid staff. Because somebody might have a friend of a friend who knows how to do graphic design and they can do all your Canva stuff for you. You're starting something very grassroots, very deep and passionate, and you need to figure out who your people are so that you have them with you in the trenches. And sometimes if you're busy, like a lot of us are working and running for office, you need to figure out who's just going to do the laundry - just the little things that make sure that you're able to keep going through the campaign cycle really, really matters. And so start assembling that list of who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable and ready to ask for help. I think that's one of the things that I have seen really knock down candidates - is an unwillingness to either ask for help, ask for what they need, or say no. And any mix of those things can really tank your campaign, so you got to be really secure in what you need, where you're trying to go, and how you're going to get there. [00:10:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - think you're 100% correct - you do need to sign off and negotiate how all of the people in your life are going to function during the time that you're running. And also with work - really important - for most of the people who are probably going to be listening to this who would be considering running - probably are working. And running for office is a significant time commitment - much more of a time commitment as things get closer to the election. But it's something that you do want to talk with your job about, talk with who you're reporting to about - make sure that they understand that you may need some flexibility, or figure that out as time goes on. It is really tough for someone to run while working an inflexible job. Unfortunately, there are things that both happen during the day, that happen during the evening - lots of demands on your time and resources at different times. And so understand what the road looks like - certainly something you're going to have to negotiate with and contend with and plan for. I want to talk about putting together the actual campaign team, which is one of the first things that someone, once they do make a decision to run, is going to do. What should their considerations be as they look to put together a team? [00:11:40] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yeah, so as I mentioned, there are a lot of races - say you're running for city council in a small city or you're running for port commissioner - there might not be enough resources either in terms of your own fundraising capacity to bring in a high paid consultant. Or there might not be, frankly, consultants - there's not enough consultants for how many candidates we have in this state. One of the places where we're running really low actually is fundraisers. And so you got to think about what the major roles are in a campaign. And those are - traditionally - someone to help you, organize you, or keep you on task with fundraising. Someone to help you make sure that you can reach voters in a way that will actually reach them - and so that is either a communications professional or a general consultant who will do different kinds of mailings, or text messaging, or help you figure out which folks you want to talk to at the doors or on the phones. That can bleed into a little bit with what's called a field director, so that's someone who can look at the lay of the land, look at who traditionally votes, and figure out who you need to talk to and how many times you need to talk to them to make sure they hear your message. And I would say a lot of times folks often want some sort of a social media director or some sort of a comms professional who's not just deciding how they meet voters where they're at with the message and how they develop that message, but also who is actually just trying to help drum up support and excitement about your campaign with your followers and with potential new voters. And those are two different lanes from a similar - it all works very closely together - better communications can help you get more fundraising, more money, more volunteers. But it's really pivotal that you identify who can take those roles, whether or not it's people who you actually pay and hire to do that. All of those roles are jobs that exist in the political ecosystem, but they're all also jobs that someone who maybe just does social media work on their own can help you with if they're a volunteer. So making sure that you have a time when you're coordinating all these folks if you're doing it all with volunteers, or maybe you have money to pay a fundraiser, but not a general consultant, or vice versa - those are the two major roles that people will often pay people for. And then the big one that is, I think, the most worth money - because if you're doing illegal things, it's hard to win a race - is compliance. We have a state that has one of the best transparency in campaigns and elections. So you've got to make sure you have someone who's willing to go to the trainings or who just knows that work because they're a professional in that work, who's willing to file your stuff in a timely fashion, make sure that all your disclosures are done, make sure that everything that you're raising and spending is reported above board because that's something that can really ding you in a campaign by either your opposition or just by the public. You're not trustworthy if you can't be bothered to do the homework of telling people what you're up to in a state where that's really required of you. So I think those are the four major roles is comms, field, treasury, consulting, and fundraising. [00:14:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that treasury piece is so important - just fundamentally - and would be one of the first people I locked down and put together. This is something that I often advocate, regardless of the size of the campaign - even if it's a small town or a big legislative or congressional campaign - have a professional paid treasury and compliance person. A lot of people don't realize that the campaign calls for a treasurer - you have to declare that when you file for office. And so a lot of times they think it is purely a financial thing. And so I have a friend who's a bookkeeper, I have a friend who's CPA who can totally do that - but that's actually the easier and simpler part. Alongside with treasury and built-in when we talk about treasury in a campaign context is that compliance - is the having to file all the required disclosures and reports, to follow the many campaign and spending regulations - everything from how you can accept money, maximum amounts that you can accept, how you track that, how you keep track of and collect cash and deal with that, the information you have to collect from all of the donors to report, how long before an election you can accept gifts of a certain size. All of that is a ton of rules and regulations. The PDC does a very good job in providing classes for people who are not professionals. So if you did want to have someone in that role who wasn't already doing it - start early, have them prepare by going to those trainings and doing that. But the compliance part is the most important part of that - I just cannot underscore that enough. Also, it's probably good to talk about the difference between people here, these positions - okay, so campaign manager and consultant - What is the difference? What do they do? In the campaign context, usually a general consultant is handling strategy and communications usually. The details of that can vary based on what your needs are, who's on your team, what is contracted - but make it a point to be clear on what those roles and responsibilities are, have a contract so that there's no confusion about who is responsible for what. Sometimes a consultant is just going to do paid communications like mail, or digital video, or ads, or things like that. Sometimes they're very involved in strategy and day-to-day preparation for interviews, or helping with endorsements, or all of that - those are pretty normal things that come with professional political consultants, at least. What I would say most of all is that whether or not you officially hire someone in that role or not - usually if you can, I advocate hiring that - of course, I am a political consultant, but I don't work with candidates, so it's not self-interest - it's important to have someone who has navigated campaigns and races like yours. There's lots of stuff that is specific to the campaign world. It is not just like marketing. There's a whole different cadence. There's lots of intricacies and relationships that are useful and valuable - and they know how to negotiate through that. They know how to put together a campaign plan, how to target voters. You want someone who has experience doing that - if it's not a paid consultant, someone who has shepherded, successfully, candidates through that whole thing before. And usually consultants are more on the strategy end of things - so helping to construct what the messaging is, helping to construct what the plan is. Campaign managers are usually more on the operational side of things - so implementing the campaign plan, putting the field plan into work, working with other volunteers, working with the rest of the team, and leading the crew there - from everything administrative to all of that. Sometimes in small local races, all you can afford is - and a very valuable thing in addition to a treasurer - is a campaign manager. And then you're working with your team of people to handle the rest and to do the strategy. It's helpful to look at what people who have run in that jurisdiction before and who have been successful have done - how they've constructed their campaign - you can see what people have spent and kind of reconstruct what their teams look like through public disclosure reports through the PDC - make use of that information. This doesn't mean you have to mimic that, but it is useful to know so that if you are deviating from it for a reason, you understand what the pros and cons of that are and what the implications of that are. What other considerations would you suggest? [00:19:16] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yeah, I would say the Public Disclosure Commission website has some of the best free information that you can get for your campaign just by looking through it - because you can find both what past campaigns have done, what they've paid for, what kind of budgets that they've had in the past based on how much they've raised. You can also see lists of lobbyists. So if you're really interested in doing health care reform, you might call through all the health care lobbyists and they might be a good pot of money for you, once you start thinking through what your lens is on that - are you going to call the folks who are interested in it in the way that you are interested in it? Probably. I think sometimes lobbyist is a bad word, but more often than not - there are good ones and bad ones. So making sure that you call the ones who are lobbying for the things that you care about - I think those are great ways to build your network and build more allies in the work that you're trying to achieve by running for these offices. [00:20:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And that's a good point that you raise - just the alignment with the team, which sometimes is underrated. And unfortunately, there's a shortage of political professionals in the state in many areas - we're working on that. It can be hard when there's a limited pool of people available, but it is critical to have people who are generally aligned with who you are, what your priorities are - and who back that, and who are consistent. Otherwise, we get to a situation - and unfortunately, we've seen quite a bit of this lately - where one, someone may not know how to really communicate with voters about who you are, what you care for, and what you believe. If someone is used to messaging the opposite - if someone has advocated against renter protections, has advocated against more housing, has worked for interests that you traditionally have opposed or competed with - they're going to be more used to and skilled to working with and messaging things in that characterization. They oftentimes struggle to communicate outside of their own alignment and their own experience. And there's also the problem of consultants working with multiple candidates who have one candidate positioned in one way - hey, there's a progressive here, but there's a more moderate or conservative over there. And unfortunately, the messaging that they're pumping into the environment, into the community is directly refuting what you're doing. We've seen that a few times- [00:21:38] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Too many times. [00:21:38] Crystal Fincher: -in the very recent past. It's a problem. Or someone just doesn't have the types of networks or connections in the community that are useful to you, that are relevant to who you are, and are not able to put together and really understand and communicate with the coalition that you need to build in order to be successful - that may look different than coalitions that they've successfully built before. Do they generally work with candidates like you? Are they generally communicating and really making the vision clear, and being successful reaching voters with candidates like you? Those are very important considerations. And I think people ignore that and - Oh, well, they're the only person available, or just they were cheaper. - that backfires all of the time. [00:22:26] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Way too many times to count. [00:22:28] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. So the alignment is really important, and I think it's getting more important as we go on in years here. So, okay - they're putting together the campaign team - a couple of tips and things to look out for when it comes to some of the general areas of the campaign. When it comes to a budget, how should they approach a budget? [00:22:51] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I like to say - you should approach your budget of your campaign the way, if you've ever run a small business, you might think about it like that. Because you are mostly seeking donations - unless for some reason someone here is wealthy enough to self-fund their campaign - you want to be a good steward of money that's coming into you, either from friends and family or from organizations that value your values and want to see you in. Because all those resources are finite, you want to make sure your budget reflects your values. So if you're running as a progressive person who values workers, you're going to want to make sure that you use union printed materials, union workplaces. Or if you're doing an event in a hotel for some reason, use a union hotel - don't use a non-union hotel. Those kinds of things that really make sure that what you're doing and what you're paying for aligns with the kind of values of your campaign really, really matters - both because it sets the tone for your values and for how you might govern, and it helps put money back into that same ecosystem that's helping support you. You also want to make sure that you've got enough money for the essentials. So we all tend to know that using labor materials - because we're paying people what they're worth - is a little bit more expensive than non-union materials. It's worth it, but you just got to make sure your budget reflects that if you're going to spend a bunch of money on printed mail pieces that you've got the money to do so. And that might mean less yard signs. Yard signs are one of the most visible things that people love to spend money on, but they're really expensive and they don't actually really equate to votes. Most people who see yard signs driving by - they're for visibility, they're for sort of creating the buzz - and they're for donors, I like to say. But they're not really for getting out any votes - yard signs don't actually vote. But mail pieces are much more likely to land in a mailbox with someone's ballot - they're more likely to see it as they're filling out their ballot. Digital is huge and important, and it helps get your name out there. General advertising rules say that you should probably see someone's name or see someone's face seven or eight times before it sort of sticks, especially in a big campaign year when everybody else is also doing the same thing. So the more touches you can get on a voter, the more likely they are to remember your name. So your budget should reflect how you're going to try to reach the voters - it should be very heavy on direct voter contact opportunities and possibilities. And some of that will be if you're able to fund a campaign staffer - because they'll help you get to more voters, or help you get through more endorsement questionnaires, or maybe help you schedule if your schedule is really busy. And your budget should make sure that it reflects, like we mentioned earlier, that priority of having someone who can do the compliance. Even if you're giving your friend 50 bucks to make sure they're up on whatever rules are coming out of the PDC, I think it's really important to make sure you fund that. And like governing, budgets are our values documents. You want to make sure that it just reflects what you're trying to accomplish and how you're trying to accomplish it. And make sure that it is scaled for roughly how much of a budget people have spent on your race in the past. It helps, as you're shopping for a consultant, to know that - Hey, I'm running for school board. I've seen people in the past spent between $40k and $80k on this kind of race and this kind of school board size so that when the consultant says, Oh, your budget should be $200k, you kind of have a sniff test of whether or not that's real or not, so you know whether or not you want to hire that person. So you have done a little bit of your own research to know what kind of ballpark - because when something costs you $40k versus $120k, that's literally money that you're going to have to help find. So you got to be sure that you're willing to bite off what you can actually chew in terms of the kind of race you want to run. [00:26:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely - that all makes sense. I also want to caution people against spending too much, especially on people, too early. This is about being a good steward of resources. And unfortunately, what I have seen happen too many times from afar is running out of money basically mid-campaign or spending way too much money on staff and overhead. And then when it comes time to communicate with voters - which is basically the most important thing that you're going to be doing - not having enough money to do that, which is basically just sabotaging your own campaign. A good rule of thumb is that at least two-thirds of what you raise should be going towards direct voter contact. So that's not going towards just paying the salary of your campaign manager or the retainer of your consultant, your fundraiser retainer - those can all add up really quick. Or as you go to assemble a team, you're like - Okay, I've got the best team of people. Yes, it's going to cost me $8,000 a month, but I'm sure we'll get it. You've got to go beyond just the hope and vibes to - is that really a level of expense that you can sustain and build on top of to have the war chest needed to communicate with voters? I see that wind up really backwards - people spend 75% on staff sometimes - and that's when we're talking behind the scenes, months before the end of the election, going, This actually is not possible for them to do. They don't have any money to do that communication that's so necessary because voters - most voters just don't pay attention, which is also just a really good thing for people to generally know. People generally don't read news articles - most people don't read them at all. The 20% who do mostly just read headlines. People don't pay attention to politics. Most people learn that there's an election coming because they get their ballot in the mail. People like us are in the middle of campaigns for months and months and months, and it seems like everyone in our circle knows, so this must be things that most of the community is paying attention to and aware of. That is so not the case - you have to communicate with people. And unfortunately, so much of that is paid. Like you said, the mail, the advertisements that you see in newspapers, the digital ads, the videos, social media pushes - which are somewhat limited politically in Washington state - but just doing all of that is critical to winning a race. And you're doing that the heaviest late in your campaign, which is why we see all of the ads and the stuff generally happen around the time you get your ballot until Election Day. So have enough money for that. Fund that stuff first - that's always been my rule. Fund communication, direct voter communication first - and then as you can afford other things, when you get money in the door, it's looking pretty consistent, then you can add on to there. But be very realistic about that. And be realistic about your fundraising and take those early cues seriously. If you start fundraising and you're pulling in $3,000 a month and you're spending $5,000 a month, you need to quickly reorient things, reorganize things in your campaign, redo your budget so that it fits with what you're doing. And you either need to trim expenses or see how maybe you can fundraise more. But that's also going to rely on you, and your discipline with fundraising is another thing that's going to be really important. When it comes to raising those funds, what are the biggest tips that you have? [00:30:05] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Ask. Ask everyone you know - your pastor, your second grade teacher, your former intern colleague three jobs ago. I like to joke that your phone is your best weapon in a campaign - it's where your list is going to come from, it's who you're going to be calling and texting and asking for help and money and all of the things. Anybody who you don't ask and knows you're running - quite frankly, might be a little bit offended that you didn't ask if they're a political person. I have run years and years and years of candidate trainings. And every year I tell the people in our cohorts, call me for money - if you're running and you didn't call me for money, I don't know that you actually listened to the training I gave you. And I think in the time that I've been doing it - of the hundreds of women and people of color I've trained to run for office - I think 10 tops have actually asked me for money. And I give them my cell phone and my email. Make sure that you actually ask everyone in your life. Anybody who sends you a birthday text - those are people to ask for money, they're thinking of you. Anybody who puts on your Facebook wall - Happy Birthday - those are people who are thinking of you. Anybody who you've had a meaningful relationship with, who knows your values, knows your heart, knows your drive, is someone you should ask. And those are the first people you should ask. And then you start building out from there to some of the other folks you should ask. There might be folks who are diametrically opposed on values or otherwise to whoever you're running against, and those are also people who you should ask for money - much later in the campaign. There's also oftentimes people who are really interested in seeing folks who look or have your values run for the seat that you're running for, and there's oftentimes people who are interested in just changing the way democracy looks - and so those are also sometimes people who you might ask for money from. But really, really, really make sure that you're talking to your folks that are closest to you first - that includes your parents, if you have them, that includes your grandparents, your kids, your cousins. Everybody who's closest to you and loves you probably is going to give you at least 50 bucks or something - because they love you. Even if you have a parent who is deeply opposed to your politics, they care about you, they love you - if you still have that relationship, you should ask. Let them say no. And I think that's the number one rule for fundraising is - You don't get any money that you don't ask for, so ask everybody unabashedly. I found this last campaign cycle that texts were actually a really great way of getting people to give, as opposed to - we used to call it call time. We still call it call time, but you don't have to make as many phone calls as we did in the past. You definitely have to make phone calls, but it can also be text time, it can also be Facebook Messenger time. And be really detail-orientated - keep a list or keep track of who you're asking so you're not asking the same person five times that are ghosting you. Let them ghost you, but make sure you do ask once. And then I would say also make sure that you're asking for an amount - it's really helpful if you're calling your uncle who's very wealthy, ask him for a max. And if you're calling your cousin who delivers pizza, maybe ask him for 20 bucks. Make your ask appropriate for who the person is, but don't try to undersell anybody - it's kind of a difficult science to finding the right amount to ask people. [00:33:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the better you do with the people who you do have an existing relationship, the people who do love and care about you, the easier it's going to be later on down the line when you're talking to people who you don't yet know - people who you may just know that you're politically aligned with or they're passionate about an issue that you plan to take action on. It's going to make you look more credible if you start out with a solid fundraising performance, and that's going to build momentum down the line. I think those are great tips. One I would add would be - Don't make excuses for people. Let them say no to you. A lot of times, and I think even more with women and people of color - as the trainings we've done have really illuminated this - there's different relationships with money among many communities, People from communities who traditionally haven't grown up with as much wealth as we see in most of the political class. And that obviously impacts the approach to things, and the way we think about things, and even the way we prioritize - Oh, they have so much more important things going on, I don't want to bother them with that. And that feeling is coming from a place of caring, but it is also an act of caring - and people are happy to support someone who they are confident is the right person for the job and who's going to help people in their community and people like them. And so sometimes - I've sat in call time with a number of people, and they'll be like, Oh, this person's never, never going to give, or they don't have anything, or they're in this tough position. And a lot of times, those are the people who are happiest to give. Now, you don't ever want to break anyone - like you said, asking for an amount that is doable and appropriate - you don't want someone to wind up in a bad financial position. But also, they're the ones who know their financial position best. And it's real easy to get presumptive about that - you may not know. And people have money set aside to give to various causes - they might have that money already available to do that. So don't ever assume someone can't give. It's okay if they say no, but you should absolutely ask. And you should make a strong case and ask with confidence. Sometimes people are much more confident in raising money for a different cause, but it's much more complicated and there's a lot of self-consciousness around asking for it for yourself. But that's a very important thing, and we have to get better people into these elected positions, people who are more aligned with their communities. And the only way that happens is by going through this. I wish we were in a political system where money did not matter. Unfortunately, we are - and so we do have to deal with this and contend with it. And it would be a shame to put all of the time and energy into running a campaign without doing all you can to fundraise and give yourself the resources necessary to win. I also want to talk about just tips for messaging and how people can be authentic. I think sometimes people feel conflicted - they're used to seeing politicians give non-answers, avoid taking stances and positions on a wide variety of things - that being authentic is risky. What advice do you give to someone who is passionate about issues, who really wants to help, but is questioning - How do I communicate with people in an authentic way? [00:36:49] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I think really being yourself matters. I have seen, especially I think with candidates of color or first gen candidates, this want to sort of cosplay white, or do a thing that isn't really authentic, or be a Leslie Knope when you're really not Leslie Knope - you're probably more like somebody else who is more uncouth. Be that person. People really appreciate the authenticity of how you show up, what you look like, in addition to what you're saying. If you're not comfortable in a suit jacket all the time - unless it says that you're required to wear that, don't wear that. Wear what makes you comfortable. Be confident in who you are. And that's all going to come out in your answers and in your voice. And really be willing to own and accept that you don't know everything. You're not an expert in everything yet. Most elected officials aren't an expert in anything, quite frankly, before they get there. And then they get there and they learn a lot and they grow and they do more. But even if you are an expert in something, accept that there's going to be things that you're not an expert in and be willing to own that as well. If somebody can ask you a really tough political question that makes you uncomfortable, just be honest with people about - Hey, I might step in this a little bit, but here's my answer. Or, be willing to say - You know what? I don't know the answer to that right now. Let me do some research and get back to you. And just make sure that you do actually follow up with people - follow up matters - no one expects you to have every answer. I can't tell you the amount of times I would knock on a door and talk to someone who's deeply concerned about some minutia of city government that I was like - I have been in government for decades and I don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to go research that, come back with an opinion on it - because I don't know what my opinion is on it yet because I just learned what this issue is. And so just be willing to do the follow-up when people ask you things - I think that really matters, it really helps. And be ready to be brazen and be standing who you are and what your values are - it's going to make you a better candidate, it's going to make you more authentic, and it's going to make you more relatable. Because even if you are not what you think a candidate or politician should be or look like, you are because you're doing it. So just be that person. And especially if you have an opinion that is different from what you think the room wants - I've also seen candidates fall into the trap of showing up at an endorsement meeting for an organization where they're only loosely aligned with the issues - be authentic to that. Because you don't want to lie to people and tell them what they want to hear, and then go and tell a different room of people the opposite - that also messes with your authenticity. Be authentically who you are all of the time and be willing to own where you might disagree with people because I think that matters as much in governing as it does always agreeing with people. People respect you more. [00:39:24] Crystal Fincher: Yes. My approach in advising candidates has followed that path. And really, it's because you're running in order to govern. And if you don't run as who you are and authentic to who you are - just trying to give the right answers and not give the wrong answers - when you do get elected, people don't know what you stand for, people have different impressions of what you would do, and you basically paint yourself into a box when you govern. You didn't run on anything, so you don't have a mandate for what you're going to do, which makes you afraid to do something because then people might get mad at you - because what you spent your campaign doing was trying to prevent people from getting mad at you. No one has a good time with that. No one is served with that. You don't govern effectively like that. And there are many examples we can look around at right now and look at how people who avoided taking stances on issues are now struggling to deal with those issues when they're elected. And so you have to be authentic to yourself in order to give yourself a shot when you are elected at accomplishing the things that are so important to you for the community. Another thing on the point of governing, one thing that I see electeds struggle with - specifically sometimes those who come from more of an advocacy or an activism background - is how to translate that advocacy, the energy into policy. What tips would you have on navigating through that? [00:41:01] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I would say - as much as being authentic on the campaign trails, you've got to be authentic as an elected official. So if you have made a lot of promises on the campaign trail, you got to make sure you follow through. I think when you're just starting out, there's a big learning curve. You got to figure out sort of where the bathrooms are, how this thing works - but take some of the low hanging fruit that is a little bit easier and start working on that. Start trying to figure out how you can deliver some wins that are doable so that you can start learning how to pass bills, and how to legislate, and how to govern on the easy things before you start biting off the hard stuff later. And really be ready to deliver for the folks who you made promises to if you did - otherwise, you're not really doing a service to the people who helped get you there, the people who are depending on you. And it might be something that you'll got to go back and say - Hey, this is going to take some time. Especially if you're from an advocacy position and you've got the ear of the folks who are asking for stuff - talk to them about what it looks like on the inside and how they can be helpful. Something that I learned working both at Planned Parenthood and One America organizing advocacy is that sometimes the push from the outside is as helpful for the elected official on the inside. It's not always adversarial. Sometimes it's just they need that extra nudge, and see how you can make your friends who helped get you there as helpful to help you pass things and be more effective for the exact communities we're all trying to help. [00:42:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's great advice. And then also just the nuts and bolts of - governing is action-based. People make a lot of promises on the campaign trail - really campaigning is talking, it's making a lot of promises, making a speech and saying that you care about something. Where really, once you're elected, it's the action that is the proof of the caring. So you're going to have to learn how to write that ordinance about the issue that you said you wanted to address. You're going to have to learn how to turn that into policy, how to speak to different impacted parties in your community, how to talk to people who you disagree with and who you may not placate as you develop your policy and write your ordinances or write your bills. But it's important to hear from them just to make sure that you understand what their perspective is, that you understand what the challenges they're having with it. You may not disagree with them, or you may learn something that - Hey, they're saying this is a concern. I can make this tweak without fundamentally altering the thing that I'm doing, and maybe I avoid some unintended consequences. That's all a really important process. But really it is now action-based - it's about what are you doing, whether it's allocating funding, writing an ordinance - but those are also things that are not intuitive and not easy to do. So people better work on getting familiar with what that process is, talk to people who are doing it, and learn how to get that done. Because you really should hit the ground running as much as possible and work on crafting that policy. [00:44:02] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yep, there's a reason the president comes in with a first 100-day plan. You don't have to have 100 things you do in your first 100 days, but you should definitely have one thing - seems doable. When I first got appointed, no one asked me to do it, but because of my background in choice and reproductive justice, the first thing I did was make sure that folks who were trying to get gender-affirming care and abortions were protected in our city. No one asked for that, but that was my value set - I came in, I did it, and we keep it pushing. We do the next thing that matters to us. So have a thing that you're ready to do if you get there, because then you can be talking about that on the campaign trail. [00:44:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Great advice. So that is number one with authenticity. And number two, over the past 15 years - have heard so many times from consultants or political people - Oh, this person is the ideal candidate. And so many times people who look like me, people who look like several people I've helped to elect, people who look like you, or have a background like people like us are not at all what people envision when they're saying - They're the ideal candidate. There is no ideal candidate. The ideal candidate is just someone who really cares about and is willing to serve their community. And that comes in so many different packages. And also what we see, which a lot of people are not aware of, is that when someone doesn't look like what they think of oftentimes as the standard politician - if they do have a different background, that's more exciting to voters, that turns out more people, and they are more successful on average than someone who is like the traditional candidates. So don't let people's expectations, don't let the current composition of whatever body you're looking to get elected to intimidate you from doing that. Like you said before, you are qualified. People are qualified in many different ways. For some people, that looks like a bunch of degrees or owning a business. For other people, that looks like having personal lived experience with the issues that you're trying to make a difference with and having a perspective that is missing but desperately needed in the body. I do think it's important to have been working in the community, to be able to demonstrate that you care about and are credible in the issues that you're talking about, that there is a connection with people in your community. If you run and people are like, Who the heck is that? And no one from anywhere knows where you are, I would suggest there should be more groundwork put into what you're doing. You should have a lot of people who do know who you are and can attest to what you have done, how you've helped in your community and all that. But don't let you feeling like you don't fit be what stops you. On the flip side of that, I will also say - be aware of when a body has excluded people like you. And that has to be a consideration that sometimes people are hesitant to talk about or it's - Oh, it's great. We need someone like that in that body. - and everyone's excited to get them there, without understanding that that there might be a hostile place currently, that that there may come with a lot of challenges for that candidate that other people may not have had to face. Also being realistic about what the history of the body that you're joining is, what the current composition is, why different people may not be there - and be prepared to contend with that, knowing that that may be a challenge when you get there. I think that's something we don't talk about enough that we need to talk about more. [00:47:40] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Absolutely. It's funny you say that - that was actually my lived experience. So I ran for Tacoma City Council in 2013 - I didn't win. I did try to take out a very popular incumbent - we have a lot of political dynasties in Pierce County, so he was a son of somebody, like a lot of them are. But at the time, I would have been the first Latina elected to Tacoma City Council. I didn't win, and then 10 years went by and we got an open seat. And I was calling around to folks - because my favorite thing to do is help people run for office - and I was like, Who are we going to get to run for this appointment? And multiple people were like, You, man, what are you talking about? So I applied and then got the appointment and then ran for the seat. And now I'm actually the first Latina elected to the Tacoma City Council 10 years later because now was actually the moment that the city was ready for that, that people were pushing for that. And 10 years ago, that was less the case, even though it shouldn't have been - our Latino population hasn't skyrocketed in that time - but it's just what's for you hits you, what doesn't misses you. But it's also a matter of - I was willing to answer that call because it was still a need. And I think that that's part of it - is knowing what these environments are. And I am so grateful that I'm on the council I'm on now, as opposed to the one that was there 10 years ago - that would have been miserable. And now we have a majority women council, we have a majority BIPOC council - it's just such a better place to be a part of now. Not to say anything disparaging about prior council, because we had a great mayor who's now a congresswoman, but it's just a different time and it's a more fun time for me to be in office. Also, it's just a different place in my career, so I think making sure that you've got that conviction to keep following through because you may not make it the first time is also a big part about thinking how you run for office. [00:49:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a really good point. There are so many people who run, unsuccessfully, their first time. And it's important to define what success looks like for you, even if you aren't elected. You were smart about that, there are a number of people I see being smart about that - and others not being so smart. There are so many people who are successful on their second run, and that's because of how they set themselves up in their first run. Are they building relationships? Are they growing their network and their coalition? Are they working together with people in positive ways? Are they finding ways to build with different people in different ways? I see things backfire and people set themselves back if they're bitter and negative. Politics is all coalition based - you may disagree with someone on something here and agree with them on something else. You work together on the something else, and then you just build a coalition with different people on the other thing that you're working for that you care about. You can do that while being true to yourself, while not doing things that are philosophically disagreeable to you. But it is about building bridges, maintaining lines of communication, building relationships, people being able to trust that they can count on you, that you are true to your word, that you are who you say you are, you'll do what you say you'll do. Or if that changes, that you clearly communicate that and why. Building those relationships throughout the campaign is important - it will help you if you are elected to govern. And if you aren't elected, it helps you to run again if you so choose. And even if you don't run again, they help you to make the type of change - even in an unelected capacity - that you were trying to make in an elected capacity. So really look at how you're setting yourself up, regardless of what the outcome is. Run the kind of race that you will not have regrets if you don't win - that has been a piece of advice that I've given, that I strongly believe. Do things that you can live with throughout the whole thing. If you sell yourself out - whatever that looks like to you - and do things you're uncomfortable with in the name of winning, and you don't, there's so much regret tied to that. And then you're looking to the community like someone who you aren't and nothing good comes from that. So again, being authentic, running a race that's true to you is very important. Any closing piece of advice that we haven't gotten to, or that you would want to leave people with? [00:51:54] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Regardless of whether or not you're paying a campaign team, or you're getting volunteers, or truly anybody with a pulse who exists and is willing to help - make sure you're setting yourself up with a team of people you trust, you can depend on, and that you quite frankly want to spend a lot of time with because you're going to spend a lot of time with them - either checking in on them or actually literally with them. And really, I like to take it the step further and say, Try to build the team that reflects the kind of workplace that you want to have. So sometimes that means having unionized campaign workers. Sometimes that means having an all-BIPOC or an all-woman staff or team. Make sure that you're intentionally seeking out the folks who are going to round out your opinion. So you might not have everyone be of the same demographic - it might be helpful depending on what you're up to, what you're doing - you don't want any gaps in who's in the room helping you make decisions so that you're not making decisions that don't make sense for a big part of the community. And then mentoring and leadership building is a big part of what I've done before getting to office and to get to office. So I like to be mindful of bringing people in who can learn this stuff so that maybe they then want to go be a consultant, because we need more BIPOC consultants. Or maybe they want to go later on and be a policy writer. They want to run for office themselves. I like to try to make sure that we spread the wealth and keep giving back and pulling forward with people. I like to say - I'm the first one, but I'm not going to be the last one in Tacoma. And so making sure that we're building those bridges and opportunities for mentorship is really helpful and important. And keeping your eyes open for who the next leaders are and bringing them in and lifting them up - I don't think having more of us in the world, in the politics, in the progressive movement is detrimental. This is not a crabs in a pot mentality - the more of us there are, the better it is and the better our policies can become. I'm going to want somebody to the left of me as much as I deal with those on the right of me. And it really all helps push and pull and help us all be better and get us to better policy solutions, ultimately, in the end, which is what we want. So I think that those are the big things is - how you build stuff that's going to build and outlive and outlast you. [00:53:56] Crystal Fincher: Wise words from someone who has walked that path and helped many other people walk it. Thank you so much for spending the time with us today, Councilmember Olgy Diaz. [00:54:07] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Thank you. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

What’s Trending: Democrats are fuming over Mike Johnson securing speakership—Rantz thinks he is a great choice, there is no benefit to four day school weeks and blame parents, not social media companies.  LongForm: Kristin Wynne is running for an At Large position on the Tacoma City Council. She hopes this is the time that residents will seek real change. Quick Hit: Seattle aims to attract more food trucks by waiving fees.

Representative Marilyn Strickland is a former member of the Tacoma City Council, the former Mayor of Tacoma, and two-term member of the US House of Representatives. She joined us to discuss the recent dismissal of...

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by state politics reporter for Crosscut, Joseph O'Sullivan! They discuss Tacoma for All winning their lawsuit over competing renter protections on the November ballot, mobile home communities organizing against economic eviction, and Washington auctioning off $1B of carbon pollution credits. The conversation continues with reflection on people's concerns over the closure of the Larch Corrections Center, how Bruce Harrell and Dow Constantine's ideas add delay and expense to voter-approved Sound Transit light rail expansion, a questionable use of COVID relief funds for Emerald Downs horse racetrack, and Cruise robotaxis coming to Seattle streets. 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, Joseph O'Sullivan, at @OlympiaJoe.   Joseph O'Sullivan Joseph O'Sullivan is Crosscut's state politics reporter. Before joining Crosscut in 2022, O'Sullivan spent nearly eight years as Olympia bureau reporter for The Seattle Times. Before that, he covered government and politics at news organizations in Spokane, Wyoming and South Dakota. Resources “The Childcare Crisis with Dr. Stephan Blanford of Children's Alliance” from Hacks & Wonks   “Judge kicks Tacoma council's competing renter protections off ballot” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times   “Judge issues ruling in ballot fight between Tacoma, renters group. Here's the decision” by Becca Most from The News Tribune   “WA mobile home communities organize against 'economic eviction'” by Farah Eltohamy and Mai Hoang from Crosscut   “WA's third carbon auction should push pollution credits over $1B” by Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut   “‘Blindsided' by a Washington prison closure” by Laurel Demkovich from Washington State Standard   “Prison closure plan stokes wildfire response worries in southwest Washington” by Laurel Demkovich from Washington State Standard   “Harrell, Constantine light-rail ideas add years, money to Sound Transit planning” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times   “$1.1M in COVID relief steered to Auburn horse racing track” by Brandon Block from Crosscut   “The Capitol Hill Autonomous Vehicle Zone — More driverless robotaxi testing comes to Seattle” by Justin Carder from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I welcomed Dr. Stephan Blanford, Executive Director of Children's Alliance, for a wide-ranging conversation on childcare - its importance, what makes it inaccessible and expensive, and how we can make an impact and fix this crisis. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review 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: state politics reporter for Crosscut, Joseph O'Sullivan. Hey! [00:01:22] Joseph O'Sullivan: Hi, how you doing? Thanks for having us. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you on today. And I wanted to start off by talking about a lawsuit related to a local election in Tacoma - a tenants' rights initiative called Tacoma For All won a lawsuit against the City of Tacoma. This has a bit of a backstory. Tacoma For All collected thousands of signatures to put a pretty substantial tenants' rights initiative on the ballot, only to find out that the City of Tacoma City Council then decided to put their own competing measure on the ballot. At the same time - implementing that measure immediately, depending on what happened with the ballot if that happened. With the Seattle election, with the ranked choice voting or approval voting - and do you want to implement any of these - it's just a confusing thing for a lot of voters. Similar competing measures happened in the Seattle measure - that was basically put on to stop the initial measure. It looks like that was really the intended purpose of the City's measure against the Tacoma For All initiative. They were able to nip that in the bud with a judge finding that, although the initiative part of it seemed okay, the way they adopted the ordinance had some problems and issues. So it will not be allowed to appear on the ballot. What are your thoughts on this? [00:02:43] Joseph O'Sullivan: I was interested just reading in The Seattle Times that the City's initiative they approved actually took effect right away. And they didn't really state that clearly. I don't know if it was the ballot language or whatever might have appeared when it was going to go before voters, which - I can't remember having seen something specifically like that, which seems a bit odd and adds to your point that that would be really confusing for voters. At the state level, you can have dueling initiatives go to the ballot. Those are complicated enough as they are, even when they're clearly explaining - you can choose this one, or this one, or neither. But this one seemed pretty unique. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: It also seemed pretty unique to me, especially in that - usually, to your point - in the state context, people think of those more as referenda. There's an existing policy that we're going to vote to continue or to stop - I give a thumbs up or thumbs down on. This was not the case. Another interesting aspect of this, which is an element in litigation related to elections, is that the timing really matters. In this, the City could choose to appeal and they have not answered whether they intend to do so or not. But a bigger consideration is their time to appeal before it's time to print these ballots and get this stuff out. There's a lot of administrative work that needs to happen to get ballots out to people on time and that work starts very soon - whether this litigation can even happen before that happens is a question. But very interesting. This is certainly being viewed as a big win for tenants' rights in Tacoma - I certainly think it is. I don't know that I love the precedent, and I guess people will do what they feel to do. I felt like it's justified before - was happy with some results when it happened. It's not like I've universally condemned this before. But always interesting to see the reaction to citizen initiatives. And that sometimes being viewed as a threat to power or not being viewed as legitimate - it's very tangential. But also reminds me of what's happening in Atlanta with Cop City and that initiative there and the challenges that the City of Atlanta has been presenting for those people who collected signatures in that whole process. So just very interesting to see the state of initiatives, both local and statewide, across the country and locally. [00:04:48] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, and here in Washington, we just have such a robust initiative and referenda cultural and legal institution. We've been doing these for so long that it really is sort of a feature of direct democracy, where if you're an elected official, you're always thinking about this - the prospect of voters saying - Hey, we're going to take the decision out of your hands and try and answer it ourselves. And I think the broader thing with this, too, is that - why is rent control being discussed so much now? It's because rent's too expensive. And housing is too expensive all over the state - urban and rural, big city and small. If elected officials can't deal with that - they certainly haven't in the last 10 or 20 years in the way that it needed to happen - you're reaching a point where you're going to have people try and come up with their own solutions. [00:05:28] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also want to talk about a story that was written this week in Crosscut about Washington mobile home communities organizing against economic eviction. What is this and what's happening? [00:05:41] Joseph O'Sullivan: So there is a Port Orchard-based company that has been buying up mobile home parks. We had a great story by some of my colleagues about residents in these parks. They're getting rent increases, they're seeing fewer services, more fees - like utility fees that weren't broken out and now they're added on to the rent that's already gone up. I don't think we've had a lot of this in Washington state, but when you have these big investment firms or real estate companies that buy up rental houses and then raise the prices - and you've seen that in other states a lot - there seems to be a little bit of a flavor of that in just this one kind of company that's doing this. And again, to go back to what we were just talking about, housing prices and the price of rent are probably certainly the single biggest cost issue for people in Washington state. And so this sort of dynamic is agitating and people are trying to find ways to respond to it. [00:06:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And especially with mobile homes - a long, long time ago, I was a land use and planning board on Kent's planning commission, and we had an issue like this - couple issues like this come before the board. It was then that I learned just how tenuous these situations, particularly in mobile home parks, are just because it's a bit of a different situation than homes. I think we need action on all of it. But mobile home communities and people who live there are particularly vulnerable because they're bringing their mobile home - it's theirs, generally, or sometimes they rent it - but it's not their land. So people go - Okay, well, just move the mobile home. It's a mobile home - it's mobile. You can't make it there, move it somewhere else. And mobile homes are notoriously difficult to move, depending on the condition. They may not be able to withstand a move. It's not as simple as just moving it. But you have this situation where - okay, if someone gets evicted and you can't move it, or it's really expensive, cost prohibitive, what happens? You potentially don't just lose your right to be on that plot of land, but you can lose everything. If you can't move the home, you can't be there. It can be destroyed. It's really a troubling situation. And so to have these situations with economic eviction, where it's nothing that the tenant has done - there's no "you did something wrong, you haven't been paying your rent," - it's we're jacking up the price that we know you can't afford, knowing that we're going to get you out of there and get in a tenant who's going to pay these new high prices. So it's basically just built-in displacement - that's what an economic eviction is. And so part of the conversation - this is where people live, this is a basic need that people have. And treating it as just a commodity - Well, it's a business and we have a right to make a profit and you can do that - is that where we want to be as a society with housing and the problems that it's causing? [00:08:22] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, and I don't think there was data on this in the story, so I'm a little anecdotal. But it's also not like an apartment where maybe there's some 25-year olds and your rent's getting jacked up. And that's bad - that's an issue. When you're 25, you're younger, you're more resilient, more of your life is ahead of you - maybe you can figure it out. But at least some of the families in here - older and maybe have less mobility in their life, or maybe have been through enough things or have enough burdens on them too - so that kind of adds to what you're talking about too, is the instability of it. It's a potential to do pretty bad damage when you displace people. [00:08:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, people who fall into homelessness after being evicted - especially with an economic eviction from mobile home communities - that's not an insignificant number. There has been organizing around this in various communities for a while - certainly a number that I'm aware of in South King County, was an issue in SeaTac not that long ago in elections in the past few cycles. So I'm happy Crosscut wrote about this. I hope that we continue to raise not just consciousness about this and awareness, but that policymakers see the need to address this in a meaningful way. And in the absence of that, you see what happened with Tacoma for All or in Federal Way with their renters' rights initiative, or so many other cities - where if the people who are elected fail to address this, residents will. And it's a crisis now - I think we need to center the people who are at risk of homelessness or at risk of economic disaster and really find a way to prevent economic eviction, make housing more affordable across the board. Also want to talk about - we've been dealing with wildfires, smoke off and on, including this week. What's supposed to be helpful in this whole process is the state's relatively new cap and trade program - cap and invest as they call it - which creates these carbon auctions. So Washington's third carbon auction looks like it's going to push the total amount of pollution credits over $1 billion. Big number. What do you think about this, what's happening? [00:10:24] Joseph O'Sullivan: Big number. The policymakers and the lawmakers are probably pretty happy about that. But they're so early in a very new and complex law - and the obstacle state officials and politicians will have to clear is to take this money and find ways to use it that will actually really meaningfully impact emissions and also provide more resilience to safeguard communities. We're probably a ways away from seeing how these investments that are just starting to be made now - how they pay off down the road. [00:10:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. What we were sold were there would be some short-term gains, some immediate investments that could have immediate impacts. Overall with this - I've talked about this several times on this program before, many people do know how I feel about this - but we have a lot of evidence that suggests that the cap and trade system itself is not effective at reducing emissions. What can, potentially, are the investments from this revenue that is raised. If it's invested in the right way, that perhaps can impact this. And this is so much money - these cap and trade programs are great at raising revenue, and this revenue is exceeding projections. Does that also mean that we're going to have pollution exceeding projections, that there's more pollution going on than we accounted for that needs to be lowered? Don't know. We'll have to see. But really the bottom line is we need to reduce the amount of carbon that we're releasing into the atmosphere. We need to do it really quickly. We're already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. And we better act quickly and very intentionally to make sure that it does get better without getting worse than it has to at this point in time. So we'll see. There were certainly a lot of promises, a lot of talk, a lot of concern, especially from frontline communities, those impacted most - Indigenous Native communities, BIPOC communities - who are the ones who are generally hit worst and first by climate change. And so we'll see if they live up to their commitments to meaningfully invest in these communities to mitigate the damage that is already happening. But I hope a lot of people are paying attention to this. I hope people are engaged in this. This is a significant issue, significant investment. As we've seen with so many other things, a lot can go right and a lot can go wrong - it just really depends on how they are. We also see when there's money like this available, some people see the opportunity for a cash grab. And like with some COVID relief funds, see an opportunity to get their hands on some stuff. I hope that our policymakers, that people in these departments managing this, are really careful and intentional about that. And most of the time, they are and they tend to be. I just hope this is something that everyone keeps a close eye on and holds our Legislature accountable to in the long term. [00:13:10] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, I think that, to your point also, where money shows up, power does too. And even within the Democratic caucus, probably even within progressives within the Democratic caucus, you can find different approaches. Everybody has a different priority for the climate projects they want to do, or - Oh, we'll focus on transportation versus communities, or with a limited amount of dollars. Then you're trying to find consensus within your own team or among the people that are administering the money. And it's probably not going to be perfect, whatever it is. I think some of these things - we may not be able to look until 10 years from now. Did we electrify our transportation system? Did that happen? Did we do enough resilience? Because what happens if five of the projects go really well and five don't? How do you assess that? And how do they tweak it down the road? I think some lawmakers, at least - if not most of them - that were working on this law, hope that someday it'll join up with some of the other cap and trade markets, like in California, in Canada. Does this become part of a larger system? Is that a way that's going to be effective and move forward? Is it not? I think some of these things, unfortunately, time will tell. [00:14:16] Crystal Fincher: Time will tell. We are linked with California. That may create some issues. California has notoriously oversaturated their market with credits and are now trying to deal with that, which basically means that there is more pollution that they have in their system, that they baked into their system, that they have to now reduce. But we'll see. And to your point, sometimes with this, any little thing that goes wrong, people are prepared to jump on to - if they don't like the policy overall, that's a reason to get rid of it. I think what's fair to say is that in any big undertaking, no matter what it is, there are going to be challenges and roadblocks. And it's really about how vigilant people are being to spot them and find those before they create too much damage or waste too much money - that they course correct when that's happening. This is new. So there is - in any new thing that you're putting together, whether it's in the public or private sector, there are going to be lessons learned, there are going to be things that happen. But they don't have to be big boondoggles. We don't have to justify the wrong thing just because it's something that we did. So I hope that there is a recognition that - hopefully most of the things do go right - some things will go wrong. How do we address it when it does? How do we correct it? How do we hold ourselves accountable? So we'll see how that proceeds. We'll continue to pay attention to it. I hope everyone everywhere pays attention to it because, my goodness, the impacts that we're already enduring from wildfire smoke - to just the wildfires and the devastation that we've seen globally, but even just in our state have been pretty horrific - to extreme heat, to extreme cold. It's just concerning. And our infrastructure is not up to it today. So hopefully we spend and meaningfully invest in fixing that. Also want to talk about a plan for prison closure that was just announced - that has some people raising their eyebrows to the plan, and other people raising their eyebrows to the reaction to the plan. What's happening here? [00:16:13] Joseph O'Sullivan: The Department of Corrections announced that they were going to close one of our 12 prisons, large corrections facility, which is down in Southwest Washington - Clark County. The announcement was made either last month or in June - that drew some immediate outcry from the Teamsters Union that represents corrections officials. It's not like if you're an employee, you can transfer five miles down the road - you would have to move probably across the state somewhere to get a comparable job at another facility if you wanted to keep doing that. More recently, Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz has noted some concerns about the move since some incarcerated wildland firefighters are based down there. Of course, Southwest Washington - you're near the Columbia River Gorge and some pretty vast tracts of forest land and wilds, and they get fires down there. And the Public Lands Commissioner is concerned that this is going to take some capability to quickly respond to fires. The Inslee administration has signaled that our numbers are declining for incarcerated people, they don't need all the space that they have right now. And so, yeah - I don't know - it's a tough decision either way. But when I did an early story on this, and then I was reading - the Washington State Standard had some good coverage on this - it's just like when you have to consolidate school districts or something too. Nobody's ever happy to lose the school in their community. And there's a little bit of a feel of that too. [00:17:26] Crystal Fincher: There's some of that. For me - and maybe it's a different perspective than a lot of people have - I was dismayed in reading this because we've talked a lot about incarceration and its effectiveness on this program. And incarceration doesn't do a good job of reducing recidivism rates. Evidence shows that's not the case, which is why - looking at low-level offenses - sending people to prison for that is more likely to create more crime than it is to reduce it, which is one of the reasons why this low-level facility is closing. For the amount of money that we spend to incarcerate each person each year, and for that to not result in making us any safer is a problem. What I find so problematic with this is that we are talking about several reasons for keeping a prison open that have nothing to do with public safety. We're not doing it to keep the community safe, but we're keeping it to improve the economic conditions - through jobs or through support or through others - of other people. Wow, that's really troubling. Incarcerating people as a jobs program, which is - Oh man, we're going to have to relocate. We're going to have to do different things - that's not the purpose of incarceration. And not that those changes are not real in those people's lives - they absolutely are, and that's unfortunate - but to do so at the expense of incarcerating someone and making our community less safe doesn't seem like it makes much sense. And then also talking about - Well, these people are critical to wildfire fighting. Okay - it was in 2020 that the rate for a fire, an incarcerated fire[fighter], was $0.62 per hour. Particularly troubling because until very recently, we then prevented them - if they got out - from working as firefighters. So we're calling what they're doing so important and critical, yet we're not treating the people who are doing it that way. That just seems like expendable bodies. And if it's more convenient for us to keep people locked up and take away their freedom because it gives us benefits as a community that have nothing to do with public safety but are economic or others, then we start getting into conversations about slavery. And like the documentary 13th, which does a good job of talking about this, which I just find troubling. This was a decision that I know some people were very unhappy with - that's certainly a conversation to be had for here in the long term. But I just can't condone or agree with or get with the justifications that I am seeing in here that this is critical. And then even trying to say - Well, it's good for the people who are working. Well, if we really cared about that, then wouldn't we be paying them a fair wage for what they're doing? Wouldn't we be fast-tracking them into this career once they got out? We aren't doing those things, so it doesn't really seem like we're doing this because we care about them. It seems like we're doing this because some people feel it's more convenient for us. And that's not something we should be doing with people's freedom, in my opinion. [00:20:26] Joseph O'Sullivan: And interesting - as we're talking now, I'm thinking just covering wildfires and covering prisons. And there's both of them. Wildfires is a little different recently as more houses are burning and more acreage - people are starting to key in. But for many years at the Legislature, the Department of Natural Resources couldn't get more funding for more wildfires - this was even predating Hilary Franz, back to Peter Goldmark - they'd come begging the lawmakers in budget season - Hey, we need more capability to fight fires, we need more help, we need more staff, we need more resources. And the Legislature, after years of that, has started just in the last couple of years. And at the same time, properly funding the prisons so they deliver the services that they need to, like health care, is also something that's often on a lower priority. There's not a lot of special interests or big lobbying push to make sure an incarcerated person is getting the cancer treatment that they need or able to get to doctors' appointments. And that doesn't necessarily win you votes at the ballot box. And that's not to say that lawmakers are all cynical and they don't want to do that stuff ever. But every program is competing for limited money during the budget. And these are examples of things that have been underinvested in previously. The Department of Corrections says they're going to save some money by closing Larch. Where does that money go from here? I think that's an interesting question. And I guess we'll see. [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: And these are complicated - because if you're just looking at this in a silo, if you're just in the Department of Natural Resources and just looking at your position and your job and the budget - yeah, these are questions that are going to come up. Okay, we do need more wildfire fighting resources. We don't have the budget for that. Where is that going to come from? Something is going to suffer here. And those are real questions that people have. I do think it's the responsibility of leaders to look at the system more comprehensively to say - Okay, what are we actually doing here? And are we getting the impact for our community out of this that was intended? And to say - I know that funding is in silos, I know that these decisions are happening in lots of ways all over the place. But if we're getting to the point where we're keeping people incarcerated because it will employ people at the prison - is that who we want to be as a society? And I think we need to name that and call it out explicitly and deal with it. Not that it's going to be easy to deal with, but ignoring it just really seems incorrect to me. This was an interesting read. And I understand how - in a silo - the reaction makes sense. But I also think that we have to do better. Also want to talk about - this week, Harrell and Constantine going back to the drawing board, at least partially, with Sound Transit planning and that adding millions of dollars and years to our Sound Transit planning timeline - for an initiative that was passed six years ago, I think, that we're still really waiting to get moving on, it feels like. What's your reaction to this? [00:23:21] Joseph O'Sullivan: I think that this is emblematic of one of the biggest issues in American democracy. And this goes back to the housing, too - is that it just takes us so long now to do anything, to build anything, to try and fix any problem, that by the time you get something built, it's like - Oh, great. We got a new light rail line. Then we're going to have half a million more people in the region - that's a number I just made up in my head, but you get the point, right? - it just takes so long to do this stuff. And then by the time it gets done, there's already new problems or other problems. There's so much more growth. And then you just start all over. And we see that with trying to build high speed rail all over America. We see that trying to build just houses and communities. There's a fantastic article I just read about how it was going to take years - there was a school closing down for renovation somewhere, there was space right across the street - a college. But they couldn't send the high school students over to use empty college buildings, because the college is zoned different, and you can't have secondary school in there. And I think this was over in New York or something. It was just - there's an easy solution to a problem, but we have all these local processes that slow everything down and don't allow for communities to nimbly fix anything. Of course, communities also struggle to nimbly fix anything, because everybody disagrees and doesn't want stuff built next to their house or something. And I think there's a little bit of that - at least in The Seattle Times coverage that I was reading about some of these stations - in where you're going to put them, and how disruptive it's going to be. I don't know. How does that get fixed? [00:24:47] Crystal Fincher: We get bogged down in process. And some people are like - Eh, it's just process. There's nothing you can do about it. And if you know me personally, we've had this conversation. So Seattle and Los Angeles started talking about their light rail systems at the same time. Los Angeles has built out a network, and they certainly have their own challenge and they certainly have process. But once they make a decision - and it seems like in other places, once they make a decision - it's less likely to be changed, delayed intentionally - not that cost delays and time delays don't happen, they absolutely do elsewhere. But the process involved with it is just more kludgy here. And people are more likely to say - Okay yeah, the residents here voted for this. This big corporation has a problem with it, and maybe we can change it to make them happy. And we just get so bogged down in that process. And it seems like we have leadership that is comfortable with getting bogged down in that process. And all the time that they took, you look at the - I was here, I think you were too - the drama about the State Route 99 tunnel. [00:25:52] Joseph O'Sullivan: Oh, sure - yeah. [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: And then seeing what we ended up with, which is not quite what we were sold. And it's not surprising to me that some of the same people involved in that decision and how that ended up are involved in this decision and how it ended up. I think here it's people using process to mitigate impacts to interest groups that they're aligned with, really. It's not like there weren't decent plans here. But it seems like if there are big concerns from money interests - and it's not just on one side of the spectrum, it could be on multiple sides of the spectrum - that can interrupt process more here than in some other places after a decision has seemingly been made. Not that other places don't dither and debate about decisions. But my goodness, after a decision has seemingly been made, we find new and innovative ways not to find a way to move forward. [00:26:46] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, I haven't covered City politics in a while, but I always feel like Seattle's interesting. It always seems to me - just reading coverage from afar - that it's a feature of Seattle politics, where it seems like there's always a lot of whiplash on the issues of the day, where - Okay, we're going to go on this course. And oh no, now we're going to reverse. And then, oh, three years later, we're going to go back to this. It's difficult to tackle really long-term issues. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Then we suffer from the consequences of not addressing those issues, and here we are. So I hope that gets resolved quickly and we get to building. Also, want to talk about a story that was in Crosscut about COVID relief funds related to something we were talking about earlier - where $1.1 million in COVID relief was steered to the Emerald Downs Auburn horse racing track. What happened? [00:27:38] Joseph O'Sullivan: This was part of the American Rescue Plan Act, which was part of the federal COVID relief - which, of course, was just a torrent of money coming into the state - helping state government, local government, schools, and everything stay afloat during the pandemic. A lot was used for rental assistance, other programs, it helped pay for COVID testing and vaccines and stuff. And in Crosscut, we did a story about $1.1 million that go into Emerald Downs, which is the horse track in Auburn, to help them stay afloat or mitigate the impact of the pandemic - there's at least one expert that questions whether the money could be used like that. And maybe that pops up as a question down the road, where the state will have to backfill that money if there's some determination that it wasn't useful there. To me, reading that story, it seemed like an echo of the stadium stories you always have in local politics, right - who's going to pay for these big public things and then taxpayer dollars go toward it or something, or there's a question about that - I don't know. What do you think? [00:28:34] Crystal Fincher: It's interesting. Obviously, maintaining jobs was a priority in trying to - especially for businesses that had to shut down. And I'm not familiar with the particulars of Emerald Downs' operation throughout the shutdown - I think I remember them pausing activity - dealing with that, you could justify that. Was that the most pressing need coming at this time? That's also curious. And was that necessary? is a question. I do think that the bigger issue for me is that - one, accountability, and two, the impact of direct relief versus relief that is filtered through people with a lot of money and allowed to trickle down to people with money. It seems like any time we have a big program like that to - one, I think it's good to get direct money to people who are the most impacted, to the people who are not receiving an income through no fault of their own. But I do think that we do need to do more direct relief, unless we're giving it to the business who then is going to give it to employees. Or we need to do a better job of accounting for - okay, this is to save jobs, it's to compensate employees. Are we making sure that they're doing that and not using it to provide a bonus to executives or to expand a footprint somewhere, upgrade facilities, or something like that? Which, depending on how that happens, the case could be made if they're doing air filtration - that could be argued. But it's just always notable to me how it seems like certain people need to get a cut if relief is going to be provided to people on the ground. So I don't know that this is a boondoggle - I'm not going to say that this was a misuse of funds, not saying that - I don't have enough information to say that. But it just is something else that - did this go through all the due diligence that it should have. And given how much due diligence we make really poor people go through, how much surveillance we put really poor people under - it really is noticeable how different the requirements, the hoops you have to jump through, and the scrutiny is on who we hand out money to and how much is handed out to them, under which conditions based on - okay, this is a big established business, or this is someone who lost their job and this relief is going to make the difference between them having a home or not. [00:30:59] Joseph O'Sullivan: Just broadly, it's interesting - horse racing is a very old school sport, I don't know how long for the world - if it's going to be around in 50 years or not. And it's a unique area where you've got the Horse Racing Commission that oversees it, the track itself is owned by one of the tribes - I believe the Muckleshoot tribe - it just seems like a very unique set of circumstances, too. And I don't know how that interplays with the decisions that are made to put money there. [00:31:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And is fundamentally a betting facility something that we want to be prioritizing? I don't know. They are saying they're looking to the issue of whether it was an allowable use or not - that doesn't seem to be a hard yes, there's a question mark attached to that. We'll see what happens. But I do think it's good to look at where and how we're spending this money, and are we getting the results that were intended - I think that's a good thing overall. Final thing I wanted to talk about today - autonomous vehicles are coming to Capitol Hill in Seattle, which is raising a lot of eyebrows for people. What did you think of this? [00:31:58] Joseph O'Sullivan: I don't totally understand why it's needed. People have been getting around - Uber and Lyft, we did those the last 15 years. And before that, there were taxis. I just don't understand the argument for why they would be necessary for a major life improvement and - I don't know. What do you think? [00:32:16] Crystal Fincher: The promise of autonomous vehicles - philosophically, right? - driving is not comparatively an unsafe form of transportation when you look at the other forms. So if you can do something to make it safer - hey, that's great, right? That was the initial premise. In reality, taking into account that premise is based on functioning, tested, safe technology - oh, these cars are automatically going to be safe. But what is happening is that the cars are not delivering. The technology is not delivering on its promise, at least not yet. And so while it still is not, and while they're having - depending on where they're at - safety problems. And there's lots about Tesla's autopilot feature, which is less advanced than some of these other ones. But for all of them - the reason why they're working in Capitol Hill is because they need more testing. And they need to really figure out wet and hilly environments. So people on the street are guinea pigs while they figure this out? We're seeing in San Francisco, these cars get confused and blocking intersections - couple accidents recently, one ran into a fire truck. And they're behaving in ways that the companies who are designing them are not expecting, which is worrisome, right? We just don't know what we're getting. There's the promise of the technology, and there's the reality of today - those are two very different things. And putting this questionable technology, with vehicles that can kill people - this isn't Amazon testing out a little delivery drone, this is a multi-thousand pound piece of steel that can run over people. And just to put that out with not a lot of scrutiny, no real legislative or policy intention, and basically - okay, if they attest that they'll have a person in the car who can intervene. So with this city really looking like it's a guinea pig for these companies to figure out and iron out their technology, it's just really questionable. And the difference in process for this compared to - look at the process that a bike lane, that the scooter and bike share went through? And evidently for this, you just have to submit an application saying that there will be a person in the car who will be ready to intervene if something happens - which is better than fully autonomous cars that are happening in San Francisco and elsewhere right now - but it just seems like maybe we aren't considering everything with this. But we'll see. It's happening. [00:34:47] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, and to your earlier point, too, technology always gets the benefit of the doubt. The starting point of our thoughts are never is this for-profit thing that's being sold going to increase the quality of our lives? It's never that. This is something new, this is something amazing - and the default is just to accept it. We see that with - the State Legislature debated for a few years to try and pass a data privacy law, never got it for various complicated reasons, couldn't do something. But even that, that they were trying a few years ago - that was 15 years after private companies started taking all of our data for every little thing and using it for their own profit. And we just - as a society - we don't place any skepticism upfront on technology, and we generally newaitit to find out what happens afterward. [00:35:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the challenging thing is that there aren't people waving warning flags about - we've seen how this play ends before - it's not great. And looking at the challenges happening in San Francisco, but we'll see. Evidently, this is happening. What my hope is is that there are trained employees as drivers who are taking the role of needing to intervene potentially seriously. I think that's better than just laypeople or no one in there. But it seems like we should probably talk about this and figure out - with intention - what we want this to accomplish and what the outcomes are, so we can see if it is delivering what we want it to deliver while we allow a company to use people in our streets as guinea pigs, basically, for their profit. [00:36:17] Joseph O'Sullivan: Yeah, I'm not sure that a solution like this is getting at sort of the root problems, which is often just another thing that - yeah, I don't know that this is going to solve everything around pedestrian safety and traffic congestion. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the fact that - if we're looking at other cities, it may actually make it worse with the current level of technology. We will see and will certainly continue to follow this as it proceeds. And with that, thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 1st - my goodness, September already - 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the phenomenal Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today: state politics reporter for Crosscut, Joseph O'Sullivan - thank you so much for being on the show. [00:37:02] Joseph O'Sullivan: Thank you for having us. [00:37:03] Crystal Fincher: You can find Joseph on Twitter @OlympiaJoe. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii - and on most other platforms @finchfrii. 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 the podcast of our Friday week-in-review shows 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 podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by metro news columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll! They discuss numerous counties suing Washington state over behavioral health failures, the importance of a raise for Tacoma City Council and other public servants, Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward's shady association with Christian nationalist Matt Shea, devastating wildfires and smoke across Washington, and the backstory of Pierce County Village and a recent veto override. 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, Matt Driscoll, at @mattsdriscoll.   Resources “Most of Washington's counties are suing the state for refusing to provide necessary behavioral health treatment under state law” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   “More than half of WA counties have filed suit against the state for behavioral health failures” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune   “Tacoma City Council is getting a big raise. Think they don't deserve it? Think again” by Matt Driscoll for The News Tribune   “Spokane mayor says she didn't know Matt Shea would be at Christian nationalist concert headlined by Matt Shea's Christian nationalist buddy” by Nate Sanford from Inlander   “Destructive fires swept through Spokane County last weekend, killing two and leaving hundreds without homes” by Samantha Wohlfeil and Nate Sanford from Inlander   “How behind-the-scenes politics helped win approval for Pierce County homeless village” by Shea Johnson from The News Tribune   “In rare move, Pierce County Council overrides executive veto on homeless village zoning” by Becca Most from The News Tribune   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 are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: metro news columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll. Hey! [00:01:08] Matt Driscoll: Hello - thanks for having me once again - it's always a pleasure. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Thanks for coming back. We love our super informative and inside look into Pierce County whenever you're on - always a pleasure. I wanna start off talking about something that a lot of counties got together to do this week - and that is sue the state of Washington. Why are they suing and what's happening here? [00:01:32] Matt Driscoll: It's part of a long-running failure in our state mental health system involving folks who enter the criminal justice system and then get referred, one way or the other, to either competency evaluations or to stand trial, then flipped over to a system of civil commitments. This lawsuit involves 22 counties coming together to sue the state, claiming that the state - at facilities like Western State Hospital - is failing to provide the services to folks who do flip into that civil commitment area. And recently DSHS, Western State has been refusing a lot of those patients because they say they've been working to make room for folks who fall under the Trueblood settlement, which was the State Supreme Court ruling that basically - found that the state has an obligation and needs to do more to provide the competency evaluations and those sorts of things and potential restorative services to make someone able to stand trial. So it all involves folks who enter into the criminal justice system, then get referred to behavioral health, mental health stuff, and basically just the state's long-running failure to be able to provide the kinds of services and beds that those folks need and they deserve. It's all very complicated. It's just another indication of the state's continued failure to provide those services and beds. We've been talking about this for a very long time. It's very clear that it's still a total failure on the state's part, at least in my opinion. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: As you said, we've been talking about failures in this system for years - have heard some shocking and horrifying stories over the years. This is an issue that has been one of the biggest dogging Governor Inslee's administration during this term. And not to say he's absolutely the cause of all of these problems - I'm sure some of them were definitely inherited, there's a lot of challenges within this system. And as they point out, there have been recent investments to try and deliver on that settlement in the Trueblood decision, to try and turn the corner and get out of this crisis. One of the challenges here that they brought up is that there seems to be a conflict in that Trueblood decision - something that essentially is breaking this current system. As the Governor's office pointed out in their response, the Trueblood decision actually prevents them from taking new civil commitment clients. And that's one of the things that the counties are saying - Hey, they shouldn't be doing. So this almost seems like partly a corrective measure or seeking order to say - There's a conflict here - this order is essentially grinding this system to a halt. Once again, we're trying to fix it - we need some order. Do you know if there's some other entity that can take these civil commitments? [00:04:15] Matt Driscoll: Just to be 100% clear on this, I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of the state's behavioral health system - it's supposed to work and it's not working. That being said, it's another one of these massive gaps that we see so often in our system. You're right about the horror stories, going back to the Trueblood decision - you still hear, to this day, stories about folks who end up in jails for long periods of time, even before they've stood trial, waiting to have services available at somewhere like Western State where they can even get a competency evaluation. Think about the human rights aspects of that - of people being warehoused in jails, awaiting these court-mandated evaluations - that's the problem that Trueblood's intending to fix. On the same token, we've clearly got all these folks who shouldn't be in the criminal justice system. As the governor pointed out and others pointed out - in defense of the state, if you will - the referrals for these civil commitments are way up in recent years. I forget the statistics off the top of my head, but I think it might be like 40%, so we're seeing more and more of these folks being flipped out of the criminal justice system intended to send to the civil commitment system. It's just not working and there's a huge gap. And we can talk about how complicated it all is, and the way it gets siloed, and all the ways it's supposed to work, and the way it's not working - we have a wholly inadequate behavioral health system in our state. Decades and decades of underfunding - we've never acknowledged, we've done some piecemeal stuff. I certainly give the state and the Inslee administration credit for recent investments, but the bottom line is that this is piecemeal drops in the buckets trying to patch up a system that is just wholly unprepared to meet the demands of today. And people are suffering because of it. [00:05:54] Crystal Fincher: People are suffering, their civil rights are being violated, and some of these are resulting in horrific abuses in these overworked, sometimes unaccountable systems. This is happening against a backdrop of several employees within DSHS calling for the head of DSHS to resign. How does this even get untangled? It's time for major, systemic, urgent action beyond what we've done - clearly, what is already happening is not enough. [00:06:25] Matt Driscoll: One thing that the counties point out in the lawsuit is because these civil commitments are not being accepted or in some cases being discharged, you've got public safety issues. You have folks who the system has determined would be best served by ongoing treatment and civil commitments essentially being released. And that's, again - wherever you fall on the debates of how the state should be handling the interaction of criminal justice and behavioral health, it's just a bad scene all around. As a state with as many resources as Washington, we should be ashamed - similar to our public education system. A left-leaning state with progressive lawmakers and clear Democratic majorities - the fact that we are so clearly failing on this stuff is a black eye and again, people are suffering because of it. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also wanna talk about a recent decision from a commission in Tacoma that's going to take effect soon to increase the salaries, by a pretty significant amount, of the Tacoma City Council. And you wrote a column about this this week, which I thought was very timely and appropriate and a conversation that a lot of cities are having and more will continue to. And that's - these raises are absolutely justified and should go further when we look at the scope of responsibility involved in these positions. What did you talk about in your column? [00:07:46] Matt Driscoll: This has been an issue for me for a long time, as someone who's followed City Council government in Tacoma. At the root of the problem, it's that historically - City Council in Tacoma, third largest city in the state - it's considered a part-time job, it's paid as such. The reality of it is that anyone who served in that position knows it's not a part-time job, it's a full-time job. When I started at The News Tribune, councilmembers were making $40,000. Considering the challenges that Tacoma faces, I think there's lots of room for critique. People can see these raises and think about job performance - Do these guys deserve raises? But that's not really what it's about, right? It's about our system of government and who has the ability to run for office and serve under kind of the framework we have set up. We have historically considered this a part-time, low-paying position. If you're an average person in Tacoma with a family or financial responsibilities, the idea of signing up for what you're paid for as a part-time job that's clearly gonna be a full-time job and still trying to meet any of that - it becomes impossible. It severely limits the pool of candidates that are available. [00:08:56] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - several perspectives are left out. Beyond that, we're asking them to do such an important job. The things we talk about every week on this show - from public safety to economic development to land use policy and educational decisions - every thing that touches your life, we're asking them to do. It's wild to me that in the same society, we will justify $100 million salaries of CEOs of companies, yet cities and organizations with comparable budgets we're asking to settle for $30,000, $50,000. When we look at how important the job is and the expertise and commitment that it really does require, there's no getting around the fact that this is definitely a full-time job, especially - when it's done right, it's beyond a full-time job. I think most people can agree, no matter what your political affiliation, that it's not. We also are talking about shortages in several of these sectors too, so we need to pay people more for the work that's being done if we wanna expect better results. [00:10:00] Matt Driscoll: And it's like, regardless of what you think about the current council's job performance, what do you want your City Council person to be? Do you want it to be someone who is dedicating 20 hours a week to it and juggling a bunch of other stuff, or do you want somebody who's able to attack it like a full-time job and dedicates the time and energy it takes - both to be responsive to citizen concerns and do the homework that it takes to make good policy decisions? This isn't to call out any particular City councilmembers over the years, but I think if you've closely observed City Council here in Tacoma, you can see folks are learning these issues as they go and they're asking these questions, and a lot of times you'll be - Oh my God, that's a pretty obvious question. Do you want someone who has the time to dedicate to the job? And even more than that, do you want to make this a job feasible for some people to take on, or do you want to make this a job that only a few fairly privileged, essentially wealthy or better off folks can take on? For most people, the question is the latter. I think historically the idea of making Tacoma City, or a city council, and even the State Legislature part-time is that it would allow average people to serve in democracy - that's one of the ideals there. But in practice, I think what it really does, particularly these days, is it severely limits the type of people who are able to feasibly serve in office. You see that in some of the races that we've got going this year in Tacoma, particularly on the Jamika Scott District 3 race, where she's a local community activist and artist. She's more of an average person - she doesn't have a bunch of money, she's not the executive director at some nonprofit. For an average person to make the commitment to run for office and find the time to doorbell, it's a huge commitment - full-time plus work for part-time pay. [00:11:50] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - completely agree. I want to talk about another city - the City of Spokane and the activities of its mayor. The mayor and Christian nationalist extremist, former State Representative Matt Shea, attended a TPUSA event where they were just talking about a bunch of extreme, out-of-touch things while the ashes of neighborhoods were still smoldering nearby. What happened here? What is the reaction? [00:12:23] Matt Driscoll: Mayor of Spokane, Mayor Woodward, appeared at an event - Matt Shea was involved, Christian nationalist organization. She was apparently invited on stage for prayer, and Shea was there and prayed for her. And of course then all hell broke loose because of Shea's background and the backgrounds of some of the other folks involved. Of course, the mayor immediately said - Didn't know Shea was going to be there, wasn't my intention, I'm disgusted by all his views. It turns out maybe she'd been to events with Matt Shea in the past - I think a lot of people really didn't buy that excuse. But the bigger thing here, really, is yet another instance that illustrates the complexity and tension in the Republican Party. Lawmakers on the right who are "the good ones" or "the saner ones" - and there are a lot of Republicans, on the whole - in Pierce County in particular, Bruce Dammeier, JT Wilcox, leaders that I disagree with fundamentally. This tension between trying to be one of those not-extremist conservatives, but then the votes relies to some extent to courting the more extreme elements of the party. What ends up happening is these leaders awkwardly, unsuccessfully try to find this middle ground where they can not alienate the extreme elements of the party while not appearing extreme themselves, or maybe not even being "extreme" themselves. But it just never works and it ends up looking dumb. And this is just another example of that where they try to have it both ways - they try to disavow the extreme elements of the party, but then they still rely on extreme elements of the party for the support they need to win elections and serve in office. I certainly have no sympathy for the mayor of Spokane. It was very predictable that this would happen. If you find yourself at white nationalist organized events or religious extremist organized events, it's very easy to not get on stage or not do that. She signed up for it. She got what she deserved. I don't think it's probably the last time we'll see something like this either. [00:14:20] Crystal Fincher: I don't even view the situation as there being extreme elements within the party - that is the party, that is the base, that is now the mainstream of the party. It's beyond local party activists - these are their leaders. There is a nostalgia that I see, especially from national political pundits, wanting to still give credit to those moderates - those moderates are enabling the extremism. They are enabling this extremism that in public they try and distance themselves from. Even though she tried to say - Oh, I had no idea, she's been to an event just like this before. Even if she had no idea Matt Shea was there before, which no one buys, she got up there, saw him there and gave him a hug, and allowed him to lay hands on her and pray. Heard right before - them talk about the "problem with homosexuality" - obviously there is no problem with homosexuality, that's an extreme belief. That is the party - several electeds within the party, donors within the party, the people making decisions about the platform on the party. I made the bad decision of watching that Republican debate. I saw a lot of people going - Oh, these are extreme beliefs. They're not targeting the average American anymore - they're really fine with disenfranchising the average American. They are speaking to that base that's going to elevate people like this to these elected positions and hope for treatment as moderates in the media. This is an opportunity in Spokane to once again point out that these are extreme beliefs. These are beliefs that our Supreme Court has rejected, our State Supreme Court has rejected - and that we don't want. Clearly she knows that. She wasn't really sad about it happening, or else she wouldn't have appeared with him before and been chummy. They want to be able to do this behind closed doors. And lots of people will cite JT Wilcox, who I know lots of people have good relationships with - people like that need to contend with who the party is today. You're affixing your name to that label? - you can be what you are without that label. If you are attaching that label and participating in that, this is what you are enabling. [00:16:24] Matt Driscoll: Where do the folks like the JT Wilcoxes or the Bruce Dammeiers go within this party, right? If they are the moderates they claim to be, the Republican Party depends on that support. If they try to find that middle ground, then it ends up working out like this. Again, I don't have any sympathy for it. I wrote a column in the Trump years and I've just halfway defended folks like JT Wilcox and Bruce Dammeier about why they hadn't condemned Trump. What JT Wilcox will tell you - I'm a local guy and I stay out of national politics. And that's fine, I have a lot of respect for JT as an individual. But can you see what's going on? And do you have the backbone to stand up and say - This is wrong, this is not what I represent - even if it means that you might get voted out, or that you might not be in office, or that you might make your life more difficult. What we see most of the time is elected officials, politicians - they're not willing to do that. They're not willing to disavow or distance themselves from this stuff because they don't want to risk their jobs as an elected official or their powers - and maybe some of them genuinely do it out of the hope that if they just stick it out long enough, they'll be able to course correct on that party. That's a flawed idea. Whether you agree with Chris Vance or not, the way he describes it is pretty accurate at this point - it's the base of the party and folks need to make their decisions on whether that's the party they agree with. What we see, more times than not, is folks trying to have their cake and eat it too. [00:17:56] Crystal Fincher: Chris Vance made the decision to not affiliate with that label - if that's who's standing beside him, then he needs to move to a different place. On both the Republican and Democratic side, that affiliation with the party comes with tremendous resources - an absolute resource advantage over someone who is running as an Independent or with a minor party - everything from voter file access, which is useful, important information about voters from public sources and from private commercial sources, information like that is very helpful to a campaign. Things like donations and structure and endorsements and volunteers - those kinds of things are often built-in to the support of a party. It is a challenge to run outside of a major party. There were some character-defining moments for a lot of these people - maybe if they would have seen this rising extremism take over the mainstream of the party, maybe we don't find ourselves here. That attachment to power also can be corrosive - if you see something that is turning your stomach, it's not okay to stay silent, no matter which party you're a part of. [00:19:03] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, this continues to be a character-defining moment. These leaders still have the opportunity - they can still come out and say - This is wrong. And continually they don't. I don't really expect that to change. The opportunity still is there for them to take a stand. They don't, because if you alienate the base of the party, you're gonna be out of luck. And Chris Vance, for all his wisdom, is out of luck. He ran for office a couple cycles ago, and he lost badly - can't be a moderate conservative without the support of the Republican Party and if you alienate the Trump support, you're out of luck. [00:19:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, part of what made this so scandalous in the first place and so offensive to people is that this was happening amidst really destructive fires that swept through Spokane County last weekend. We see the 20,000 acres at that time up in flames, 265 structures destroyed, including a ton of homes, two people killed that we know of, lots of people not knowing what to do. Spokane City Councilmember Zack Zappone showed a picture of the street where his parents live - all of the houses were burnt down - his parents lost their home, his uncle lost his home. Just feel for everybody involved in that situation - I can't even imagine - it's just so totally devastating. [00:20:21] Matt Driscoll: On the human level, on the individual level - that loss, the death toll is staggering - just a lot of thoughts for everyone going through that. For a long time in my life, we talked about climate change and we talked about the problem it presented. It was academic, right? We saw the video of the polar bear with nowhere to go. When I started at The News Tribune, there wasn't really a summer smoke season. And now it's late August - it's the smoke season - it's a reality of life now. And then I think about my kids - I got a 16-year-old daughter, a 12-year-old son, 8-year-old daughter. It's really heavy to think about the impacts that we've seen from climate change and the way it's escalated. History is so long - a lot of times it's difficult to track the change, right? - it feels long. But with this devastation that we've seen that's tied to climate change in recent years and that trend - it's just really depressing - in Western Washington now, and this will probably be our reality moving forward. It's heartbreaking. [00:21:24] Crystal Fincher: This has not been normal for me my entire life. The warnings from climate scientists - we did not heed them for decades, and here we are - it's scary. The reality is this is as good as it's going to be for a while. This is actually going to get much worse. It's up to us and what we decide to do now - it's gonna get worse before it gets better. Are we gonna choose to make it better or not? This is a tangent - I'm on an age divide - you look at polling, and I'm right there on the divide where opinion splits. I talk to people on the older side of that divide who are more complacent, who don't necessarily feel the urgency. And then those on the younger side - and it's 15, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, especially working in politics - you see things like slogans, "fighting for our lives, fighting for our futures," and those are slogans to some people. What does it look like when you are literally fighting for your life? What does it look like when you don't want to see this kind of destruction happening everywhere? We're not even talking about the hurricane in Southern California and Nevada - this is all wild, and we're seeing increasingly wild things across the globe. This is only going to accelerate. It's decisions like whether to build a new freeway or not. It's decisions like whether to invest in and build out pipelines for gas and coal. At every level of government, at every level of power - decisions are being made every day - we can't afford for more hurt right now. We're seeing activism, we're seeing direct action. These stakes are high, and I just wish more people understood and felt that. It's just really hard right now. There are a lot of different interests. These are the consequences. [00:23:00] Matt Driscoll: There is one thing that gives me any glimmer and hope in this - is the younger generation. The stakes are exactly as you described for them. I think of my kids and the world that we've left them - the idea that this is baseline. How much worse do you want it to get? I'm not going to chalk this up to human nature, but you mentioned complacency. It's a little crazy how easy people grow accustomed to something like smoke season now. Are we cool with just getting used to this? Are we all right with that? It feels like a lot of people are. Maybe it's just my nature, but I have a lot of empathy for people in general, 'cause it's hard, man. It's hard out there being a person. It's hard to support yourself. We haven't made it any easier in the United States. There's a lot that just goes into surviving. Asking people to think above and beyond that, it's a big ask - and it's also unfair. We lay a lot of this climate change stuff, this environmental stuff on the individual - like you shouldn't be watering your grass, or you should buy an electric car. Those things are good, but it almost gives the real culprit - the governments and the fossil fuel companies - a pass. We end up guilt tripping each other - How long was your shower and stuff? If we really want to do something about this, it's gonna take exactly what you talked about - reimagining transportation, not building freeways, being willing to say - Yeah, traffic's bad right now, we're not gonna build another freeway, we gotta figure this out a different way. Or we have the capacity for a new airport, but air travel's terrible and it's one of the biggest causes of greenhouse gases - we're gonna figure something else out, and it's probably gonna be difficult in the interim, but we just don't have a choice. We never want to make that choice. We always want to push it down the road a little bit, make a little bit of improvements. This incremental change - the incremental change is not going fast enough. It's gonna take drastic measures. It's gonna take major changes to the way our life. It's gonna take just major restructuring of the way we do things. We still get to make the choice. It's just that one of those options results in stuff like we're seeing now. [00:25:09] Crystal Fincher: The final thing I want to talk about today has been the topic of discussion in Pierce County for quite some time, a hot topic on the Pierce County Council - and they've gone back and forth. It's this Pierce County Village, which is the county trying to solve one of the problems, one of the crises that it's dealing with - homelessness - and looking at building a, what is it, 265-unit building to house and service people who've been experiencing homelessness and try and get them on a path to housing stability. But oh, it is not simple, and there have been some twists and turns. What is this and what has been happening? [00:25:50] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, it's a very Pierce County story - I really love it for that, 'cause it is very complicated. What the county wants to do - and by the county, I mean the County Executive Bruce Dammeier and his administration - is permanent supportive housing. It's housing designed for chronically homeless individuals. It's not like an apartment building-type situation - it's actually individual homes in a community. The County Executive's office became enamored with this model - it has had some success, from what I understand, in Texas - and they wanted to bring it back to Pierce County. This was a number of years ago. They started the process of potentially looking for a location for it, which proved really difficult because it's a major project. They eventually settled on a piece of land out in the Spanaway area - it's got some wetlands, it's got some concerns around it. They ended up choosing a provider to run it - Tacoma Rescue Mission. What they want to do is use about $21, $22 million in federal COVID money to build this site and then let Tacoma Rescue Mission run it. To make it feasible, they changed some zoning. Broadly, it's an idea that has widespread support. It's something that the Democrats, liberals have supported for a long time. I support it, I think it's a good idea. Providing permanent supportive housing, 200-some-odd units of it, it's a good idea. But the details of it have become very tricky. There's some questions about - was the Rescue Mission kind of baked in as a provider even before they saw it for applicants? Are they pushing too hard on this specific piece of land? There's challenges now to the zoning changes. It is very complicated. It's moving forward, but it's got some significant hurdles to clear. The most recent development is the County Council changed the zoning to make it possible - that was challenged by a couple of places, and that's where things stand. [00:27:34] Crystal Fincher: I just want to point out for those who are not familiar with Pierce County politics, Pierce County Council - the Pierce County Executive is a Republican. And what's the split on the Council now between Republican and Democrat? [00:27:46] Matt Driscoll: It's a slight Democrat majority - I believe it's 4-3. The only reason I hesitate is because Tacoma has nine, Pierce County has seven - I always have to do the math - it's 4-3, 4-3 leaning Dems. [00:27:56] Crystal Fincher: I always get confused with the numbers. You look at a city like Burien and the mess that they're going through with their majority on their council - this is a different kind of situation. Sometimes where you have a Republican executive saying - Hey, we think this can work, there's a model somewhere, let's go learn about it - actually engaging in trying to have a solution, the conversation is starting with action, and what are we going to do? There was a piece this week in The News Tribune going through public records - looking at this model, one of the controversies starting out was that this trip was taken with the Tacoma Rescue Mission and went on this learning, fact-finding mission to see what Austin's doing up close, to see if it's something that could be feasible here. And the contract to do this that was competitively bid ended up going to the same person, which made - the same organization involving this person - making some people go - Wait a minute. Was the fix in on this contract? - especially looking at some of the scoring of the bidding. That seems like maybe it was cooked a little bit in favor of this, but then you have other people saying - This is a pretty normal way that something like this progresses. How did you see this? [00:29:09] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, Pierce County is a big county, but just small-town style - I love this stuff, there is so much depth to it. At the center of this, you have the county, which has access to $21, $22 million in federal funds to do something about homelessness. The county executive wants to give that to Tacoma Rescue Mission, which as you point out, won a competitive bid to build this facility. The idea is that through philanthropic fundraising and just what the Rescue Mission does, they'll be able to fund it moving forward. What makes it slightly different is you've got a Republican county executive saying - We have to do something to serve this population, to house this population, and the answer is permanent supportive housing - which is a little outside the box for conservatives. The County Executive's Office believes that, with this one-time investment, the government can step back. Then you get into questions of Duke Paulson from the Rescue Mission going on these trips even before the bids start being taken - lo and behold, the Rescue Mission wins the bid, LIHI was the other bidder. There was a competitive bid process - they did go through steps, but naturally it raises questions of - Was that kind of procedural? Was that legitimate? When it all comes out in the wash, it's a very Pierce County thing - there's reason for concern of - was this the outcome everyone wanted from the beginning? You can make the answer that - yeah, yeah, clearly it was. I think they went down there, they got this idea in mind, they thought the Rescue Mission would be a good place to run it, and that's where they ran with. On the other end of the spectrum there, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Rescue Mission has a long history of serving homelessness in Pierce County. Regardless of what you believe about the religious aspects of Rescue Mission does, they're a well-respected organization in Pierce County when it comes to serving the homeless. Pierce County is a small place. Should we not expect the County Executive's Office to have a close working relationship with one of the primary providers of homelessness in Pierce County? It raises a lot of questions about backroom deals. It's important to keep in mind at the end of the day, they are trying to do something good. I think it's good that we're asking these questions. It's good that we have this coverage. My colleague, Shea Johnson, just delivered a big package on this this week - it's really well done, folks should read it. It's small-town politics and they're trying to do something good, but there are a lot of questions along the way. [00:31:21] Crystal Fincher: Including questions about the site that has been determined for this. Siting is always a major issue, especially when it comes to siting things that are going to serve the homeless. People have a lot of feelings about this - some don't want it to happen at all, but a site was chosen. This site that was chosen - in the Spanaway area - there may be some environmental concerns. Sometimes things look very black and white from a simple explanation, but it is not infrequent in these situations where you have multiple issues, multiple interests, multiple people who ultimately want good things having different perspectives and having issues impact these groups and these stakeholders in different ways. Is it okay to move forward on a site? We just talked about having to take urgent action to mitigate climate change, to not - continuous sprawl, destroying local ecosystems - that seems to be the major issue in first passing this and then the repeal of the passage over the veto of the Pierce County Executive of the zoning for the site. They could still move forward, but wouldn't have future flexibility attached to this use without another change. [00:32:36] Matt Driscoll: You're right. The Rescue Mission has cleared certain hurdles at this point - the reversal of the zoning change wouldn't affect them - they're vested, they can move forward provided they continue to check the boxes in terms of all the sorts of things they'd have to do to make it happen. The ways that this is potentially getting derailed has a lot to do with politics. At the center of what we have going on here is a dispute on the Growth Management Act. And one of the reasons that this was interesting from the beginning is you had a Republican county executive proposing a major facility to serve the chronically unhoused - the most difficult population to serve. He wanted to put that in rural Pierce County. Normally what happens with something like that is it gets smack dab in the middle of Tacoma, right? Because none of these outlying, more conservative areas want anything to do with that. So the very fact that he was willing to acknowledge that it would be advantageous to put a facility like this somewhere in the more rural parts of the county where - assuming his base is out there - that took some guts and there's been a lot of pushback on that. But you also see attention here where the county executive is saying - Look, in order to build the type of housing we need to serve the unhoused, we need to build facilities like this in areas that are potentially sensitive. That's a broad description, but I think that's what it comes down to. The zoning was challenged and the County Council is getting advice that there might be something to those challenges, particularly the second one has them a little bit worried. They went back and changed the zoning to get out of trouble, to quash those challenges. You have a much broader debate about land use and sprawl and what we should build where, and you've got familiar conservative talking points of - like we need to make it easier for people to build wherever they want. Then you've got kind of Democrats on the Council saying - You know, zoning matters, we have to protect these areas, we have to limit sprawl. But does that then mean that all the stuff that we build ends up being dense, transit-oriented? One of the elements that the county executive's office would say is appealing about this model is because it is more individual homes, it's not a warehousing situation, it's a community. This tension over growth management and how much flexibility should we create to allow this to be built in areas that are designated as sensitive or more rural - I don't know. [00:35:01] Crystal Fincher: You're doing a fantastic job explaining it. This is a complex issue that takes some time to talk through. One of the reasons why I do this show is so we can talk through it and really come to an understanding. I really appreciated that package in The News Tribune this week that gave really helpful background and context to what's happening. The final element is that the viability and success of this relies on private fundraising - it does seem there's some money out there. The flags raised with this repeal of zoning is that this may make fundraising for this property more complicated, more challenging - seeing as that there may not be the flexibility moving forward, or the seeming collaboration, or green light that some people may have previously thought was there. Who knows what's gonna happen? Do you see this likely being built? What do you see moving forward? [00:35:55] Matt Driscoll: I'm not exactly sure how much of that I buy from Tacoma Rescue Mission and its supporters - I've got a lot of respect for that agency - I know Duke well. What we're seeing here is they're trying to maintain as much flexibility as possible to move forward from a development standpoint, as advantageous to what they wanna do in the future. The bottom line is they could build what they propose to build, provided they clear the necessary hurdles as it speaks. So I don't know how sympathetic I am to the idea that they need additional flexibility to build even more on sensitive areas or whatever - or we need to change the zoning across the whole county to make this thing possible - but I could be wrong on that. But in terms of its overall prospects, one other thing I would note that makes this interesting is because there is another political element in this question about funding. The Democrats on the Council, to their credit, support such an idea. They really leveraged the County Executive and Republicans' desire to build this thing into passing a behavioral health sales tax, which could potentially go to fund something like this, or something much like this, down the road. That's another element of that - the support for this village ultimately hinged on Republicans being willing to support them and passing that - they needed a super majority. So that's another interesting wrinkle on this. And one of the reasons I love this issue - because it's just so Pierce County - it's politics and power and relationships, but I think everyone is trying to do a good thing. We're trying to build permanent supportive housing. We're trying to protect sensitive areas and limit sprawl. So your broader question - Will this thing get built? I have no idea. When it initially went through, I probably would have put it at maybe 70/30. The package that Shea Johnson put together really illustrates the desire and the support to get this thing together. It has bipartisan support. Everybody wants to build 200-some odd units of permanent supportive housing. There's the desire locally to do it. I do think that politics in Pierce County requires Democrats and Republicans to work together to do things. There's not a potential here in Pierce County for Democrats to just do everything the way they want to do it - that's not gonna happen - you're gonna have to work together in some regard. And here you have an opportunity to work together to build what could be a really important project for the area. [00:38:09] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense to me. Well, we will continue to follow that - certainly a lot to follow and a lot left to see as it develops. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 25th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is metro news columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll - always great insight and information from Matt. [00:38:38] Matt Driscoll: It was wonderful to be here once again - like I think I said last time - I always enjoy the opportunity to come on here and play exotic Pierce County man for the listeners up north. Again, I feel like I - there's so much to get into with the homeless village and I appreciate your time, your willingness to dedicate some time to it and talk about it. I would just recommend folks read the package 'cause I don't really feel like I did it justice - it's very complicated, it's been going on for a long time, but it's really important for this neck of the woods. So thanks for having me on. [00:39:04] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And we will link that in the resources in the show notes and online. You can find Matt on Twitter @mattsdriscoll. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on all of the platforms @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast - to get the Friday week-in-review shows 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 podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

 What's Trending: Trump has a partisan judge who doesn't want to be called out for being partisan, and light rail repairs will extend into September and Todd Briske is running for position 8 on the Tacoma City Council. He wants to beef up the police force to conquer the crime crisis. Big Local: A Federal Way council candidate accused of stealing has multiple shoplifting charges in past and bomb threats at the Brewmaster's Taproom in Renton.You Pick: Subject of 'The Blind Side' says his adoption was fake.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They run through results from Tuesday's primary election for Seattle City Council, Seattle School Board & King County Council, and then take a look at Tacoma City Council, Spokane City elections, and the recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from the Richland School Board. The show concludes with reflection on the influence of editorial boards and their endorsements, particularly those of The Stranger. 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 “RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank” from Hacks & Wonks   “Backlash to City Council incumbents doesn't materialize in primary” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle Public Schools primary election results 2023” by Dahlia Bazzaz and Monica Velez from The Seattle Times   “3 things we learned from the Pierce County primary, from council races to tax measures” by Adam Lynn from The News Tribune   “Voters favor recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from school board” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, we re-aired an episode highlighting how the leaders we choose make consequential decisions that affect us all. Check out my conversation with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank about how the SR 99 tunnel and today's Seattle waterfront came about. 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, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Hey! [00:01:26] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me on again, Crystal - excited to talk about election results this week. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and we have a number to talk about. These have been very eagerly awaited results - lots of candidates and contenders, especially with the Seattle City Council elections - 45 candidates all whittled down now to two in each race going into the general election. We should probably go through the results here - District 1 and going through - what did we see and what did you think? [00:01:58] Robert Cruickshank: There are some trends you'll see as we look through these races and it's good to start district by district. And in West Seattle, in District 1, one of the trends you see is that some of the establishment candidates, the candidates Bruce Harrell's side, is really putting kind of anemic performances. You look at Rob Saka in West Seattle, who's barely ahead of Phil Tavel who's run for office several times before. And Maren Costa, the much more progressive candidate, labor candidate - is the one of the two women who was fired by Amazon for doing climate organizing before the pandemic - so she's a strong climate champion, Stranger-endorsed candidate. Maren Costa is in the low 30s and will probably go higher as more ballots come in this week. But Rob Saka is one of the two candidates who benefited from a independent expenditure by right-wing billionaires and corporate donors. The reason they targeted him in this race and Maritza Rivera in District 4, which we'll talk about in a moment, is they knew that those two candidates were struggling and needed that huge influx of cash to help convince voters to support them and not - maybe in this case - Phil Tavel over Maren Costa. So Rob Saka at 25% or so right now - it's not really a strong showing. Maren Costa in the low 30s - your progressive candidate, you'd like to be a little bit higher - she's in a great position right now. And one of the things you're seeing in this race - and you will see in the others - is in addition to the fact that the establishment candidates did worse than expected, in addition to incumbents doing well, you're also starting to see that a number of progressive candidates are surviving this supposed backlash that never actually happened. If you talk to or listen to Brandi Kruse, or watch KOMO, or read some of the more unhinged Seattle Times editorials, you would have assumed that coming into this election, there's going to be a massive backlash favoring genuinely right-wing candidates who really want to just crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness - that just didn't happen. What I see in District 1, and you'll see in all these other races, is a reversion to pre-pandemic politics between corporate centrists and progressive candidates. That's where you're starting to see the things shake out - you're not having right-wing candidates like Ann Davison getting traction. And candidates on the left, there weren't very many of them this year - had a little bit of traction, we'll see, in District 5, but otherwise it wasn't really a factor. So I think you're coming back to pre-pandemic politics where a progressive candidate like Maren Costa can do well in West Seattle. If you remember in 2015, when we first went to districts, the race in West Seattle was very close - Lisa Herbold only won by about 30 votes. Looking at the numbers in District 1 so far, I would not be surprised to see a very close race between Maren Costa and Rob Saka, but Rob Saka is not the strong candidate that his backers expected. And Maren Costa has a lot of momentum and energy behind her - in West Seattle, you're seeing voters responding to the message that she's giving. [00:05:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. I also found it surprising to see how anemic the performance by some of those establishment moderate candidates - not only did they need that conservative PAC money to get through, but they were leading in fundraising by quite a significant bit - Rob Saka was far ahead of others in terms of fundraising, we saw the same in some other districts. So it was really interesting - it's hard to finish poorly in a primary or to not run away with the lead, really, in a primary when you have a significant fundraising lead - especially when you have additional money coming in. Seattle voters are starting to get a little wiser - still the challenge is there - but starting to get a little wiser at looking at whose donors are there and do those donors indicate how they're going to vote? Looks like in the history of Seattle politics - maybe drawing some conclusions on that. I think there are interesting conversations about the, whether this is a change election or stay the course election, whether people want something different or the same. And I think that's a more complicated answer than just change or different. One, we don't have a uniform city council. There's a range of positions and perspectives on the council, so to try and characterize it as "this progressive council" isn't necessarily correct. And now we're going to have a lot of turnover, we're going to see what this new composition is going to be, but it's hard to characterize that. And then you have the mayor on the other side - who is definitely a moderate, not a progressive there - and so the mayor is still dictating a lot of the policy in the city. Even some things that have been funded by the council, direction that has been moved has not been taken action on by the mayor. Saying that you want to stay the course really feels like a more moderate course these days, especially when looking at the approaches to public safety with a lot of criminalization of poverty - when you talk about homelessness and the outsize focus on sweeps, instead of trying to house people and connect them to services consistently. So that whole conversation is always interesting to me and feels a little bit reductive, a little too simplistic for what is actually going on. But we should probably talk about some of the other races, too. What did you see in District 2 with Tammy Morales and Tanya Woo, along with kind of an also-ran - another candidate who I don't think topped 5% - but that is a closer race than some of the others appear to be on their face, although there were a lot fewer candidates in this race. [00:07:34] Robert Cruickshank: Again, we can think back to 2015 where Tammy Morales nearly beat the incumbent Bruce Harrell, losing by a little less than 500 votes. She won by a larger margin when the seat was open after Harrell stepped down in 2019. A lot of the sort of conventional wisdom from the establishment class is that Morales was in real trouble, but she's hovering around 50% right now. Tanya Woo's close - it'll be a close election in the fall, but you have to say that Morales has the advantage here. Incumbency does matter. We need to look at the maps, but I know that there's been a lot of frustration in the Chinatown International District with Morales and with City Hall more generally, but the rest of District 2 seems to still have confidence in Tammy Morales' leadership, and still willing to send her back to City Hall for a second term. The exception to that was in noticing that the closer I get to Lake Washington, the Tanya Woo signs pop up a lot more. The closer I get to Rainier and MLK, more Tammy Morales signs. That's a typical split in terms of the electorate in the South End, and I think it favors Morales. She's done a great job on a lot of issues facing the community, she's been there for the community. Tanya Woo is running a strong campaign - Woo is not a right-wing candidate, Woo is much more of a center-left candidate who is really close to the Harrell administration. And again, it'll be a close race. If you're looking for a backlash, if you're looking for a rejection of a progressive city council, you are not seeing it in District 2. Morales, I think, has the advantage here going into November. [00:09:01] Crystal Fincher: I would agree. Now, District 3, coming on the heels of our announced departure of Councilmember Kshama Sawant from the council, there's going to be a new councilmember here. This is an open-seat race. We see Joy Hollingsworth and Alex Hudson making it through to the general election. What's your take on this? [00:09:22] Robert Cruickshank: Joy Hollingsworth has probably hit her ceiling - she's pulling around 40% right now. If you look back - ever since we went to districts in 2015, obviously being on the ballot changes the dynamics - you can get some pretty liberal people who are - I don't know if I like the socialism, 'cause they could get close. And so there's at least, you would assume, 40 to 45% for a more centrist candidate even in District 3, but not much beyond that. And what you're seeing is that as more ballots come in, Alex Hudson's numbers are growing, and there are quite a few other really good candidates in that race who also split the progressive vote. Hudson will almost certainly unite that progressive vote. I think very few of those voters are going to go from someone like Andrew Ashiofu or Ry Armstrong or Alex Cooley over to Joy Hollingsworth - a few might. But I think Alex Hudson is going to have the advantage here going in to the November election as well. [00:10:15] Crystal Fincher: This is an interesting race. There are eight candidates in this race, one - so very, very crowded race - number of progressive candidates in here. So there definitely was some splitting going on. This is a bit different than some of the open seat races that we see where oftentimes there is a candidate who feels like they're carrying on the same direction or philosophy or policy stance as the incumbent, but the incumbent decided not to go anymore. And so there're oftentimes as well, the choice of maintaining the same kind of policy direction or going different. I don't think that's the case here. And also to your point that Kshama Sawant not being in this race - yes, some people see the socialism in question, but Kshama had the ability to motivate a whole entire squad of volunteers that blanketed that district. And so looking at the absolutely impressive ground game - we've talked about it before on the program - lots to learn from for Democrats looking at that and others at how to expand the electorate and really get people to turn out to vote is something that Kshama and her campaign did extremely well. There's a different dynamic here, and it's going to be interesting to see if one of these candidates can motivate and galvanize younger people to a degree that comes close to what Kshama did. It looks like that was not the case in the primary, probably - we're still fairly early in the returns, but turnout looks concerning, especially among younger people here. So the entire dynamic of that race in that district just feels a lot more different than some of the other ones. And so this is going to be an interesting one to follow. [00:11:50] Robert Cruickshank: I agree - you're right to point to Sawant's just political genius. Sawant is one of the most effective candidates, campaigners, and politicians we see in the City in a long, long time. She has a really strong ability to speak to a broad progressive base in Capitol Hill. And in District 3, she speaks well to renters and people who are lower wage workers - they know she has their back. Her campaign operation is one of the best the City has had. Talking to people who live in District 3 - they would report every time Sawant's on the ballot, they had Sawant organizers at their doors almost every day until they turned in their ballots. They got the work done. They were really good at that. And that is a infrastructure that is unique to Sawant. Sawant always wanted to turn that into a movement, into an organization - was never quite able to. And so none of the other candidates have built that yet. As you point out with turnout, they're going to need to. Alex Hudson, looking like the more progressive candidate in this race, is going to have to figure out how to build something close to what Sawant had without having the sort of once-in-a-generation political charisma and skills that Sawant had. Now, Hudson is a great candidate. Hudson has a lot of experience at City Hall, knows the policy well. But to actually win the election, they're gonna have to figure out how to build some of that momentum and movement going for her to make sure that she wins. My guess is Hudson probably gets around 53% in November, but she's gonna have to work hard for it. [00:13:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, she's gonna have to work hard for it. I will say a couple things. One, just on legacy, I guess, moving forward - absolutely galvanized the public. I have seen several people say - Out of everyone, I know that I can count on Sawant to represent my interests. That's important. If you have a voter saying that, they are a loyal voter - unless you do something completely out of character, they're gonna be there for you like you've been there for them. There are questions about how well Sawant worked with her colleagues. There's ongoing debate about leading on an issue and pushing for progress versus how much to try and work with, potentially compromise with colleagues. And Sawant was not one who led with compromise. And that is something that a lot of people admired. I've said over and over again that a lot of times, especially speaking with more moderate people, they seem to always view Sawant's election as a fluke almost - Oh, some other condition, some other thing helped Sawant get in and that's the only reason why - which I think is why you saw so much energy around the recall elections and her re-elections. But she represents that district - there is no getting around - the people voted for her on purpose. She's a good example of looking at some people in some positions and saying - Hey, just move forward. Obviously $15 an hour minimum wage started in SeaTac, but then Kshama certainly picked up that mantle for Seattle and said - We need to get this done. Probably without her very direct and overt support for that, $15 an hour does not happen in Seattle when it did, how it did. If you follow me online, I often ask for mail or feedback from people in different districts. And I will say I had a couple people in District 3 who consistently showed me the mail that they receive - a couple of them in some harder to find places, harder to canvass places who don't get many canvassers - even with Sawant, they definitely did, but not as much as some of the other ones. Alex Hudson's campaign team made it there to drop off lit, made it there to knock on some doors. So that was encouraging. I'm always a big fan of candidates getting on those doors, talking to their constituents, their neighbors directly. Alex Hudson did a better job of that in the primary. And so hopefully that is something that can be built on and expanded upon. Want to talk about District 4, which is another interesting result. We had, in this race, a different dynamic where there was one clear progressive candidate and then a number of different shades of moderate to conservative candidates. This race even featured a self-described climate skeptic - just a number of different perspectives on the center to the right. And here we had Ron Davis with a pretty strong finish, considering the split in this race - we're sitting right about 42% right now - and as we record this on Thursday morning. And then Ken Wilson not making it through the primary, Maritza Rivera making it through - both of those fundraised pretty significantly. Maritza, another recipient of some PAC support. So looking at this race, how do you see the primary? And then how do you see the general shaping up between Ron Davis and Maritza Rivera? [00:16:31] Robert Cruickshank: The corporate PAC for Rivera was key because I think there's recognition that without it, Ken Wilson probably would have come in second. Wilson had a strong base of support - he raised, I think, the most Democracy Vouchers in the city, Ron Davis quickly caught up. Wilson had a genuine popular base of support among the NIMBYs and right wingers in District 4, which there are many. That's why you needed the right wing billionaires and corporate CEOs to come in and help drag Rivera up into second place. Going into the fall, I wanna acknowledge that there are people out there who take a more skeptical view of what this means for progressives - like Erica Barnett, for example - arguing that this isn't actually that great for progressives, they're getting into the upper 30s, low 40s, but things could unite against them in the fall. And we can look back at 2021 and say - Yeah, that's what happened in the mayor's race. I was looking at the numbers earlier this morning. After all is said and done in the August 2021 primary, Bruce Harrell had 34%, Lorena González had 32%. It looked like it was a real horse race. It turned out that was almost González's ceiling - she got, obviously, a little bit more than that, closer to 40%, but not quite. And Harrell scooped up almost everything else. I don't think that's gonna happen in District 4 and I don't think it's gonna happen elsewhere. For a few reasons - one, I think the mayor's race is a unique animal - citywide. I also think 2021 was a difficult moment for progressives in Seattle - they hadn't quite figured out how to handle this backlash to defund, concerns about crime and homelessness. Candidates are starting to figure that out a lot better. So Ron Davis is a very smart campaigner. He has really sensible answers on the issues that resonate even with more older conservative voters. He's got a real upside. I also think there are a non-zero number of Ken Wilson voters who might go over to Ron. Ken sent out a really interesting mailer in the last week of the election with a bunch of check marks about different positions - designed to contrast Ken with Rivera, but a lot of the check marks are for Ron as well. And what Ken's campaign was saying is that Rivera is the insider - she's been inside City Hall for several years, corporate backing, establishment backing. Ron doesn't have that. And I think a lot of Wilson voters will see in Ron someone who's also not of the establishment. I wouldn't want to overstate that, but a wider electorate in the fall, Davis getting a few votes here and there from Wilson - he's got a shot at winning. [00:18:58] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. And the way these votes consolidate is probably going to matter in this race - looking at how they stack up, this is going to be a competitive race. This is not one where the primary winner is automatically going to be the general election winner. Overall, looking at just how this district has trended over the past decade - the district is unquestionably moving left, which is really interesting. This is one of the districts that had been reliably moderate to conservative for a long time. That's not the case - we would not have seen even over about 42% right now - this result would not have happened half a decade back. This is just a different place. I think that is what's informed some of the odd policy choices of people like Gerry Pollet, who has received a lot of backlash, but I think he was counting on the composition of the district as it used to be and not as it is today. There were rumors of him potentially getting in the city council race - there weren't rumors, they were confirmed, I think, by someone close to him. Looking at it, he no longer really fits the district or provided a contrast that people felt comfortable moving to to support a candidacy. So it's going to be also interesting to see how things progress with him after considering and not deciding to do local stuff and going there. But this will be an interesting race. This is going to be one where we might see more of a focus and highlighting on the role of these donors, the role of the corporate support, how close Maritza is to the current administration. If people want a change, that really doesn't seem to include Maritza at all. She would be the last person you'd vote for if you wanted a change. So this is going to be a really interesting race to follow. [00:20:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and it's an interesting race also because it is a chance for progressives to pick up a seat on the City Council. The assumption, as we talked about going into this election from the conventional wisdom centrist pundit classes, that progressives are going to get dealt a pretty harsh blow here - these results suggest that's not necessarily going to happen. And in fact - Ron running a really strong campaign - he could flip that seat for progressives. He's a really sensible candidate for that district as well. He's a dad in his early forties. He's run a small business. He's been active in his neighborhood association. He knows the district well. He's a really good fit there. A lot of those voters, as you've said, are not much more overtly conservative, Pollet, Alex Pedersen types. They're there, clearly. But a lot of younger families are going to be there - ready to vote in November. And of course, in November, which you don't have in August, is a UW student body that is on campus - that's something that is in Ron's back pocket that can really give him a significant boost in the November election. [00:21:48] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. We could change when we have this primary. We could change how we have this primary, frankly, and change our style of voting. We can move to even-year elections as the county has done and has voted to do. Why are we voting in August when people are away for the summer, when younger people are gone? [00:22:09] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, to move up to where I live in District 5 - talking about what happened here - those changes would have made a huge difference. Ranked choice voting here would have gone a long way because we had quite an interesting field that didn't necessarily match what you see elsewhere. There isn't an obvious centrist-Harrell candidate. Cathy Moore seems closest to that, but she's also not the City Hall insider. Cathy is a much more traditionally liberal candidate, someone who sits between progressive and center - got around 30-something percent of the vote, not a huge showing. There were a number of progressive to genuinely left-wing candidates up here in the far northern reaches of Seattle, which 10 years ago is considered one of the most conservative parts of the city. We're seeing that's not necessarily the case - you have Tye Reed, who jumped in almost at the end of filing, presenting a very left-wing perspective. Christiana ObeySumner jumping in - they present a also-left perspective and appear to be the second place candidate - backed by, of course, a Stranger endorsement - narrowly edging out Nilu Jenks, who is a much more traditional progressive candidate running strong on climate issues. Nilu's campaign fell just short. I know that a lot of Nilu supporters are really frustrated at the way the Stranger handled this race. It is an example of where a ranked choice system, or having this in an even-numbered year, or having the primary at another time rather than at the dead of summer, could have produced a really interesting and fruitful conversation between these different candidates and campaigns about what it means to be progressive, especially up here in a part of the city that is often overlooked or neglected. I know the South End really has a pretty significant, legitimate beef on that front - but so does Lake City, so does Broadview, so does the far northern reaches of Aurora Avenue once you get past Green Lake. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out here. I don't think that the race between Moore and ObeySumner is going to resemble races in other parts of the city. They're much more interesting and unpredictable candidates. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: It's too close to officially call right now, as of pre-drop on Thursday - we have Christiana ObeySumner at 22.1% and Nilu Jenks at 19%. It's hard to see this shift change. It's hard - as I'm looking at it, what I bet - that Christiana's the one that makes it through, I'd say that's likely. Would I say it's absolutely conclusive, we don't need to consider any more drops? No. But odds are, with the way that votes typically shake out, that this isn't going to change radically. There are a few different left candidates. It's not like there's consolidation to just one candidate. And because Christiana also got The Stranger endorsement, which a lot of late voters are relying more heavily on - they already don't have a formed opinion - so it's hard to see the vote shifting away from Christiana. As we look at this race in District 6, which does have an incumbent, Dan Strauss, who is over 50% - 50.7% right now, followed by Pete Hanning at 30%. This is another one where the moderates didn't seem to get a great bang for their buck. [00:25:17] Robert Cruickshank: And this is a race where it's clear that - one, the power of incumbency still matters. And two, the supposed backlash to the progressive city council is overstated. Dan Strauss getting above 50% is a big deal. He voted, I think, once for defunding the police in the summer of 2020, and then fairly quickly walked that back. But that didn't stop his opponents from sending a bunch of mailers to houses in District 6, explaining that Dan Strauss had voted to defund the police. That doesn't appear to have hurt him at all. The fact you have Pete Hanning, who is head of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, small business guy - you would think that he would be a ideal candidate for that part of the city. It turns out he's not. He's languishing there at 30%. Strauss is above 50% before even more progressive ballot drops happen on Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon in the dead of August summer. We're learning a couple things here - not just the power of incumbency, not just the fact the right wing backlash doesn't exist - we're also learning that Ballard and Fremont are more progressive than people assumed. It'll be interesting to see the map of where these votes come in. The Magnolia portions of the district, anything on the water, on the Sound, probably voted for Hanning or other candidates like that. Where the population base is - in Ballard, up to Greenwood, Fremont - I bet they're probably voting for Dan Strauss. And I think it is a endorsement of Strauss's attempt to straddle the fence. He gets a lot of criticism, I think justifiably so, for the way he flip-flops often. But appears to be working for Dan Strauss. Progressives have a bit of work cut out for us. I posted about this on Twitter - got a lot of people responding to me that Strauss is not a progressive. I would agree with that, but he's willing to listen to and vote for progressives if we organize him correctly. So I see it as an opportunity here. And also just the fact that the right-wing backlash didn't show up in this district at all is, I think, a big win. And I think it's a significant sign going forward that progressives have more of an opportunity than we thought. This race in particular reminds me of 2022. At the state level and especially the federal level - going into the November election, there was a lot of concern, worry, even predictions of doom that the Democrats were just gonna get wiped out. That didn't happen at the state level. In fact, Democrats picked up seats. At the federal level, barring a meltdown of the Democratic Party in New York State, Democrats could have held onto the House. They did hold onto the Senate. And I think you're seeing something similar here - that this assumption, I think, especially from the establishment media and that pundit class that - Oh, this is a center-right country, maybe a centrist city - it's not true. There is more support for a progressive agenda in the city, and in this country than is assumed. I think progressives need to internalize that and realize we have real opportunities here to move forward. And if we're making sure that we're listening to what voters are saying and bringing them along with us. [00:28:09] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. A lot of times people talk about - People are dissatisfied with the council, people think things are on the wrong track. Sometimes we use things like progressive and moderate - these broad labels - as a shorthand for policy. If you look at policy in practice in Seattle, it's hard to call a lot of it progressive on the issues that have been plaguing Seattle the most - on public safety, on homelessness, on issues of inequality. Policy has not been what progressives would call progressive. Moderates love to call things progressive. Moderates are extremely emotionally invested in being called progressive. And what we've seen is policy passed by those moderates with messaging calling it progressive - we've seen sweep after sweep after sweep, hot spot-focused policing, which doesn't seem to accomplish much in the longterm. And so when we just ask - Are you satisfied? And someone says - No. Somehow it's always characterized as - Well, people don't like progressive policy and they want something different. Or we're characterizing the council as progressive, which is not a clean label for that council - it's a lot more varied than that. And saying - Clearly, they want more moderate policy. And that's not true, especially in the City of Seattle - some people want to go to actual progressive policy and are thinking that - Okay, I hear this rhetoric, but I'm not seeing it in practice. I want what they talked about. I want what they're selling. That's also why you see so many candidates - who people who aren't moderate would call moderate, who progressives would call moderate - mirroring progressive messaging. Even though they're getting support from some really right-wing people, some people who traditionally support Republicans, are very opposed to taxation. Still, if you look at their mailers, if you look at different things - I'm a progressive champion. I believe in progressive policy. Sara Nelson ran on police reform. And you can see she was more aligned with her donors and different things - that's a lesson that Seattle is starting to learn. But just because there are some progressives on the council, a couple of progressives on the council, just because there's a label calling it that by people who most do not consider to be progressives - that's just a messaging trick. You have to follow up on that question - Why are you dissatisfied? Those answers are a lot more interesting and a lot more informative about why people are voting the way they are and why the reception to different councilmembers is the way that it is. [00:30:36] Robert Cruickshank: That's right. And I think it is going to be interesting to see who actually makes it onto the council because the fence sitters - we talked about one, Dan Strauss, we'll talk about the other, Andrew Lewis, in a moment. If there are other genuine progressives on the City Council - if we get people like Ron Davis and Maren Costa and Tammy Morales reelected, Alex Hudson elected - it becomes easier to pull those fence sitters in the direction of more progressive policy. We got to get them reelected. And this is where - you look at our last district here, District 7 - Andrew Lewis is ahead. He's in the low to mid 40% range. We'll see what happens over the next two ballot drops where he lands in the primary. It's good, it's not as strong as Dan Strauss. But Lewis, I think, understands what he needs to do to win and will do things that lead him down policy paths that progressives don't like. We saw this on Monday where - he signaled he would do this at the vote in June and he did - stood with Bruce Harrell to agree on a plan to pass the ordinance criminalizing drug possession in Seattle, incorporating the recently passed state law. And I'm not a fan of that ordinance, not a fan of that state law. I'm also not shocked at all that it played out here exactly the way it played out in the Legislature. Progressives and progressive-ish candidates and electeds said No, voted it down the first time. It came back. They won a few concessions, more money - but I think as Erica Barnett has pointed out, it's not new money. They won promises of diversion first, but they're promises - it's all going to be overseen by Ann Davison - we'll see what happens here. This is an example of Andrew Lewis trying to straddle the fence. And there's a political logic to that. Lewis won a very close race over former SPD chief Jim Pugel in 2019. It looks like he'll be up against Bob Kettle this year, who I think is running - clearly the strongest candidate of the people chasing Andrew Lewis, not surprised that Olga Sagan didn't really pan out - she got 14%, which is nothing to sneeze at. But again, the right-wing backlash is not real. We'll see what Andrew Lewis winds up doing. Lewis is someone who is clearly susceptible to being pressured by progressives - that's a good thing. I think those of us who are genuine progressives would love to see someone who's more progressive in that seat. We're not going to get that this year. It's not going to happen, nor in the District 6 seat. Most progressives I've talked to understand that and recognize that our interests are better served by the reelection of Dan Strauss and Andrew Lewis than by just abandoning them. Because sometimes you have to work with the electeds you've got - I think that's where it stands in those two districts. Lewis has a higher hill to climb than Strauss, but it's doable. We'll see how that plays out in the fall. [00:33:16] Crystal Fincher: Yep, I agree with that. I also want to talk about the school board races, which you have talked about, written about. How did you see this playing out? [00:33:24] Robert Cruickshank: It's interesting. The power of incumbency matters. There were two races on the ballot where there were genuine contests. District 1, which covers far northern Seattle - almost overlaps District 5 in the City Council - it'd be nice if these numbers matched. This is where Liza Rankin, the incumbent, is hovering around 60% of the vote - that's partly because she got the backing of The Stranger, it's also partly because she's the incumbent. It's also partly because - while there's a lot of discontent among parents in Seattle about the way the district is being run, that hasn't crystallized into any real organizing momentum yet. Rankin's main challenger, Debbie Carlsen, who is LGBTQ, has a LGBTQ family, has done a lot of work as an educator and nonprofit leader - Debbie's one of these candidates who files for school board during filing week - that is pretty common thing to happen and it takes you a little bit of time to get your feet underneath you as a candidate. Debbie's done that over the course of July, but a lot of the endorsement meetings were held in early June when she was still figuring it out - probably didn't give the greatest Stranger interview and is unusually closely allied with the current majority of the school board. Even if The Stranger had endorsed Debbie, Liza probably comes out well ahead. It's partly, again, the power of incumbency and the fact that a lot of voters just don't really know much about what's happening with the schools. That could change in a matter of weeks if the district does, as is expected, announce a list of schools they intend to close. That's the sort of thing that gets people's attention real quick. Similarly, you look over at District 3 where there's an opening - District 3 School Board overlaps District 4 City Council, so we're talking now about northeastern Seattle, Laurelhurst, Bryant, Ravenna, part of Wedgwood. That's a place where three really interesting candidates - Evan Briggs, who seems to have the most support so far at 38%, backing of The Stranger, backed by the incumbent majority in the school board. Ben Gitenstein, who's an interesting guy - running as a protest candidate, but has smart background in finance and understanding how districts work, backing of The Stranger - he's at 33%. Christie Robertson, I think, really ran a strong campaign - having the backing of Seattle Student Union, Seattle Education Association, MLK Labor, didn't get either of the newspaper endorsements, and I think that's why she's in a very close third place. That's a disappointment there, because I think she ran the best campaign she could, but coming in a close third. I thought she was the best candidate of the bunch. But August, where a lot of parents aren't paying attention - their kids are in camps or a lot of them are traveling. August also being a time of not great turnout. And people just don't know much about the schools - school board gets less coverage these days than it used to even seven, eight years ago. We'll see what happens in the fall if school closures are put on the table, with schools being named - that changes everything immediately. Now, it's also possible the school district recognizes this and wanting to protect their allies on the school board may punt that until after the election, which will merely infuriate everybody further. We'll see what happens in the fall. This is one of those where you see a 20% approval rating of the school district, but incumbency is a powerful thing. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Incumbency is an extremely powerful thing. And one thing that we did not see in the King County Council races on the ballot was any incumbent in the race. There were two open seat races on the primary ballot. What was your take on those? [00:36:46] Robert Cruickshank: Unsurprisingly, Teresa Mosqueda doing very well in the District 8 seat - that's West Seattle, Vashon Island area. She's a great campaigner and is well-liked and well-respected. She won the city council race by 20 points in 2021, while Lorena González went down to defeat and Davison and Sara Nelson won. It's a clear fact that Mosqueda knows what she's doing - she connects well with the voters and she has a really strong record. Mosqueda has got a real clear advantage going into the fall. The District 4 seat for King County Council - we're talking about northwestern Seattle from roughly Queen Anne, Magnolia, up towards Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood - that's an open seat with a set of three very progressive candidates. Jorge Barón who's hovering around 50%, will be the clear front runner going into the fall. Sarah Reyneveld, who's at 30%. And then Becka Johnson Poppe, who had 20%. And that's gonna be interesting. Jorge, again, the clear front runner, but it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. You had the other two candidates splitting the vote. I think Sarah has a really good shot of scooping up a lot of people who voted for Becka and that could be a very close race too. And I think this is one where - when you have two good progressives in a race, you want to see a good contest. You want to see them push each other to be better. You want to see them fight hard on key issues like who's gonna save Metro? The school district is talking about closing schools - Metro's talking about deleting routes. In a city this wealthy, that is this supportive of transit, that is this interested in doing climate action - for King County to be deleting routes is a huge problem. We need to be expanding the number of routes we have, the frequency on those routes. And so whoever of those candidates can really speak to the issues of transit in particular could have a real advantage going into November. [00:38:22] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. The existing routes that are left is falling through the floor. I know people are calling them "ghost buses" just because of not showing up. People have bought cars that they can barely afford. But what they can afford even less is to not get to work on time, to lose the only source of income. They have to do better with Metro. I'm looking forward to that being discussed often and robustly in the general election. [00:38:49] Robert Cruickshank: We need to name it. Dow Constantine, King County Executive, is falling down at his job on transit. For most of the 2010s, he was seen as a leader on transit - he did good work to get ST3 on the ballot and approved for Sound Transit, he did good work getting more funding for Metro. But here in the 2020s, it's a different story. He has not provided the leadership or presence that we need to save these bus routes, to address their reliability concerns. This is unacceptable, right? For people to be going out and buying cars - we can't trust the bus system. In a city where we had more of our commuters riding buses than any other big city in America before the pandemic. Obviously the pandemic shakes things up - there are challenges recruiting and retaining operators, but it has to be a top priority for the King County Executive and right now it doesn't look like it is. And this city, this region, can't survive without strong transit. Our climate goals are never going to be met - transportation is the number one source of carbon emissions in our city and in our state. And that's why these King County Council races matter because we are not seeing the leadership we need to be seeing from the top. It's going to have to come from the County Council instead. [00:39:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Both the executive and the council - because they had done the work to set it up, were just - Great, it's on autopilot and it runs. But there were signs of these shortages before the pandemic and the pandemic made it worse. And on the police side - Oh my goodness, there are shortages for police, we need to give bonuses, we need to give retention bonuses and recruitment bonuses and are doing everything we can - just a laser focus on these. I think a lot of people have noticed the lack of focus on so many shortages in so many other areas. From the school board perspective, the transportation situation, the bus drivers, a shortage there - just in so many areas, not having that kind of focus. This race in particular - speaking with a number of the candidates, they did say that they believe that we should be treating some of these other labor shortages with urgency and that we should consider the same kinds of bonuses - for example, transit drivers - that they have for sheriff's deputies, which I think would help. There needs to be active and involved management there - that's something that the council overall as a body needs to do a better job with. I hope this new injection of members with this election brings that about, helps to influence the other members. And I'm looking forward to a robust debate. The other thing about the Teresa Mosqueda and Sofia Aragon race that I thought was interesting was Teresa Mosqueda knew that helping renters, that helping small business owners, that helping people get affordable housing was an absolute critical need for Seattle. Even though at the time the conservative business interests were very opposed - they'll remain opposed, and that's an issue in this general election, that's motivating a lot of the conservative money in the race - she did it. It took a lot of know-how, it took a lot of budget smarts. And then ran on it. It's one of the most popular pieces of policy that has passed in Seattle in the past decade - it bailed the City out of this last budget cycle through the shortfall. Thank goodness that passed. Her ability to run on that and her expertise absolutely benefited her. On the flip side, Sofia Aragon, who's currently the mayor of Burien, who we've talked about before on this, is going through really a crisis in government. Recently there's another kind of letter of chastisement correcting errors in the record from the mayor and the deputy mayor in Burien, yet again, from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. This is another candidate where their voter guide statement and their communication - defund has clearly failed. That's where people are at - people are tired of hearing people complain and just that reactionary backlash, and are looking for people who are engaged, and what's really going to help. What is really going to solve this issue? And what they really have not seen recently, especially with the mayor of Burien, is engagement and policy and solutions that will help. That hurt Sofia - for someone who is a mayor in a city that has a significant population in the district to perform so poorly. And someone who arguably is - certainly in Burien - better known than Teresa Mosqueda. That gamble just failed. Hopefully that's a reminder to stop the infighting, stop the one-upmanship focus thing there, the clique-iness that has happened there with the majority on that council, and to get to work just to focus on solving the problems that the people have. In Burien, there's money on the table that they can take to help that they're refusing - and we're going to pass another camping ban. And people want actual solutions, not just rhetoric and - We're going to drive them out of town. That's not where people are at, even in the suburbs. [00:43:21] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. It reminds me a lot of the LA mayor's race last year between Karen Bass and Rick Caruso, where Caruso's wealthy developer was betting that there'd be a huge backlash to visible homelessness and that he could ride that to defeat Karen Bass. And Karen Bass, being much smarter and a much better politician, understood no. Voters want to see solutions. They want to see candidates step forward and offer reasonable answers that are going to treat people who are in crisis humanely - 'cause that's what we should be doing anyway - and that will actually going to solve the problem. And I think that's what you're seeing in King County Council District 8 - Teresa Mosqueda comes along. Everyone knows she's reasonable, sensible, committed to the solutions, and wanting to get this done. Sofia Aragon is just grandstanding. There's not a path to victory, even in King County Council District 8, for right-wing grandstanding. Those results show that really clearly. [00:44:12] Crystal Fincher: I agree. Other results from around the region that I thought were interesting were the Tacoma City Council races. Looking at the Olgy Diaz race - Olgy making it through, I think that was expected - she is going through the general election, didn't have a primary, but in a strong position. Particularly looking at the results of the race with Jamika Scott making it through to the general election against a more conservative challenger. And an incumbent in that race getting 70% of the vote. This is a situation where, again, lots of people were prepared in Tacoma - it's not Seattle, there's absolutely going to be a backlash. They have had lots of conversations and consternation, like so many other cities, about how to address homelessness, how to address poverty, how to address public safety - a lot of controversies within that police department and reform that has been needed. How did you see these races in Tacoma? [00:45:08] Robert Cruickshank: They are really interesting examples of the same phenomenon we're seeing in Seattle. I know that Tacoma is different from Seattle - don't want anyone listening in Tacoma to think that we're implying they're the same. There are some similar trends. We are seeing in Jamika Scott's strong showing here in the primaries that there is a appetite in Tacoma for genuine, real, deeply progressive change. You're also seeing that some of the backlash politics aren't necessarily succeeding in Tacoma either. Another place that we're seeing interesting things play out is Spokane - we're just having a mayoral race this year. The incumbent Nadine Woodward is very much one of these - crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness, really picking fights with the state over visible homelessness. But Lisa Brown, former state senator, former head of the State Senate in the 2000s, is pretty much neck and in a really good position to knock off the incumbent mayor. Lisa Brown running - again, is a much more reasonable, not necessarily progressive candidate. I wouldn't say Lisa Brown's progressive, but much more traditional liberal candidate who wants to come in with sensible solutions. You're seeing all over the place - the right wing backlash is not necessarily either showing up, or performing very well, to polls. [00:46:15] Crystal Fincher: This is a situation where sometimes, especially in Seattle, we get very focused on progressive and moderate, progressive and conservative. I think because of where journalism has ended up and because The Times and Stranger are such consequential endorsements - and they typically are in a moderate, in a progressive lane - that influences how we look at and categorize things in policy. We're looking across the board in the state at every level of government - especially public safety, issues of poverty, issues of homelessness, being something that every jurisdiction has to manage. There are evidence-based solutions, and there are ones that aren't. It happens to be that the evidence-based solutions are usually those ones espoused by progressives. And the ones that are not, like doubling down on the War on Drugs, doubling down on so many things that have already failed - sweep after sweep, that just moves the problem and makes it worse and doesn't do anything to solve homelessness - that those are just failed solutions, that the data just isn't there. And so I think what we're seeing work in a lot of different cities - and usually what I focus on - is talk about the issue, talk about the solution. The label doesn't really matter to the average person on the ground. We're in politics, we talk about it a lot. The average voter is just sick and tired of hearing a lot of rhetoric and not seeing things change. They just want someone who will do something that has a shot at fixing the problem after doing the same thing over and over again and not getting great results. Even if a progressive is talking about - Hey, we need a Housing First model. That doesn't mean housing only model, but housing is necessary for those other things that may also be necessary - whether it's behavioral health assistance, whether it's assistance with substance use disorder, whether there are a variety of things - that housing is necessary for those other things to reliably work and to get this person stably housed again. That is what is working. And so it's evidence-based versus things that aren't. And we're putting these labels on them, but really it's about what is going to solve this problem. So many people in the establishment are so invested in the status quo, even though it's not working - hopefully they'll become more open to evidence-based solutions. If not, they're going to have progressive challengers and progressive candidates like Jamika Scott, who is winning the race in the primary right now at 38% over Chris Van Vechten, who is a more conservative challenger in Tacoma. We see Kristina Walker, the incumbent, who is proposing evidence-based solutions for a lot of these things at 70% - not looking at a backlash there. But also in Spokane - dealing with a lot of other issues - and I will say in a lot of areas, especially, Spokane has been a leader in the state on housing, has been a leader on the state in many issues. If you're looking at the progressive versus moderate conservative in policy and action, Spokane is looking more progressive than Seattle in a number of ways. A lot of Seattle suburbs looking more progressive if you're looking at how policy is traditionally talked about. So I really think that it's about who has a shot at actually fixing this problem. Voters have heard the other stuff for a long time and have seen it fail. That doesn't mean that every progressive candidate is automatically gonna be successful, but it does provide an opening. And I think that explains a lot of the backlash that people are expecting that did not turn up and translate. [00:49:36] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think Erica Barnett doing a good job explaining that - yes, sweeps are popular in Seattle. That is true. And that's been true for a while. They're not true because people genuinely like sweeps. It's true because you ask voters to choose between doing nothing and a sweep - they'll pick the sweep because they want a solution. If you ask them to choose between a sweep and an actual solution - Housing First policies, permanent supportive housing, actually building housing that is affordable at all income levels - 9 times out of 10, they'll pick that. What the right-wing backlash folks were counting on is enthusiastic support for sweeps as the best solution. And that's not where the voters are at in this city at all, and I think you're seeing around the state, they're not there either. [00:50:19] Crystal Fincher: You mentioned before, which I think was very smart - two years back, four years back, candidates on the left and progressives were struggling to articulate that they were opposing sweeps or opposing criminalization of poverty and had a hard time breaking through because other people were maliciously mischaracterizing what they stood for. In order to get beyond that with people who have a lot of money to maliciously mischaracterize what you're doing was getting beyond the - No, we don't want to do nothing. We want to solve this thing. When we're advocating against sweeps, it's not like people are happy with encampments. It's not like people are happy with people living outside. We believe everybody should be housed. There are different solutions there. The answer is not nothing. We certainly heard a lot from Jenny Durkan, we heard from others - Oh, the alternative is nothing. They want to do nothing. When you have people attend your press conference every time you stand at a pulpit, that message is going to carry. What progressives are doing a better job of is articulating - No, we absolutely don't want to do nothing. We find crime unacceptable, and we actually want to do something to fix it. We find homelessness unacceptable, and we're tired of spinning our wheels and spending so much money and taking so much time to not improve the problem. We want to do different things that actually have a shot. That message is carrying through more, there are going to be a lot of competitive races - I don't know that that's going to carry the day, but certainly a more effective message this go around. [00:51:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. What these results overall show is that progressives have a real opportunity, but it's not a certainty. They got to use it effectively. [00:51:50] Crystal Fincher: Anything else that you think is interesting to look at on the electoral spectrum around the state? [00:51:55] Robert Cruickshank: One thing that is gleeful and a positive outcome is Semi Bird getting recalled along with two of his allies in Richland. Semi Bird is the right-wing, soon-to-be former school board director in the Richland Public Schools who tried to overturn the state's mask mandate - that led to a recall effort that has been successful. Bird is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2024 - it's pretty much him and Dave Reichert at this point. We'll see what happens. But seeing Bird get recalled in Richland, which is not a progressive hotbed by any stretch of the imagination, is another sign that this right-wing backlash is not as strong as folks thought it was. So we'll see what happens from there. [00:52:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see what happens from there. And I wanted to mention that there are a lot of school board races that did not have more than two candidates across the state. Some races in the primary had Moms for Liberty candidates, aka people who are bringing in the desire to ban books, who are trying to overrule teachers and dictate what they can teach, and really attacking LGBTQ+ students - especially trans students - and really trying to bring hateful rhetoric and Christian nationalism into our education system. There's a Highline School District candidate that made it through to the general. There are others, like in University Place, several places across the state, that are going to have these general election match-ups with some candidates who are solutions-focused and others who are strictly running to basically sow chaos, is what it turns out to be in effect - to defund the schools, to strip standards-based education, fact-based education, to stop teaching history. They love what's going on in Florida, and they want to replicate what's going on there that is really hurting that state and community. I just want people to be aware that is a thing that is happening, and we can't afford to not be engaged in these school board races unless we want to provide a foothold for that kind of thing. Candidates that start on school boards wind up in city councils, in the Legislature, running for Congress. It is making sure that we're engaged in these very local races to make sure that we don't let someone in the door who's going to turn out to advocate for really fascist policies. [00:54:10] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And we've seen Moms for Liberty candidates fail in Washington state before. We've seen some of them make it through. We saw a strong effort to try to repeal the state's new law that protects trans kids - they narrowly failed to make it to the ballot. So far so good - knock on all the wood that there is - that they're not getting more traction here in Washington state. They're working as hard as they can, and we have to work as hard as we can to push back against that. [00:54:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. Wanted to wrap up with talking about the influence of endorsements in these elections. We've talked a lot about how consequential The Times and The Stranger endorsements have been over the past several years. I think there are a number of reasons why - I think that the thinning out of reporters covering government, covering politics on that regular beat is considerably less than it used to be, and that is impacting just how informed the public is in general on a regular basis - making these endorsements much more consequential. We also have fewer newspapers. And so those are just a couple of things making those much more important. The Stranger - looking last year - it had been at least a decade since a Stranger-endorsed candidate had not made it through a primary. The Times-endorsed candidate almost always makes it through also. So these have been and continue to be very consequential endorsements. How do you see this? [00:55:28] Robert Cruickshank: It's still the case that Stranger endorsement is essential if you're a progressive trying to get through to the general election. It confers more votes than The Times endorsement does. For those of us who are progressive, that's a good thing. It's also a double-edged sword. And you can see in Districts 3 and Districts 5 this year, some of the downsides of The Stranger endorsement. What it did is it winds up cutting off conversation, debate, and contests between the progressive candidates in the field. I like Alex Hudson - she'll make a great member of the city council. I also like the idea of seeing Alex and the other candidates in District 3, or Christiana, Tye, Nilu - the candidates in District 5 - really pushing each other hard to have to do a good job persuading progressive voters that they're the right one to carry the agenda forward. Instead, what seems to happen is Stranger makes their picks and that's the end of the discussion. You get a lot of - you alluded to this earlier - a lot of low-information progressive voters who wait until the very end, open their ballots, realizing - Oh my gosh, they're due, I've got to vote. What does The Stranger recommend? I'll vote that way. I get that. They're not stupid voters. They pay very close attention to federal politics, but they just don't know a whole lot about what's happening locally. And The Stranger is a trusted source. The Stranger is independent. They're not making endorsements usually based on relationship building. You have a clear agenda that you can trust, and they built that trusted brand over 20 years. But we have to start asking ourselves - I'm hearing more and more people asking the same question - Is it too influential? Is it too strong? Is it distorting the way campaigns are operating? Some of this is on The Stranger to ask themselves - do they want to be kingmakers or do they want to be the ones holding everybody's feet equally to the fire? I don't think you can always do both. It's also up to candidates and campaigns to figure out how do you overcome this? You can look around the country - there are lots of places in the country with strong endorsements, whether it's from an organization or an editorial board or whatever, but campaigns figure out how to get around that. I don't think progressive campaigns in Seattle have figured out how to win if The Stranger isn't backing them. I think it's time to try to get that answered - not as a slap at The Stranger, but it's unhealthy for one outlet to have that much influence. [00:57:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think that it is important just to have that conversation and cutting that off is problematic. The Stranger does a better job of actually trying to pin down candidates on answers and making it visible when someone is hedging. I think that's a very useful thing, especially in Seattle politics where lots of times people love giving a progressive impression - paint a rosy picture - Of course, I love trees and I love kids and all of that. And some people are satisfied with that, but we have to get to real specific policy answers - Would you vote yes or no on this? - to get an idea of who we're really voting for. I think The Times has really fallen down on that front. One important thing in races overall is just understanding where candidates do stand and where they're not taking a stand. And that is very predictive about how someone is going to vote and whether they're going to lean on issues, whether they can be pressured to taking a No vote on something that they may have indicated or given a nod to that they're broadly supportive of. So I hope we have robust conversations just about where candidates stan

It's Primary Week for Elections. HeartBeat welcomes two more targeted Black women candidates. We will get to hear how they progressed, what their experiences were/are and the pattern of the takedown of Black women. Welcome Mary Anderson, Esq - for Superior Court Judge of Snohomish County and Jamika Scott, for Tacoma City Council.

We've got a big pack of candidate interviews. We invited the five candidates to sit down with Citizen Tacoma and talk about the issues affecting District 3 and Tacoma. Four responded (so far?). This interview is with Chris Van Vechten. We talk about what he sees as the top issues affecting the district and how he sees himself working with the council. We also ask every candidate to fill in the blank. "Tacoma just wouldn't be Tacoma without......?" And get some interesting answers! Tune in to this interview and then check out all the rest of the candidates on CitizenTacoma.com or in your favorite podcast app. Links Chris Van Vechten for Tacoma City Council, District 3 Channel 253 membership

We've got a big pack of candidate interviews. We invited the five candidates to sit down with Citizen Tacoma and talk about the issues affecting District 3 and Tacoma. Four responded (so far?). This interview is with John Frazier. We talk about what he sees as the top issues affecting the district and how he sees himself working with the council. We also ask every candidate to fill in the blank. "Tacoma just wouldn't be Tacoma without......?" And get some interesting answers! Tune in to this interview and then check out all the rest of the candidates on CitizenTacoma.com or in your favorite podcast app. Links John Frazier for Tacoma City Council, District 3 Channel 253 membership

We've got a big pack of candidate interviews. We invited the five candidates to sit down with Citizen Tacoma and talk about the issues affecting District 3 and Tacoma. Four responded (so far?). This interview is with Malando Redeemer. We talk about what he sees as the top issues affecting the district and how he sees himself working with the council. We also ask every candidate to fill in the blank. "Tacoma just wouldn't be Tacoma without......?" And get some interesting answers! Tune in to this interview and then check out all the rest of the candidates on CitizenTacoma.com or in your favorite podcast app. Links Malando Redeemer for Tacoma City Council, District 3 Channel 253 membership

We've got a big pack of candidate interviews. We invited the five candidates to sit down with Citizen Tacoma and talk about the issues affecting District 3 and Tacoma. Four responded (so far?). This interview is with John Frazier. We talk about what she sees as the top issues affecting the district and how she sees herself working with the council. We also ask every candidate to fill in the blank. "Tacoma just wouldn't be Tacoma without......?" And get some interesting answers! Tune in to this interview and then check out all the rest of the candidates on CitizenTacoma.com or in your favorite podcast app. Links Jamika Scott for Tacoma City Council, District 3 Channel 253 membership

Tune in This week!The Cannabis Closet Potcast is LIVE with special guests to sesh with!! Today we have Jamika Scott, Community Activist and city council candidate for Tacoma, Washington! We'll talk with her about her political adventures and all the things that brought her to this point.Roll up, show up, we can't wait to sesh with you!XOCannaQueen & MJ Solo.to/cannabiscloset420 https://norml.org/news/2023/03/16/study-clinicians-more-likely-to-order-drug-tests-for-black-newborns/ https://norml.org/news/2023/03/09/analysis-black-and-hispanic-patients-disproportionately-screened-for-perinatal-cannabis-use/ https://www.tiktok.com/@circusfaery33/video/7212677459806883114?_r=1&_t=8aoNKWb2ylO -Intro Guest: Jamika Scott: Born and raised in the Hilltop neighborhood of Tacoma, Washington, Jamika Scott is a writer, filmmaker, and advocate. As a founding member of the Tacoma Action Collective, she works toward building an equitable Tacoma and often incorporates her love of film and photography into her social justice work. An active member of the community with a commitment to volunteerism, Jamika also serves on a number of local boards, commissions, and committees. Jamika is currently running as a candidate for the Tacoma City Council. Would You Rather: start a colony on another planet  Or be the leader of a country on Earth? live in a house haunted by friendly ghosts  or  be a ghost reliving your average day after you die? only eat raw food  or  only eat TV dinners?

If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review on Apple or Podchaser In this episode, Zahra and Hien catch up and share a bit about how their 2023 is going. Hien shares about her work life, Zahra gets vulnerable, and they discuss how inner work doesn't always show on the outside. They also share about guests to expect for the beginning of Season 4. Lastly, Zahra and Hien wholeheartedly endorse Jamika Scott for Tacoma City Council. http://jamikafortacoma.com/ For bonus episodes, subscribe to our Substack for $5 a month. Follow us on social media Twitter: @ThoughtfulWRPod Instagram: @ThoughtfulWellnessRevolution Theme song: Katy Pearson

This week, Crystal is joined by Pierce County Council Chair, Derek Young! Looking at Washington's Secretary of State race between Democratic incumbent Steve Hobbs and nonpartisan challenger Julie Anderson, Derek talks about his views on Anderson, who's tenure as Pierce County's County Auditor has given him insight into her values and priorities. Anderson's been taking criticisms from some Democrats while others Dems have stood up to defend her and her record. Hobbs has been running on his experience in the role since assuming the position last year, and has stayed out of the mud-slinging in this race. He has his own previous reputation as a moderate Dem that is coloring some voters' opinions of him.  26th LD Representative Jesse Young's behavior and extreme political views have become the subject of news again as his race against State Senator Emily Randall for the State Senate seat continues. Young has a history of aggression against staffers, to the point that he has been banned from having legislative staff, has co-sponored legislation to limit abortion rights, and has supported local Republicans who have been involved in domestic terrorism.  In other troubling news out of this race, a PAC, Concerned Taxpayers of Washington State, sent a mailer that made a derogatory reference to Emily Randall's sexual identity. It's another disturbing example of anti-LGBTQIA rhetoric and sentiment  in mainstream political circles.  Derek recommends Pierce County listeners pay attention to the race between Robyn Denson and Paula Lonergan, who are running for Derek's seat on the City Council now that he's hit his term limit. He also points to the race between Councilmember Marty Campbell and challenger Nancy Slotnick. Finally, a Pierce County project to build a homeless housing project has hit a major road bump in the form of zoning conflicts. Derek provides insight into the specifics of the project, its goals, and what its future looks like after this setback. 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, Derek Young, on Twitter at @DerekMYoung. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources 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.   Student debt relief sign-ups are live! Visit this link to enroll.   “Democrats split over nonpartisan secretary of state candidate” by Melissa Santos from Axios   Hacks & Wonks' Interview with Secretary of State candidate Julie Anderson   Hacks & Wonks' Interview with Secretary of State candidate Steve Hobbs   “New ad highlights Washington candidate's past behavior against staffers” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune   Emily Randall's response to the homophobic mailer against her - watch on TikTok here   Sign up to volunteer for Emily Randall's campaign here on her website.    Hacks & Wonks' Interview with Robyn Denson.    “Pierce County prefers this site for a big homeless housing project. Why it might not work” by Shea Johnson 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. 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, today's co-host: Pierce County Council Chair, Derek Young. Welcome. [00:00:52] Councilmember Derek Young: Thank you for having me. [00:00:53] Crystal Fincher: Excited to have you here again, especially - to get to focus on Pierce County and talk about Pierce County. There's a lot going on. I guess starting off - we're in election season, ballots are in people's hands - remember to get those ballots turned in. Vote by November 8th, but even better, just vote as soon as possible - get that in and done. There are some close and exciting races in Pierce County and with some Pierce County angles. I think we'll start off talking about the Secretary of State's race, which is a statewide race, but with current Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, who was a former State Senator and then after Kim Wyman moved to Washington [D.C.] and left the job, Steve Hobbs was appointed by Governor Inslee, and a challenger, Julie Anderson, who is a county auditor and now running for the statewide Secretary of State race. What have you seen in this race lately? [00:01:56] Councilmember Derek Young: I will say this. The race has not gone as I assumed it would, which would be more a debate between Anderson and Hobbs that was about the office and the ideas. And has now evolved into something where we have this strange situation where we have a lot of Pierce County Democrats, like myself, who are defending Julie from attacks from our State Party Chair. And that's been strange - I think it's particularly difficult for those of us that have been around and know Julie well to see the attacks turn into "she's some sort of secret MAGA Trump Republican that" - she's been around a long time and so with those of us that know her, that's a very strange experience to have. So rather than focusing on the office, we found ourselves in a defense mode trying to say - Hey, that's not the Julie that we know, support Steve all you want - that's all fine, I get it. He's running as a Democrat and she's running as a Nonpartisan, which makes things way more difficult. The race has turned into something - the election itself is almost a sideshow of the controversy that has developed around it. [00:03:30] Crystal Fincher: Some controversy, definitely. I wonder how visible it is to the general public. Certainly people - politicos, the hacks and wonks who are around - are very caught up in this just because it's a different dynamic than we normally have. This has been a partisan office. It's been the only statewide office that Republicans held recently. It was previously held by Republican Kim Wyman - has been a partisan office -when she left and this race came up, people generally assumed - okay, there's going to be a Democrat and a Republican. A Democrat, a Republican, and a Nonpartisan ended up running and Julie Anderson ended up edging out the Republican candidate in the primary, so this is a general election that a lot of people did not anticipate. And the dynamic between a Democrat and a Nonpartisan - and Julie has said that she prefers the term Nonpartisan instead of Independent - is certainly different than - a lot of people - hey, you're familiar with who a Democrat is, you're familiar with who a Republican is. And that has a lot to do with how you view those - that's a significant lens to view a candidate through, and most people see that as a significant driver of a decision and are more aligned with one party and/or tend to vote for the candidate of that party. In this situation with Julie Anderson being Nonpartisan, there has been a lot of questions. And from the Democratic Party and some opponents - have basically said, Hey, she's aligned with Republicans, she looks like she may be an undercover Republican. I should mention that Hacks & Wonks did interviews with both Steve Hobbs and with Julie Anderson. We actually talked very directly about this issue. Julie and Steve both offered their opinions and explanations on all of this, and so you can find those shows and we'll link those in the show notes. But it's that attack on Julie Anderson that has been controversial - that we saw an Axios article from Melissa Santos about this week, lots of online posting and opinions and takes about this, but hey, is it actually accurate that Julie Anderson is basically a closet Republican or has she worked well with all people, sincerely views herself as a Nonpartisan? Are her views consistent now after getting some Republican support than they were before? It appears that they are, and she has stood up afterwards and say - Hey, I still believe our elections are secure, and believe in how they've been, and for voter amendments and those kinds of things. But then other people are saying - hey, especially at a time when we have these battles between Republicans and Democrats, we can't risk having a Nonpartisan in there. We need to have a Democrat in this office. How do you weigh that decision and how do you think voters can view their decision in this race? [00:06:42] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah, it's a fair question and I'll be honest - it would have been so much easier if she was running as a Democrat because you have the backing of the Party and all the resources that brings with it. Obviously, in this case, that wouldn't have been the way it went down because we have an incumbent who was appointed last year. But - what's the saying about Ginger Rogers and having to do all the things that Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in heels? That's the kind of obstacles that Julie, by choosing this, put in her way. I don't know how voters are going to react as a result. The one thing I do note is that she believes this in her bones. This is a genuine conviction that the position of auditor at the local level and Secretary of State at the state level should be Nonpartisan because you can't assume that everyone will look at election and have faith in it if they view the person administering it as aligned with one of the teams. I actually think I agree with that sentiment, particularly in these times, and I kind of understand where people are coming from when - at a time when so many Republicans are calling into question the veracity of our elections, can we have someone that's on the sidelines, so to speak, that isn't actively pushing back on that from the Democratic point of view? I tend to agree with Julie more in that the way you build trust and faith in the system is by having someone who is fulfilling a more ministerial role and calling balls and strikes not aligned with one of the parties. And I've seen how that works firsthand in Pierce County. One of my jobs as Chair of the Council is I sit on the Canvassing Board and so each election, there's a group of folks who are election observers from each party and independents that come in - and every time, these very partisan folks have nothing but praise for Julie and her team and the transparent and accountable system that she's built. This is also a woman who literally tried to get rid of her office. She proposed to me, and I agreed, that the role of auditor should be an appointed position because it is administrative and ministerial. Electing the position is actually not a great idea - similar for the offices of sheriff and assessor. So I had charter amendments to propose for each of those. But being Julie, she wrote an editorial saying - you should get rid of the job I just completed. And I just have nothing but admiration for someone who's not only learned the role, but determined that - if she designed the ideal world, this position would not even be elected. But if you're going to have an elected person in it, you should have someone that is not beholden to one of the parties. The last thing I'll just say is that prior to her time as auditor in the county, she was on the Tacoma City Council. While city council races are also nonpartisan, you get a sense for people's values. Julie Anderson is a very progressive person. And I think there's - so for those of us that are from Pierce County, this has been this just very strange experience to watch. And how that plays out in the rest of state, I just don't know. But I have to imagine that the tension drawn to it by the Party has probably actually been good for her to get that message out there. I don't know that the rest of the non-very-online, very-hooked-in crowd is paying that much attention to the race, so we'll see how it goes. [00:11:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we'll see how it goes - this seems to be a race, I think I commented earlier, I know other people have - where this is not a race that seems to be attracting much attention. People are kind of looking at those party cues. Hey, if I'm a Democrat, I see a Democrat, I'm voting for the Democrat. And that seems to be how things are going with people who don't really pay attention to local party politics, all of the stories, the ins and outs of the campaigns to the degree that people who work in politics or policy or heavily involved in advocacy do. But for those who are, this has been one of the toughest decisions and have been some of the toughest conversations that people have had in a bit - because there is this tension. And I think another dimension of this is that we're talking about Senator Steve Hobbs, who has been known as a moderate and has certainly provoked a lot of emotion over the years. He has taken different stances than a lot of other people in the Party on transportation policy and different things. And so I think for people who have been involved in politics for a long time, they have this view of him in their head as a moderate. And that's a positive thing for some people - some people may feel that that's pragmatic. For others, they feel that that's obstruction. But for people who do have an impression of Steve Hobbs, whether positive or negative, I think that colors how they're coming into the opinions of this race and that conversation. And also just the recognition that that's a very small slice of people who are paying attention to that degree. So I don't know how much this makes it out into the world of people who take the time to vote and who care about it, but who don't really follow politics closely. It'll be interesting to see how this continues to play out and how the information continues to flow over the next two weeks. [00:13:19] Councilmember Derek Young: Steve has also - to his credit - is not behind a lot of the nastiness that has come up in this race. In fact, I have not heard anything bad about the way he's conducted himself in the office. And so my feelings - and they're personal feelings in the race, I think for a lot of others - it's actually less about Steve Hobbs and more about our feelings for Julie. I will also say, for those of us from South Sound, there's a little bit of folks from other parts of the state telling us what we should think about this. And so you have a little bit of good old-fashioned Tacoma getting its back up about one of our own. And I think there's some of that going on as well. So I just wanted to be clear that I think the candidates themselves are conducting an admirable race. [00:14:15] Crystal Fincher: I think that's fair. There's another race where I don't think one of the candidates is conducting an admirable race, and that's an extremely partisan race in your neck of the woods - in the 26th Legislative District - between Democrat Emily Randall and very extreme Republican Jesse Young. Now you have been down there and observing the ins and outs of Jesse Young, who's now running for State Senate, but was a State Representative, is a State Representative before this. Man, this man has issues - and this week there was a news story that that talked about his very problematic treatment and harassment of staff. What did he do? [00:15:02] Councilmember Derek Young: There's a pattern of abusive behavior to not only staff, but other legislators. For example, his Republican seatmate, Michelle Caldier - they're not supposed to be in the same room together without at least one other person because they got in an argument that was so loud that security had to show up. So this is someone from his own party and his seatmate in his district. And I will just say that it fits a pattern for him. And he would not be the first politician that has had difficulties with staff, but when he was found to have done these things and was instructed to go to some anger management counseling, he refused to do so. And so as a result, to this day, he's not allowed to have legislative staff. And some of the reports were pretty awful - calling a woman by a particularly vulgar name and screaming fits - and to the point where at one point the staffer referred to their weekly meetings as "the weekly beatings." So his behavior is obviously a problem and makes him particularly ineffective because how someone does the job of legislator without staff is kind of beyond me. All that said, it's not just his behavior that's problematic. He has rather extreme political positions. This was a man who was close allies with and stuck by Matt Shea - many of your listeners will remember as the radical Eastern Washington Republican who literally organized the militia takeover of the Malheur. [00:17:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah - he was involved in domestic terrorism. [00:17:04] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah, he put tracking devices on sheriff vehicles to monitor people, he planned insurrection, runs a training camp for militia activities. And this is someone who - when he was under fire for these behaviors and Republicans were trying to figure out what to do - leadership in their caucus removed him immediately from the caucus. Well, maybe not immediately, but got to it pretty quickly. He stood by him the entire time and organized opposition to Minority Leader J.T. Wilcox's actions that removed him from the caucus and expedited his eventual departure from the Legislature. So, his positions on abortion are for criminalization. Just really strange out of the mainstream type of behavior, and I'll leave you with this one other more recent anecdote that I am more personally knowledgeable of. During the aftermath of George Floyd's death, some teenagers in Gig Harbor decided that they were going to organize protests and showed up at this one corner that's particularly - I don't know, for whatever reason, it's become our protest area - I think it's because it's got a lot of traffic. And so hundreds of kids and some adults showed up there to protest and demand reforms for law enforcement. And Jesse showed up with a group of men carrying long guns because they claimed that these were Antifa and they were going to burn the shopping mall next to it to the ground. He stuck by this ridiculous story for so long, he even claimed that the local police chief, who happens to be a friend, had covered up the story and that he witnessed the chief grabbing gas cans that were planted ahead of time to burn the strip mall down. When in reality, what the police chief had seen was a gas can that had fallen on the roadway from someone with a landscaping truck and he was just picking it up to get it out of the road. He continued to lie about this on conservative talk radio for weeks. And this is our police chief - he's a known, trusted person that's been on our force and lived in our community for decades. And Jesse's out there lying about him because he wanted to justify his appearance there with a group of men and long guns to a protest organized by teens. [00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that was a scary time. This was in 2020 - we were working with organizers on the ground, canvassers on the ground in the district at the time in another effort. And it was a really scary thing even detached from it - hearing, hey, there are reports with men driving around with guns, men arriving at this place with guns, some of these assault rifles, right? And just not knowing what's going to happen, hearing the extremist rhetoric, knowing the history of some of those - especially in the context of his palling around with domestic terrorists, Matt Shea - did not know what direction this was going to go in, but he clearly felt really entitled to do that and to intimidate everyone in that area, everyone in those neighborhoods. And that's just really fundamentally not okay. The treatment of staff is just really fundamentally not okay. And there are some people who sometimes view these things as partisan attacks. And Republicans certainly have their own record on what they've permitted within the ranks of their party. But I think in this state, especially among Democrats - we had a conversation, had many conversations about Insurance Commissioner, Mike Kreidler - that treatment - so many people have called on him to resign and continue to, finding that's not acceptable. He's not going to find support when he - it would be really unwise to choose to run for re-election - but if he would, he's not going to find support there. There have been other people whose resignations have been called for in the wake of treatment like this. This is something that is not partisan. This is something that Democrats have been not hesitant to call out people in their own ranks. And this also applies to Republicans. He has not had a legislative assistant since, what was it, 2016? [00:21:59] Councilmember Derek Young: Something like that, yeah. [00:22:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, for quite some time. And as you said, how do you get any work done? The people in the 26th have had hobbled representation. And if people found any fault with what's happening, you kind of have to ask - how is Jesse Young able to show up and do his job? Other legislators have beyond full schedules - needing a legislative assistant to juggle all of that, juggle all their communications, schedule meetings, coordinate with their constituents. And so that's just not possible to do and to fully do your job. And to have the reason for that being that you can't be trusted to be around subordinates is really just an indictment on the fitness for office. And there's a clear choice in terms of the issue of abortion rights in this race. You have Emily Randall, who is a staunch supporter of personal freedom and privacy and reproductive choice. You have Jesse Young, who has taken really extreme stands on abortion - and hey, it shouldn't just be a ban, there should be criminal penalties involved in this - just really troubling. And the election conspiracy denial - he went to Arizona, with the denialists in Arizona, to a Cyber Ninja audit that they called it. And it was just really a gathering of these conspiracy theorists. Why are we entertaining a conversation of electing a guy who is doing this kind of stuff? This is just beyond me and really beyond the conversations of how do we even get to policy? How do we even get to what you're going to do in the job when you're doing things that prevent your ability to even do the job? How are we debating about issues when he can't adequately legislate? He can't adequately hear from, meet with, represent constituents. He can't adequately conduct himself in public and not intimidate people with guns - teenagers - with guns in public. We can't even get to the conversation of legislating. This guy is just fundamentally unfit. It's a challenge. And I imagine you're sitting there looking at this race and going - oh my goodness, I wish more people really knew who this guy was and what's at stake. [00:24:34] Councilmember Derek Young: It is hard because it is my community. We are the - 26th district for those that aren't familiar - it's basically the Kitsap Peninsula, so half of it's in Pierce County in the Key Peninsula and Gig Harbor area and then Kitsap going up to Bremerton. And it's a swing district. Even calling it a swing district might be generous to the Democratic side. They've been pretty successful here for the last decade or so. And things didn't change that much with redistricting. But yeah, even setting that aside, I get that at least half of our district prefers the Republican side and that's fine. But in this case, you have someone who is so clearly a great representative for us, or a senator for us, and is very effective - almost shockingly so. As a first-term Senator, Emily Randall really was a standout amongst that group in terms of being effective, being thoughtful, doing the hard work. I know within my association, because I've been for a number of years leading our legislative efforts, very often bringing her up as someone to champion things that we're working on because we know her as a worker and fair-minded and well-respected. And then you have the opposite of that challenging her and really just having some basic integrity challenges in addition to his volatility, so I don't get it. This shouldn't be close. I understand why some of the other races are the way they are - we actually had a surprise with Adison Richards doing exceptionally well in the primary of one of the House seats, against a fine candidate on the Republican side who I know pretty well - Spencer Hutchins, who was formerly on the Gig Harbor Council. So those are the races where I understand everyone's got a choice and it's harder to understand why the Senate race is this close. [00:27:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's worrisome, but this is definitely a race. We've talked before about - there's a lot of people in the Seattle area who listen to this race and a lot of the races that they're going to be considering are Democrat versus Democrat legislative races, some of them are uncontested at all. And so it presents an opportunity to say, okay, we know your seat is going to be in Democratic hands and certainly stay active and involved where you're at, but make a point to adopt a race somewhere externally, whether it's a district like the 26th Legislative District down in South Sound, whether it's the 47th Legislative District down in the Kent, Auburn, Covington area. Or up north in the 10th or 47th or 42nd districts. Pick one of these districts where we know that races there are consistently close and competitive, that it's always within a hair of which candidate wins, and help put the Democratic candidate in this situation, but help put the candidates that align with your values over the top. [00:28:19] Councilmember Derek Young: And do it - if for no other reason - to help out me personally. We're two guys from Gig Harbor named Young and working in politics, so lots of people confuse it. And I think in particular, my dad takes exception because people think his son is Jesse. [00:28:36] Crystal Fincher: Oh, yikes. Yikes and yikes. Yeah, I do not envy you as being another Young in politics there, but hopefully this is something that won't be an issue for you that much longer. So as if all of the other stuff wasn't enough, there was a mailer that arrived this week that was really troubling and obviously intentional. The background here is that Emily Randall is a queer woman - has been open about that, wonderful about that. And a mailer arrived and you talked about this, so I'll let you describe it. [00:29:22] Councilmember Derek Young: Basically - and I hadn't noticed the mailer, I don't know that I was the target audience - but Emily posted a video where she shared it because she received it. And the message says, Let's set the record straight. Now, that term is one we're all familiar with in political context and journalism and such. The problem was that they put a special emphasis - underlined and red-bolded the "straight" part. That is a winking notation of her sexual identity and a pretty ugly one, I think. It's a - we are in a divided district, so we know that there is some people who will be uncomfortable with LGBTQ rights and Emily's never hidden from it. But the IE that ran this - I think there's no question they knew exactly what they were doing, and it's really worthy of calling out. And I'm glad that Emily did herself, because she's her own best advocate and I think that's important. But I think it's also important for all of us to say - We know what you were doing. And this isn't some PAC that just popped up for a single purpose to hide identities. This is a - what is it - Concerned Taxpayers? I forget their exact name, but it's a mainstream PAC that's very active in a lot of races. Their major donors are Master Builders and Realtors. And so this is a group that should know better and did something - [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: That does know better and decided not to do it. That is - this isn't a fringe group - this is a major mainstream regular supporter of the party, closely aligned interests of the party. They're allies of the party and they're consistently there for those interests. And it clearly was intentional. I mean, as - you have worked on political communications certainly, as have I. And I think sometimes political operatives do the thing where we know exactly what we do. And I'm saying, I do not do this and try very hard not to do this - but I've seen Republicans and I've sometimes seen Democrats do this - but rely on the public not realizing what our work actually is and how we actually do it, to just excuse it. And what you see in political communications, what you see on mail is very intentional. The words are poured over. There are several levels of approval, certainly on - if you're working with a good team, as you are anywhere, you want to make sure that you're conveying the message that you want to and that you are not conveying any message that you don't want to. So anything that can be borderline - I don't really want to say that - then you don't say, then you change something to make sure that it doesn't give that impression, that it doesn't say something - especially something that is harmful or offensive. And at a time when we have a very conservative Supreme Court who is tearing down rights, who has basically put the right of marriage equality on notice. And the Dobbs decision - it didn't just strike down Roe vs Wade - it also laid the path that a number of them want to take moving forward, which is striking down protections for contraception, privacy, marriage equality - type thing. So we know this is on deck. We've heard several Republicans in the state and across the country say that they believe that - just marriage between only a man and a woman should be legally valid, others should be illegal again - who want to roll back the rights that were won. And this was an ad targeted at a conservative audience. It is not a secret that when you have "straight" in big, bold, red letters that are then underlined - and that's the only word on the page that it's treated like that - you're sending a message. And it's unacceptable. And I am glad she called it out. And to your point, I'm very glad that everyone has the opportunity to say - No, this is unacceptable, and this is a preview of the type of harmful hate that is coming if we allow more of this. I mean, it just is another one of those - before we get into conversations about policy, we're dealing with some really fundamental human decency - really ability to adequately and peacefully participate in society and allow other people to participate in that same society to the same degree. It is just egregious, received news coverage for being egregious. And it's just what we're contending with. It is not at all rare to see these dirty hits come out during this time where ballots are out and mailers are flying. And I don't know what else they have planned, but if this is what they're doing early, I shudder to think what they think they can say when they feel that there isn't the type of penalty or time for scrutiny attached to it. So it's just - get involved in this race, get involved in this race. [00:35:27] Councilmember Derek Young: And I think it's worth saying that - it's not just gross from a political standpoint. Given the trajectory of rhetoric around LGBTQ rights and life in this country, it's dangerous in the literal sense. That's why, I think it's important to - often there's this, especially amongst Democrats, this tendency to worry about should we call attention to an attack or is that making something more visible to the public. And I think there are these cases where - whether it's around election validity, people's basic rights, and just decency - we have to have some ground truth, some shared reality that we all exist on that's beneath where the politics of the situation is going. Let's get back to the point where we can have these fierce debates over policy. But right now we have to have some common cause for just existing in the same society, I think. And saying that these things are out of bounds and there will be a price that you pay for doing it, I think is important. [00:37:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I completely agree. And that hesitance to - should we bring it up, should we talk about it? Yeah, we have to, because the other side is. How many times in the past week have we heard hateful comments about the trans community, hateful anti-Semitic comments, hateful white supremacist comments. And I'm just thinking about this week, right? This is unfortunately creeping into mainstream society. These are not limited to rarely visited corners of the internet that hardly anyone visits. These are some of the biggest celebrities, some of the richest people, and some of the most powerful party members. These are - we're hearing this from elected officials now and party leadership. We have to take a stand and say this is unacceptable because the silence is enabling this. It is going to take an effort of everyone confronting this when they're seeing it and rejecting it - rejecting it in their communities and their conversations with friends - and yes, family - and on the ballot. I mean, rejecting it on the ballot is the easy part - that should be an automatic. We have more work to do to confront this in our everyday lives, in our societies, and the people who we interact with. So I again, just urge people to get involved and to call this stuff out whenever and wherever you see it. That is the most powerful thing that we can do, especially when it's with people you know - it makes a difference. Certainly encourage everyone listening - we'll put information in the show notes - do a phone bank, do a canvass session. If you absolutely can't do those things, donate, but sometimes we talk about money in these races and money certainly helps buy resources and the things to make those happen. But really the time that you can spend - to put in to talk to other voters in that district and to help educate those voters and tell them why you're supportive and why you're taking your time to do this - is really impactful to a lot of people and encourage people to get involved that way. So thank you for that. Are there any other races in Pierce County that you think people should be tuned into, thinking about, looking at? [00:39:34] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah, we have a couple of council races that are - I think headed in the right direction - but important to keeping the council majority that we managed to get in Democratic hands. One being replacement for me, as I'm term limited and leaving office at the end of the year. And her name is Robyn Denson. Her opponent is a Republican named Paula Lonergan - for folks in Pierce County that name may sound familiar because her husband is the Assessor-Treasurer and used to be a Tacoma City Council member. But that race - things are going fairly well - she's running a pretty traditional Republican campaign. And Robyn is - in fact, you may - I believe you actually did have her on. [00:40:21] Crystal Fincher: Yep, we interviewed her. We'll also link that in the show notes. [00:40:24] Councilmember Derek Young: And she certainly fits the model of wonk. She's a former nonpartisan policy staff down in Olympia, specializing in housing in particular, which is obviously something that's super critical throughout our region, but especially right here in Pierce County. And is just a really thoughtful person. She's currently on the Gig Harbor City Council, and I think the world of her and really recruited her hard to run for my seat, to make sure we kept this in Democratic hands. Because until I ran, we hadn't won this seat really before, so it was important to me to find a suitable replacement. The other is Marty Campbell, who's an incumbent council member. His opponent, Nancy Slotnick, is a Republican. And while that race hasn't been as hot - I think it's flying a little bit under the radar - and Marty's district changed the most out of the council districts during redistricting. And so he's had to introduce himself to a large group of voters who may not be as familiar with him, and so that's presented some challenges, I think. And unfortunately, his partner also has some health issues at the moment that they've been public about - I'm not sharing any inside information - so he's juggling a lot right now trying to be my Vice Chair, which is a challenge even in itself. So we're hoping to push Marty over the line as well. [00:42:00] Crystal Fincher: All right. Sounds good. We will be paying attention to those and seeing how those turn out. In non-political news this week, there was some news in Pierce County about zoning restrictions getting in the way of a planned homeless housing project. This is something that is definitely needed, but it looks like it may have run into a snag. What's happening? [00:42:25] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah. So this was - I will say, even though it wasn't my fault - as someone in Pierce County government, it's embarrassing. So we have this concept that we are essentially stealing from Austin that - they have a wildly successful program called Community First! Village that's for folks that are unhoused and chronically unhoused. This is the population of homeless folks that have the most barriers - typically will have some disabilities or been homeless for a very long time, may have some behavioral health challenges, you name it - there's something in their way that's keeping them from becoming housed and so they're living on the streets. This model starts with the physical infrastructure - it's essentially micro homes or tiny houses, however you want to refer to it. Their units tend to be very nice by comparison to - sometimes when we talk about tiny houses, we think of some of the garden sheds basically that you see popping up in some communities. These - it looks more like a trailer park - is the way I would describe it. But the secret sauce in this is not just getting people housed - that's the big barrier. The second is that they deliver really intentional services to these folks that are all onsite. They even have volunteers that live onsite. And there's a strong effort to build community, which is something that I think is missed from a lot of permanent supportive housing models you see elsewhere. And I was skeptical at first, but when it clicked - I was talking with someone who has worked in homelessness for a long time. And he said, we typically buy an apartment complex or maybe a hotel and turn that into permanent supportive housing. But think about - because he knew I lived in an apartment - how many of your neighbors do you know? And embarrassingly, I know probably half my neighbors - I know their names and their families. But otherwise, once you get home, you're closing the door and you're not really interacting with them that much. This is the opposite - it's intended to help rebuild those social connections. There's onsite work that can be done. They actually do pay rent - it's heavily subsidized. But the idea is to rebuild those social skills. For some people, they will always live there, and that's fine. But for others, they can then take those steps to getting back to a life that maybe doesn't require as much support. So we're all very excited about this model, and we think it's going to be a hit. One of the first questions I had last year was - okay, we'll appropriate this money, but why don't you tell us if you can find any properties that are available that will have suitable zoning? Somehow that didn't happen. And so the site that they got under contract before approaching the council, it turned out that the zoning, because it's surrounded by wetlands, is Residential Resource, which doesn't allow for this much density. So we were set to approve and they wanted to close on the property by the end of the year - that's just not going to happen. What this looks like going forward, I don't know. But the trick here is that this is a new idea - not only for us, but really for the region. And as a result, we cannot fail. This has to work. Because if we're going to replicate it elsewhere in Pierce County and around the region, we have to get it right. If we fail, people will look at it and go - well, that didn't work - and that's not something we want to have happen. So like I said, it's embarrassing, but it is what it is and we have to figure out a solution. [00:46:46] Crystal Fincher: What's on deck for solutions? [00:46:48] Councilmember Derek Young: I don't know yet, because we just found out. And so the executive still believes that we can go through with this property and just do a rezone. I will say that just doing a rezone is never a simple thing, particularly when what you have planned for the site is now very public. The other possibility is start looking for other locations. The problem is that - this was always my concern - is that the sites that are affordable for a project like this are also going to be challenged. In this development environment, if it's zoned for density, it's going to be pretty valuable. The other challenge that we had with this site was that it doesn't have sewer adjacent to it. This is kind of on the outskirts of our urban growth area, so while there's urban development around it - and it's right off what was going to be the Cross-Base Highway - it still lacks some basic infrastructure. So all that's why we were getting it for a song and why other developers had looked at it for housing projects and couldn't make it work. But I think we're back to square one in terms of site selection, and we need to start looking around. But it's possible we'll have a proposal here that's fairly straightforward. The most annoying part about this is that we literally had - because this concept is so new - we didn't really have a use allowed for this in our zoning code. So we actually passed a bill two months ago to change zoning code in order to allow for this. We still somehow came up with a site that it doesn't work for. [00:48:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a challenge. And this is new, so I'm asking you questions - I understand you may not have the answer yet. This was reported in The News Tribune day before yesterday, I think, on October 26th. And there did seem to be a little bit of - I don't know if I'd call it tension - but difference in opinion on moving forward about the ease or feasibility of that zoning change option. The Pierce County Executive did make it seem like it's something that is definitely doable, even if it's not - hey, we'll take care of it next meeting - in the near future, certainly had the impression that it could be resolved with that. What challenges would prevent that from - from being able to pass a zoning change soon? [00:49:28] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah, I'm unclear what he's referring to because there was a quote in the newspaper and I called him about this after seeing it that said that we think this may be a 15 or 30-day delay. I don't know what he's talking about. This would require not only a zoning map change, but we believe a comprehensive plan change. So for those that aren't aware of local land use policy, it's - a comp plan change - you're only allowed to touch your comp plan once per year. We've already started our process and so we couldn't add it to this. The next time you could do something is literally over a year from now because you can only make adjustments once per year. If it's just a zoning change, that's what's referred to as an Official Control under our planning rules. And so we have to notify the Department of Commerce with a 60-day comment period. That's just the minimum - maybe nothing comes up and they don't care - but it's still a 60-day period. And then after that, you need to be going to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has their own process. And then it finally comes to the council. Our charter requires at least three weeks just to run a bill and that's under ideal conditions. So yeah, I'm not sure what he's talking about there, but this is not a simple change by any means. All that said, I don't think there would necessarily be opposition coming from the council. We were certainly comfortable with the idea before finding the problem, so it's just a matter of the rules that we all have to follow. And what was kind of frustrating about it is hearing him trying to figure out ways around them when he vetoed an emergency ordinance that we passed for Safe Parking a few months ago. And one of the reasons he vetoed it, even though the emergency ordinance is temporary and involves no construction - if you decide you're not going to do it there, you can move the cars - so there's no permanent problem. And yet he used that as one of the objections to the emergency bill. And in this case, we're literally going to spend millions and millions of dollars building a permanent housing development. And we're going to skip the process? I don't see that working. So the council's of one mind on this - the sponsors all pulled their signatures so that we didn't have to - we didn't want to vote to turn it down, that just is a bad look. So everyone's on the same page on the council that this has to be done right. [00:52:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Well, that little nugget sounds encouraging - that you decided to move forward with it, and so it is rules that have to be followed. So could it be potentially - no, this is not a three-week endeavor, but it may be a few months of diligent work and following through the steps and the ability to accommodate the necessary changes then. If it does take a few months or however long that that takes, does that impact the project? Does that impact the cost or anything with that? [00:53:01] Councilmember Derek Young: It will have some impact. It's hard to quantify because everything in the economy is so weird these days, so we will see. But so one thing we had to do, for example, is at the end of the year, our proviso expires, allowing the appropriation that we budgeted for - it's supposed to go back to other homeless services - because at the time we were pretty skeptical that this could work. I see no objection from my colleagues to changing that proviso so that we will stay committed to this. And again, we know we have a problem, like everyone. So we've got this innovative solution. It seems to work really well. The performance in Austin is exceptional compared to other programs. So, the more I've learned about it, the more eager I become. I just think in this instance, it's possible the executive and his staff were a little too eager and didn't do some kind of basic homework. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Well, hopefully you will be there to help him finish that assignment. [00:54:15] Councilmember Derek Young: Unfortunately, I think my successor may need to finish this up for me, but - [00:54:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. So it doesn't look like there's a chance by the end of the year, I guess. I guess that looks unlikely. But hopefully the newly composed council is as dedicated to this as the other one was. And with bipartisan support - this was not something that was necessarily squeaked through. [00:54:39] Councilmember Derek Young: No, in fact - it's noteworthy that this was really coming from the Republicans. This was their conception. And so I think that's really good - because to have bipartisan comity on an issue like homelessness is not - it's not common. So I think it's important for us to try to stick together on an issue like this. [00:55:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and to your point - to get going with a model that could be an example for other cities to follow - I think that's a very important thing. And especially for local government - one of the things that I really like about local government and policy - is that everyone has to live in these conditions, everyone has to see. There's more pressure to get away from rhetoric and to actually do something that's addressing the issues that people are seeing with their own eyes and that you're seeing with your own eyes. So there is more of, I think, a motivation to act, especially outside of - sometimes big city politics can get super politicized, but other entities don't always get bogged down by the spectacle of it all. And you're working towards some solution and there's - Hey, there's evidence that this model is working elsewhere, let's give it a go. We certainly need to figure out something that works, other things haven't like they've needed to. So sometimes challenges happen, and sounds like there's cause for optimism that this can be worked through, even if it's with the newly composed council and hopefully we get this up and running. If you work through all this - who knows if it alters the timeline - what was the original timeline for this being built and operational? [00:56:43] Councilmember Derek Young: Yeah, I think the schedule was construction next year and have the first units available at the beginning of 2024, if I'm not mistaken. I may have that a little bit wrong, but by the time you do site development - depending on the season, it can get tough. But that was the hope - is that it would be - the first phase of the project would be fairly soon. And that it is a phased project. So eventually would house 257 units, give or take. Obviously, there may be some site development challenges. And the hope is that everyone sees that this works and then we'll want to throw money at this as an - because that's what's happened in Harris County, Texas, where Austin is. They essentially have the private sector throwing money at them to do more. And they've got a couple thousand of these units that are housing people, and their success rate in terms of rehousing folks in traditional housing is in the 60% - I mean, that's just unheard of in this space. [00:57:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I hope - I hope that we still see this coming online in 2024. Seems like that could be doable, but we'll stay tuned and keep people updated on what's happening. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this friday, October 28th, 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 Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young. You can find Derek on Twitter - and he's a good Twitter follow - @DerekMYoung. That's D-E-R-E-K-M Young. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and 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 all of our shows and our Friday almost-live show to your feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you can. And you can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at OfficialHacksandWonks.com and in our episode notes. Thanks for tuning in and we will talk to you next time.

What's Trending:  The Mariners are playing well and people are celebrating, Rantz complains about NFL refs, the Tacoma City Council will rule on its encampment ban and the New York times is still defending President Biden. // Crime rates are at an alarming level despite what the left says. // Rantz gives an update and his thoughts on some local elections.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Next week, the Tacoma City Council will take up the issue of whether to make living on the streets illegal around temporary shelters and waterways. We've talked about bans before, and making it a crime...

What's Trending: A study into election integrity in Mason County, the Tacoma City Council is fighting a multi-pronged battle against homelessness and a Sounders player is forced to make an apology. // Big Local: SeaTac airport is set to increase its staff, a Skagit County initiative is supporting migrant farmers and a Tumwater was shot in a grocery store parking lot. // The left is coming after Nikki Haley for being conservative. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A major redrawing of where it would be legal for those experiencing homelessness to camp is up for debate by the Tacoma City Council.A proposed ordinance could mean banning unsanctioned encampments within 10 blocks of shelters operated by the city. Proponents said it would help channel people into much-needed programs, but opponents said it's just pushing the problem down the road—literally.LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3KBUDSK

I chat with Paula Lonergan, candidate for the position of County Council Seat, District Number 7. She shares the stories that shaped her into the woman and candidate she is. As a resident of Tacoma for nearly 4 decades, she has witnessed the many changes in our community. She stands for being in service to others and a positive role model. More info on her website https://www.electpaulalonergan.comCody Hart video https://youtu.be/XQLFcCIzizY#tacoma #citycouncil #piercecounty more info on Joe at https://joerosaticollective.com

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

More than 80 people stopped for HOV lane violations in under 3 hours in Snohomish.  KNOW IT ALL: 1) Iconic Vin Scully passes away at the age of 94. 2) Tacoma City Council lowers default speed limits on residential, arterial streets. 3) Pelosi leaves Taiwan as China gets ready for military drills. // Remembering Vin Scully. Senate sends veterans health care bill to Biden. // Some of Vin Scully's best sports calls. Job cuts beginning to happen for big wage earners that work in “customer experience” field.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Momentum in the city of Tacoma appears to be growing for an effort to create a mental health crisis response team that would respond to some emergency calls instead of police, an effort supporters say could help stem officer-involved shootings of people suffering from mental breaks.Community activists said Tuesday that they delivered 500 signatures to the members of the Tacoma City Council that support the idea of creating such a team.The Tacoma proposal is based on a model in Eugene, Oregon known as the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets or CAHOOTS.LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos everyday. https://bit.ly/3fs6dBUSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/seattlerealestatepodcast)

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, the podcast touches base with Catherine Ushka to talk about homelessness in Tacoma, housing affordability, and what's happening on the eastside and south end of Tacoma. Check it out! Links Channel 253 membership

A lot happened in the last two weeks at the Tacoma City Council. They passed Phase 1 of Home in Tacoma, hired a new police chief, adopted a Climate Action Plan, and didn't pass a camping ban. It was time to learn more. Tacoma City Councilmember Kristina Walker joins the podcast to talk about what's happening (and what's not) with the Tacoma City Council. Links Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Kelly Blucher, who is running for Tacoma City Council District 2. She will be on the November ballot. We talk about social justice, homelessness, fossil fuels at the port, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Kelly Blucher Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Sarah Rumbaugh, who is running for Tacoma City Council District 2. She will be on the November ballot. We talk about social justice, homelessness, fossil fuels at the port, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Sarah Rumbaugh Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Joe Bushnell, who is running for Tacoma City Council District 5. He will be on the November ballot. We talk about refugees, homelessness, fossil fuels at the port, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Joe Bushnell Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Anne Artman, who is running for Tacoma City Council District 5. She will be on the November ballot. We talk about social justice, homelessness, fossil fuels at the port, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Anne Artman Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Brett Johnson, who is running for the city-wide seat on the Tacoma City Council. He will be on the November ballot. We talk about homelessness, planning and zoning in Tacoma, fossil fuels at the port, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Brett Johnson Channel 253 membership

On this episode of Citizen Tacoma, we hear from Kiara Daniels, who is running for the city-wide seat on the Tacoma City Council. She will be on the November ballot. We talk about affordable housing, the economy, climate change, policing and public safety, and more. Enjoy! Links Kiara Daniels Channel 253 membership

Our town hall featuring six tremendous candidates in Pierce County. Pierce County is the second largest in the state, and their elections are highly consequential. Sarah Rumbaugh and Kiara Daniels are running for Tacoma City Council, and Elizabeth Pew is running for Tacoma Port Commissioner. Elizabeth Grasher has put her hat in the ring for Steilacoom town council, and Dr. Marty Schafer and Darwin Peters II are running for school board in Clover Park, a district in Lakewood. This was recorded live on Zoom on the evening of July 13. Show Notes: Sarah Rumbaugh is running for Tacoma City Council in position 2 (https://www.sarahrumbaugh.com/) Kiara Daniels is running for Tacoma City Council in position 6 (https://www.kiaradaniels.com/) Elizabeth Grasher is running for town council in Steilacoom in seat 2 (https://www.facebook.com/Friends-of-Elizabeth-Grasher-for-Steilacoom-Town-Council-Seat-2-111315091136143/?ref=py_c) Elizabeth Pew is running for Tacoma Port Commissioner in position 2 (https://elizabethpew.com/; @pewforport) Dr. Marty Schafer is running for re-election to the Clover Park School District in Lakewood (schaferforschools.com) Darwin Peters II is running for a seat on the Clover Park School District. Website: https://www.darwinforcpsd.com Donation: https://donorbox.org/darwin-peters-ii-for-cpsd-director Email: info@darwinforcpsd.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/darwinforcpsd Theme music from filmmusic.io "Pure Joy" by Otis Galloway License: CC BY (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Two business associates of Rudy Giuliani are under arrest. They were reportedly taken into custody for conspiracy and campaign finance violations, and an unnamed congressman is also referenced in the federal indictment. The case is said to be linked to US President Donald Trump's efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. Giuliani is Trump's personal lawyer, as well as the former mayor of New York City. What are the connections, and will this amount to anything?Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Turkey's air and ground offensive in Syria has killed over 100 "terrorists." The advance of Turkish forces into northeastern Syria is now in its second day. It's unclear whether those killed in the operation were fighting with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. The Turkish invasion began Wednesday after President Trump pulled US troops back from the area, clearing the way for Turkish forces, a move that drew condemnation from both parties as an abandonment of US allies. The UN Security Council will meet Thursday in an emergency session to discuss Turkey's military actions against the Kurds in northern Syria. Thousands have already fled in the face of ground and air attacks.Shopping malls in Hong Kong are closing early Thursday in anticipation of protests. For the past four months, pro-democracy demonstrators have been staging protests in a variety of areas. During these demonstrations, shops have been vandalized, and protesters have used malls as locations for sit-ins. As a result, Hong Kong, one of the world's top shopping cities, is seeing a decline in revenue, and the Asian financial hub is looking at its first recession in 10 years. The day after dozens of groups from around Washington State gathered at Tacoma City Hall to launch a new campaign calling on the Tacoma City Council to shut down the infamous Northwest Detention Center (NWDC aka Northwest ICE Processing Center), new reports from people detained there describe a new low for the GEO Group, the company that operates the center: a screw was found in the food during lunch. A relative of a person detained was able to take screenshots of the incident during a video call. La Resistencia, a grassroots group that supports the leadership of those detained at NWDC and calls for an end to detention and deportations in Washington state, received the pictures and report from the relative earlier Thursday. During Wednesday's campaign launch, La Resistencia presented a letter from people detained to the Tacoma City Council detailing the conditions, which included finding of blood on a plate and multiple instances of finding hair and maggots in the food. The letter is signed by nearly 40 people who are detained at the facility who have witnessed or experienced these incidents themselves. They explained that a complaint hadn't been filed because they didn't know whether they were allowed to do so, and because many times guards have ignored their complaints. The letter ends with a report that kitchen workers saw rats in the kitchen.GUESTS:Lee Stranahan — Co-host of Fault Lines on Sputnik News Radio. Daniel Lazare — Journalist and author of three books: "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's Undeclared War." Dr. Gerald Horne — Professor of history at the University of Houston and author of many books, including "Blows Against the Empire: US Imperialism in Crisis." Maru Mora-Villalpando — Nationally known immigrant rights activist, co-founder of the Latinx organization Mijente and community organizer with Northwest Detention Center Resistance Dr. Jack Rasmus — Professor of economics at Saint Mary's College of California.

The mainstream media is helping Trump evade justice. Breitbart is vying for FOX News' #1 place in Trump's heart. Courtney Love LIVE on her run for Tacoma City Council. Emma Vigeland LIVE on Trump screwing up in the Middle East and the State Dpt. blocking a key witness in the Ukraine scandal from testifying. Emma and John also discuss Ellen's defense of her friendship with George W. Bush and Shapiro saying Trump is too dumb to plot a criminal plan. Meanwhile in...China, pigs are being bred to be as large as polar bears. Meanwhile in...Sweden, Greta Thunberg is likely to receive this years' Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile in...China, South Park is cancelled after its latest episode aired putting the dictatorship's authoritarianism on blast.  Guests: Courtney Love and Emma Vigeland  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

US President Donald Trump is defending his decision to withdraw US forces from northern Syria as Turkey prepares to move into the region. Trump has faced backlash from both sides of the political aisle since making the announcement, with critics warning the move puts America's Kurdish allies at risk, since Turkey sees them as an enemy. Trump tweeted Tuesday that many people conveniently forget that Turkey is a big US trading partner, has helped him save lives in Syria and returned an imprisoned pastor at his request. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is growing "very concerned" about the impact to the state's economy from the United Auto Workers union strike against General Motors, now in its fourth week. Whitmer visited striking workers at the Delta Township GM plant in suburban Lansing on Monday, marking her second trip to a picket line since the strike started. There has not been anything released by the state budget office as of yet on the possible hit to the state's government and economy. What will be the economic fallout of the strike? "Dozens of groups from around Washington State will gather at Tacoma City Hall to launch a new campaign calling on Tacoma City Council to shut down the now infamous Northwest Detention Center (aka Northwest ICE Processing Center)," according to a Facebook page for a Tuesday event hosted by La Resistencia. "La Resistencia, a grassroots group that supports the leadership of those detained at NWDC and calls for an end to detention and deportations in our state is coordinating a statewide coalition of grassroots, legal, service and faith organizations, all of whom declare that detention has no place in Washington State."In a recent MintPress News article titled "Rage Against the War Machine: An Interview with Peace Activist Cindy Sheehan," writer Mnar Muhawesh does a deep dive into the activism, strategy and outlook of Sheehan. We'll cover how liberals learned to love her, her clash with the Women's March and more.GUESTS:Dr. Gerald Horne — Professor of history at the University of Houston and author of many books, including "Blows Against the Empire: US Imperialism in Crisis." Maru Mora-Villalpando — Nationally known immigrant rights activist, co-founder of the Latinx organization Mijente and community organizer with Northwest Detention Center Resistance Linwood Tauheed — Associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Cindy Sheehan — Anti-war activist and journalist whose son Casey was killed during the Iraq War.

On this episode the guys are joined by Josh Jorgensen and Erik Bjornson who are restarting The Tacoma Sun. The Tacoma Sun is a digital news source that is “Working to make Tacoma a more vibrant, healthy and inclusive city using best urban practices.” 1:35 – Justin explains their new Patron site, working with Shroom Brothers to make their new logo, and they talk about Castle Security & Protection being their latest business tier contributor. Justin introduces Erik and Josh, they talk about the windstorm issues that happened the day before, and then talk goes to Erik and Josh bringing back the Tacoma Sun. They talk about getting involved in Tacoma, Justin talks about growing up in Tacoma, and they cover the scooter service that's now offered in Tacoma. 16:30 – The guys talk about public transportation, the Tacoma City Council talking about the communities concern with the scooters, and the cost of parking in Tacoma and Seattle. They talk about the conflict that was around bringing Uber to the Tacoma area, Tacoma's major focus on putting parking areas downtown in the past, and the groups' ideas around how Tacoma could improve it. Josh talks about what brought him to Tacoma in 2011 and comparison of Tacoma to other areas he's been to around the world. 31:26 – Justin talks about a recent topic in Reddit around using part of the county jail that isn't being used for the homeless, how the east coast cities have dealt with the homeless in their communities, and Tacoma's innovation that came from putting the UWT downtown. Brogan talks about the weird public spaces in Tacoma, the Pacific Ave redesign, and McMenamins make over. 45:08 – Conversation turns to elderly people in the Tacoma area's concern with the city putting in senior and low income housing, Proctor parking, and the extension of the shopping offered in the Proctor area. Brogan brings up Point Ruston, they talk about Tacoma's long term goal to build a beautiful esplanade from downtown Tacoma to the Point Defiance Park. Chat then goes to downtown Tacoma being almost abandoned in 1978 and the empty space in the area where people can easily start a business in Tacoma. 60:54 – Scott talks about The Conservatory in Tacoma, where it's located, and what other hidden treasures are in the area. They talk about the Chinese Tunnels in the area, Tacoma's corrupted history, and Tacoma's continual desire to rebuild and repair the city. This episode comes to a close with how people can get ahold of Erik and Josh and plans for them to return to discuss “The Sins of Tacoma”. Thanks Erik and Josh for an interesting conversation around Tacoma! Special Guests: Erik Bjornson and Joshua Jorgensen.