Podcasts about University Place

Chapel Hill Mayor Jess Anderson spoke with 97.9 The Hill's Andrew Stuckey on Thursday, July 10, discussing the ongoing recovery efforts from Tropical Storm Chantal. She discussed visiting Camelot Village apartments, and the challenges faced by that community after the latest flood. She also discussed University Place and the flooding there. She talked about Eastgate Shopping Center, which saw catastrophic flooding. She suggested ways the community could help support these businesses and displaces residents, and more. The post Chapel Hill: Storm Recovery at Camelot Village, Eastgate Shopping Center, and More appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

Today's guest is Dr. Marcy Meyer of Destiny Direct Primary Care, a physician who transitioned from the US Army to opening a Direct Primary Care (DPC) practice focused on menopause care in University Place, Washington. Dr. Meyer shares her unique medical journey, insights into the challenges of traditional insurance-driven healthcare, and the freedom and impact of practicing DPC. The conversation covers her military background, lessons learned as a flight surgeon, the evolution of her clinic from general family medicine to specialized menopause care, and tips for physicians considering a similar path. Dr. Meyer also discusses the importance of patient-centered care, breaking menopause myths, and leveraging resources like the Menopause Society for ongoing education. This episode is a must-listen for clinicians interested in DPC, women's health, and entrepreneurial practice transformation. Listen and discover how empowering care models like DPC are reshaping the future of medicine.Register HERE for HINT SUMMIT @ ROSETTAFEST!Download Elation's New DPC Startup Checklist HERE! Schedule your ELATION demo today! Learn more about CERBO today! Click HERE to get started!Support the showBe A My DPC Story PATREON MEMBER! SPONSOR THE PODMy DPC Story VOICEMAIL! DPC SWAG!FACEBOOK * INSTAGRAM * LinkedIn * TWITTER * TIKTOK * YouTube

On April 17, the Rensselaer Environmental Coalition and the CIty of Rensselaer started an Article 78 proceeding against the state Department of Environmental Conservation, challenging their recent renewal of the permit for the Dunn landfill. On April 29, REC will hold a community educational meeting to discuss the permit renewal, the threat from PFAS contamination and the Leachate Loophole at the George Education Center, 1 University Place, Rens. at 6:30 PM. Bob Welton of REC talks with Mark Dunlea of Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

Today, we cover Men's and Women's Basketball's semi-final defeats in Ivy Madness, an internet outage on campus, and a new name for 36 University Place. 

Chapel Hill Mayor Jess Anderson joined 97.9 The Hill's Andrew Stuckey on Thursday, February 27. She discussed the Council's recent retreat, and the agenda for their upcoming meeting. She also talked about the Chapel Hill Police Department's upcoming move to Millhouse Road. She also discussed developments at University Place, and more. The post Chapel Hill: Council Retreat, University Place, New Police Station appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

The King County Police Officers’ Guild pulls no punches on trans-captain social media scandal. Belltown residents are at their wit’s end with the rampant crime and drug use. Guest: State Rep. Jenny Graham (R-Spokane) explains her decision to support a controversial new hate crime bill. // Big Local: A Lego store in University Place had thousands of dollars of merchandise stolen. A homeless shelter in Everett that was going to be forced to move out of downtown has been given an extra two months to find a new spot. // You Pick the Topic: The desks that allow you to stand may not be as good for you as you think.

Suzanne Vick is the AD at Curtis High School in University Place, WA and she also is very active at the State and the National Level! Suzanne shares some great tips for ADs and Leaders on today's WEDNESDAY WISDOM segment on The Educational AD Podcast! --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/educational-ad-podcast/support

https://admissionprep.com/ For many students, a place in a prestigious Canadian business school is a faraway hope - and AdmissionPrep is here to say that your future is within your reach. Its program can take you from applicant to scholar, so don't lower your educational expectations! Admissionprep City: Bellingham Address: 424 W Bakerview Rd Website: https://admissionprep.com/

What’s Trending: The Olympic Peninsula is testing out the efficacy of a universal basic income. King County is reporting that their ‘Operation Safe Transit’ program has resulted in more arrests and thus safer transit conditions. An Owl that was tangled in a soccer net was saved by a University Place family. A local escape room has its secrets exposed. // Kamala Harris is putting forth a new plan to impose price controls as President, but critics point out that it won’t actually combat inflation.  // Actor Dennis Quaid is sounding the alarm about his upcoming biopic about Ronald Reagan being censored by Facebook.

Jason "Puck" Puckett and Ryan Divish of the Seattle Times, who is brought to you by Chalet Bowl, Washington's oldest bowling alley, visit ChaletBowl.com. Puck and Divish open up about   Ryan's side hustle which is coaching kids in baseball and softball, their experiences in Montana, and the struggles of the Houston Astros. They also reminisce about their time covering the Huskies and share stories from their past. Puck shares his new betting strategy, while Ryan provides insights into the Mariners' bullpen and pitching staff. The conversation revolves around the struggles of the Seattle Mariners' offense and the potential solutions to improve their performance. The hosts discuss the team's lack of run production and the impact it has on the pitching staff. They also explore the idea of closing the roof at T-Mobile Park to create more favorable hitting conditions. The conversation touches on the history of the Mariners and their struggles with player acquisitions. Overall, the hosts express optimism about the team's potential if they can improve their offensive output.Rundown00:00 Ryan talks about his side gig of coaching kids in baseball and softball, but makes no money off of it...sound strategy06:32 Reminiscing about Ryan covering the  Huskies and the time he almost fought the assistant AD at UW at The Coug in Pullman...It's also the same story where Puck fell in love with Jen Cohen.14:38 Puck's New Betting Strategy and Ryan agrees with it....#MsBetUnderSummer 19:51 Struggles of the Seattle Mariners' Offense23:17 Exploring the Idea of Closing the Roof at T-Mobile Park27:18 Making Changes to Improve Offensive Performance32:26 The Impact of Offensive Performance on Winning Games38:39 Discussing the Benefits of Closing the Roof at T-Mobile Park41:18 The Appeal of Target Field in Minnesota43:45 Promoting Chalet Bowl as a Sponsor and Divish sets Puck's summer schedule in University Place. 

What’s Trending: The antisemitic protests at Columbia University continue. Joe Biden tries to play both sides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jay Inslee accidentally mocks Bob Ferguson’s ferry plan. // Big Local: A dental office in University Place was burglarized, but police don’t know what use the equipment could be for the thieves. A driver in Auburn was arrested after he intentionally tried to hit people in a park. A man in Lacey attempted to bury his wife alive. // Alec Baldwin was harassed in public by pro-Palestinian protester.

The Mike Garafolo, NFL Network, brought to you by Hartley & Hartley Insurance in University Place and Zog's on Fox Island. The conversation covers various topics including the Mike McDonald story, the importance of celebrating the past in sports organizations, car seats and parenting, the upcoming NFL draft, rumors and potential trades, the relationship between Robert Kraft and Bill Belichick, and Jim Harbaugh living in an RV park. The conversation ends with a discussion about a special announcement for the upcoming draft.TakeawaysThe importance of celebrating the past in sports organizationsThe potential impact of new coaches on team culture and traditionsThe challenges and frustrations of dealing with car seats as a parentThe upcoming NFL draft and potential tradesThe dynamics between Robert Kraft and Bill BelichickJim Harbaugh's unconventional living arrangementsRundown00:00 The Mike McDonald Story and Celebrating the Past05:26 Parenting and Dealing with Car Seats14:56 The Dynamics Between Robert Kraft and Bill Belichick

The City of West University Place is excited to announce its centennial celebration, a significant milestone highlights the city's storied past. On May 4th, 2024, West University Place will be bustling with celebrations as it honors a hundred years of progress, achievements, and community dedication. Flylight Drones City: Carrollton Address: 1605 Crescent Cir Website: https://www.flylightdrones.com Phone: +1-469-228-8227 Email: steph@flylightdrones.com

Mike Garafolo of the NFL Network joins Puck every Thursday to break down all the top stories in the NFL. Mike joined the network in 2016 and appears on NFL total Access, NFL Now, GameDay Morning and Good Morning Football. Mike's weekly appearance is made possible by Hartley & Hartley Insurance in University Place. Family owned, second generation independent insurance agency. Contact Jaime Hartley at 253.565.8700. Also brought to you by Zog's on Fox Island. Great indoor and outdoor beer garden that offers a great and wide selection. Head to Zog's and grab a cold beer and watch the game.  Takeaways Shoe shining at the airport is a convenient service for business travelers, but it may not be worth the cost for everyone.Golf can be enjoyable to play but less exciting to watch, especially for those with limited time.NFL teams use official visits to evaluate potential draft picks, and while some visits may be smokescreens, most teams have genuine interest in the players they bring in.The documentary series on the New England Patriots, 'The Dynasty,' was entertaining but incomplete, with some aspects, such as Rob Gronkowski's contributions, receiving less attention.The Pro Football Hall of Fame focuses solely on on-field accomplishments and does not consider off-field behavior when honoring players.The recent layoffs at the NFL Network have affected talented individuals who were part of viewers' daily routines. Outline 00:00 Shoe Shining at the Airport06:24 NFL Draft Visits14:43 J.J. McCarthy and College Football

The Justice Center of Rensselaer County is holding the Robert J. Doherty Memorial Lecture on Environmental Justice on Sunday, April 14 at 1:00 PM, at the U Albany School of Public Health, 1 University Place, Rensselaer NY. The event will feature Judith Enck of Beyond Plastics and Dr. David Carpenter. Also speaking will be Bob Welton for the Rensselaer Environmental Coalition about the Dunn Landfill; Joe Ritchie for Lights Out Norlite; Barbara Heinzen for the Clean Air Coalition of Greater Ravena - Coeymans; and Greg Campbell-Cohen of TIMBER about lead pipe replacement in Troy. Noreen McKee of the Justice Center speaks with Mark Dunlea of Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

Mike Garafolo of the NFL Network joins Puck for his weekly visit talking all things NFL. Mike's weekly appearance brought to you by Hartley & Hartley Insurance. Your number-one insurance provider in University Place. Contact Jaime Hartley at 253.565.8700.  Also, Zog's on Fox Island. Great place to grab a cold beer with friends and watch the game. Visit Zog's on Facebook. On this week's show, Mike is in vacation in Florida and takes time out to join Puck and chat about all the rule changes in the NFL.  they also chat about the breaking news with Stefon Diggs being traded to the Houston Texans.  Mike offers his thoughts on the Seahawks offseason moves and mentions that the Seahawks had to outbid the Rams for the services of Sam Howell.  They discuss how Russell Wilson will fare in Pittsburgh and Mike tries to make sense why the Steelers would also acquire Justin Fields.  Finally, Puck pleads with Mike to assure him that the Seahawks won't bring Jamal Adams back! 

This edition is historic in its own right: our last installment in University Place, before the station moves to East Franklin Street. The post History Matters: Double-Dipping on One Good Idea appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger spoke with 97.9 The Hill's Andrew Stuckey on Thursday, November 9. She discussed the results of Tuesday's election in Chapel Hill. She also discussed some ongoing development projects around town, including University Place. She talked about the upcoming Food Truck Rodeo at the Legion Road property, the Chapel Hill Holiday Parade, and more. The post Chapel Hill: Election Debrief, Legion Road Events, University Place, and More appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Qa5kuevec https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Mound the bible is about shamans... #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #photooftheday #volcano #news #money #food #weather #climate #monkeys #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwvZ6zQiyYo&t=28s https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Mound https://www.proquest.com/openview/19d12c05587782ed0f3d7191d68652b1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=24482#:~:text=It%20might%20be%20called%20fire,India%20being%20the%20most%20noted #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #food #photooftheday #volcano #news #weather #monkeys #climate #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready

Marguerite interviews Paul Kunitsa from the Waterfront Market at Point Ruston. The Kunitsa Family immigrated to the US and to Tacoma when he was a child, first settling on the Eastside then to University Place. Paul now lives on Tacoma's West Slope. Paul shares his story of running a construction company and through “a series... The post The Waterfront Market at Ruston with Paul Kunitsa appeared first on Move to Tacoma.

What’s Trending: Second King County councilmember wants director to step down for anti-Semitism and University Place school board candidate Linda Wojciechowski highlights her campaign to bring values back to schools.  Big Local: Encouraging number of people attended Israel support rally in Bellevue, and a Mercer Island family frets over daughter living in Israel. You Pick: Is it problematic to jail someone over hateful speech? Rantz highlights an incident involving a French-Swiss writer.

This week in history: natural preservationists, aviation pioneers, English settlers - and Aaron's plan for hang-gliding at University Place. The post History Matters: Written By The Victors appeared first on Chapelboro.com.

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

This week's guest, if we're speaking in beer years, is a lifelong friend. But what feels like a lifetime only started around 1987 in University Place when there weren't any craft breweries in the South... The post Episode 48: Kent Wetzler appeared first on Grit & Grain Podcast.

One of our ORIGINAL Wednesday Wisdom Members is back! Suzanne Vick, CMAA from the great state of Washington shares some great ideas for the End of the Year and how to NOT get stressed out! Suzanne does a great job with her school's teams, coaches, and student athletes and today she offers her take on something all ADs face on Wednesday Wisdom on The Educational AD Podcast! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/educational-ad-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/educational-ad-podcast/support

A topic that has dominated the news cycle in the COVID-19 aftermath is the future of downtowns. A simple google search on this topic will unleash a barrage of news articles about cities big and small across the country. Seattle is no exception. Many of the folks who worked downtown have yet to return to their offices. Many commercial spaces are vacant and retail has been hit hard due to the decrease in foot traffic. So how do we revitalize our downtown corridor? How do we make sure it's a space that welcomes and benefits everyone? To discuss this topic, we've brought together an amazing trio of guests: Yoon Kang O'Higgins, Director of Public Programs at Friends of the Waterfront Seattle Rico Quirindongo, Acting Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development at the City of Seattle Jon Scholes, President & CEO of the Downtown Seattle Association They share their origin stories which span across the Central District, University Place, the Guggenheim Museum, Pike Place Market, St. Louis, New York City, and Oakland. They discussed their favorite aspects of Seattle's downtown (can you guess what they picked?) and then really dug into the future of Downtown Seattle. This discussion ranged from the future impact of the Waterfront, transforming commercial space into residential space, attracting visitors through arts & cultural attractions, and reimaging street-level retail. And throughout the conversation, they held to the ideal of creating a space of Belonging and equity. Join our discussion on the future of downtown Seattle with some of the folks who are most poised to impact it. Thank you again to the Big Phony, a Korean-American singer/songwriter living in Seoul, South Korea for allowing us to use his music in our intro and outro, all royalty-free!

Phebe Brako-Owusu, an award-winning Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, was born and raised in Ghana. She is licensed to see clients in Washington and Washington DC. Her passion for helping immigrants build a home away from home led her into private practice in 2016, and in 2021 she founded 253 Therapy and Consult in University Place, WA to mentor the next generation of therapists.Phebe specializes in working with adults, families, and couples dealing with work stress, trauma, and issues related to their immigrant identities. With a warm and compassionate approach, Phebe empowers her clients to heal, grow, and thrive.In this episode, Phebe shares her journey as an immigrant in the mental health field and mental health care barriers. We also explore the topic of breaking cycles, setting boundaries with family, and finding one's identity between different cultures.FOLLOW PHEBE:INSTAGRAM: @phebebrakolmftPODCAST: Immistories with Phebe on AppleSTAY CONNECTED:INSTA: @trustandthriveTIKOK:@trustandthriveTWITTER: @trustandthriveFACEBOOK: bit.ly/FBtaramontWEBSITE: www.tara-mont.com EMAIL: trustandthrive@gmail.com

Whistleblower to tell a House hearing that the U.S. government is ‘middleman' in a migrant child trafficking operation. KNOW IT ALL: 1) University Place martial arts instructor faces child rape charges dating back over a decade. 2) President of South Korea is meeting with Biden at the White House. 3) Karine Jean-Pierre says republicans want to keep the border open and take cops off the beat. // Gov. Jay Inslee signs assault weapons ban. Adventures in parenting. // Taliban kill IS leader behind Kabul airport massacre.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rep. Mari Leavitt's 28th legislative district might have the heaviest concentration of military families in Washington, and as the daughter of a Vietnam vet, she's got a special place in her heart for those constituents. In today's Capitol Ideas you'll hear about her bill to help newly arrived military spouses resume their careers in the Evergreen State. She'll talk about her plan to save lives during increasing extreme weather events. And we'll discuss her goal of making life more difficult for the backroom pill factories poisoning Washington's kids.

Our culture is experiencing a mental health crisis. For Christians, the fact that Scripture teaches that human beings are soul, spirit, and body—whose delicate brain chemistry affects our life experience—should make the church a haven for real conversations about mental health. So how can the church do a better job of this? And what would it look like for the church to come alongside those who struggle with mental health with the grace and truth of Jesus? This message was given by Fred Fay, pastor of Neighborhood Church in University Place, WA. Scripture passages cited in this message include Philippians 4:6-9.

Guests include- Kent Keel, University Place City Councilmember, Past President, Association of Washington Cities, Vice Chair, Sound Transit Board, National League of Cities Board Member. Larry Williams, CEO, Anchor Group comments on Bill Burton's successful tenure as a leader of the Boys and Girls Club. Longtime Rainier Vista Boys and Girls Club CEO Bill Burton will have a street named for him and the Club's basketball court will be named in his honor. Shaude' Moore, Chair, Seattle Martin Luther King Jr. Organizng Coalition comments on a well attended and very successful MLK Day Celebration Monday. Takiyah Ward, Seattle Artist was featured in last Sunday's Seattle Times The Mix- Culture section. LaNesha DeBardelaben, President and CEO, Northwest African American Museum (NAAM) talks about the Monday reopening of NAAM. Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at wwww.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye.

Guests include-Kent Keel, University Place City Councilmember, Past President, Association of Washington Cities, Vice Chair, Sound Transit Board, National League of Cities Board Member. Larry Williams, CEO, Anchor Group comments on Bill Burton's successful tenure as a leader of the Boys and Girls Club.Longtime Rainier Vista Boys and Girls Club CEO Bill Burton will have a street named for him and the Club's basketball court will be named in his honor. Shaude' Moore, Chair, Seattle Martin Luther King Jr. Organizng Coalition comments on a well attended and very successful MLK Day Celebration Monday.Takiyah Ward, Seattle Artist was featured in last Sunday's Seattle Times The Mix- Culture section. LaNesha DeBardelaben, President and CEO, Northwest African American Museum (NAAM) talks about the Monday reopening of NAAM.Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at wwww.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. Twitter@Eddie_Rye. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On our ONE YEAR Anniversary of Wednesday Wisdom we welcome back our great friend Suzanne Vick! This is Suzanne's 4th appearance on WW and today she shares a little of bit of her history as a D-I Athlete along with some initiatives she is starting with her own student athletes. It's always great to spend time with Suzanne and today she shares some BEST PRACTICES on Wednesday Wisdom as part of the Educational AD Podcast! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/educational-ad-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/educational-ad-podcast/support

This episode of LIKEITORNOT was recorded in AHyp's cozy 3 bedroom apartment in Tacoma's West end neighborhood, now respectfully known as University Place, WA. It is Christmas evening and Chaz Lavender stops by w/ Holiday whiskey and a plethora of good cheer to go over a # of topics we deemed important, meaning we just pressed play, drank whiskey & shot the shit for an hour,  All while rocking my new eTc puffer I got earlier in the morning. (A snippet of it is on my Instagram if anyone wants to see how fire the coat is.) BUT, Regardless of where the podcast has been, this is the episode that changes all of that. I do this shit on my  own time! And lately, I haven't had much. Grateful for all my listeners and followers who have stuck with me and who truly  keep me afloat when I'm in too deep & I start to sink. We all just gotta keep swimming. Just keep fucking swimming. You'll get there if you really try, LIKEITORNOT, your effort is never overlooked or undervalued. Ok, take care y'all. Thanks for reading this far,. Time to go roll up. 

We're BACK with another Great WENESDAY WISDOM segment with our good friend, Suzanne Vick, CMAA from Curtis H.S. in Washington State. Suzanne is one of the "Stars" of our Profession and she does a great job for her school - and she's presenting at the NADC this year in Nashville! THIS is The Educational AD Podcast! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/educational-ad-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/educational-ad-podcast/support

We are featuring Americana Singer/Songwriter Lara Taubman for this episode! It is sort of ironic that  Lara mentions in this podcast that she is 54 yrs old and we just so happen to be on episode 54! That must be a sign that the timing was perfect for her to be our guest in the city's backyard! Here is the intro on her website about the new album she is releasing in September 2022!~From Lara:The idea for this album came on a 105 degree day in July in Manhattan in 2021. The pressure of the heat was down on me and the gospel song “If I Can Help Somebody” was playing in my ears, the version sung by Mahalia Jackson.  I floated down the hazy sidewalk on University Place, her voice loud and raw in my headphones. Her truthful sound, the words, the tinkling reverb-y piano, made me feel as if I was hallucinating a flower unfolding before my eyes. Hours after that intense moment, the meaning of mercy was brought to me for the first time in my life, in a strange and mystical experience in Washington Square Park. I fortuitously met producer and drummer, Steven Williams, two months after that hot day in Manhattan on a gig.  Very quickly after meeting him, I realized I had met the person who could help me make “Ol' Kentucky Light.”  For more log onto:https://www.larataubman.com/

Tate Johnson, assistant technician at Chambers Bay in University Place, WA, was brought into the turf industry by his dad who is a superintendent. He has worked alongside his dad since a young age. His dad has also brought his brothers into the industry as assistant superintendents. Tate's decision to enter the industry took him straight to the shop where he works alongside a senior technician in Jerry Holcomb. Tate has a great passion for this career and wants to see more younger people join us.

Byron from Byron Pullen Real Estate joins the podcast for this episode. Real estate has always been a passion for Byron, and he works to provide top-notch service no matter what stage of life or home buying/selling process his customers are in. Outside of real estate, he loves traveling, cooking with his wife, and playing Frisbee with their dog Jovie. 01:31 – Jeff reveals the day's safe words, Justin talks about how long he and Byron have been friends, and Byron describes the distinction between real estate agents, brokers, and realtors. He talks about working on setting himself apart from other agents, the PNW areas he covers, and Justin reflects on how University Place used to be. Byron talks about new plans for the area, hot button issues lately around development in the area, and the types of business he does. 23:15 – Jeff talks about people squatting in vacation homes in Florida, Justin brings up the shift of the market being a sellers' market, and Byron goes over real estate stats of the past six months. He talks about the inventory increase in the area, the average days on the market, and Justin talks about his home buying experience. He talks about how quick the turnaround time was, Scott reflects on how long houses were on the market 10 – 12 years ago, and Byron shares his favorite part of the job. 46:49 – Byron talks about the different types of content he puts out in the area, the breweries he recommends going to, and Justin talks about the two great places you can pick up pizza by the slice. Byron shares that Salamone's opening a new location in University Place, the area where it's going, Justin share's where they're recording, and Byron talks about the hot new wants of home buyers. 70:58 – Byron talks about the power buyers currently have that they may not know about, what he encourages buyers to do regarding buy downs, and the importance of having an experienced agent. Scott talks about real estate investment, one of the easiest ways to get into real estate investment, and they talk about the potential of property taxes going up in the area. Byron touches on state and federal programs for home buyers, and they discuss the importance of not making any major purchases before closing on the home. Thanks to Byron for the great real estate conversation! Special Guest: Byron Pullen.

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.

New York Magazine's diner-at-large Tammie Teclemariam is on a mission to try as many New York restaurants as possible in one year for her newsletter "The Year I Ate New York." She's now about halfway through her culinary journey, and had many tricks and suggestions to share from her piece "200 Restaurants, 100 Tips," which includes advice like where to find the best dive bars, and what ice cream in New York reigns supreme. She joins us to discuss, and to take your calls on your best dining tips and tricks. In case you missed it, here's our full list of recommendations, from Tammie and the All Of It listeners: Cesar's Empanadas Truck, Fort Greene Shukette, Chelsea Hummus Bar, Midwood Terre, Park Slope LaRina, Fort Greene Macosa Trattoria, Bed-Stuy Marea, Columbus Circle Betty Bakery, Boerum Hill Blossom, University Place Place des Fetes, Clinton Hill Tacos el Bronco, Sunset Park Sahara East, East Village Keki Modern Cakes, Chinatown Eataly, Flatiron Dante, West Village D'Antan, Crown Heights

Megan Lewis, PLLC has over 15 years experience in estate planning, trust, probate, business and tax law. She passionately preserves family legacies, both assets and relationships. Megan enjoys technology and providing Washington state estate planning in person, by phone, email and web conferencing. ​ Prior to opening her own firm, she practiced at the Washington State Attorney General's office and a couple great firms of different sizes for about 10 years. She serves clients virtually across Washington (or out of state, but working on a Washington probate), but is based in Spokane, Washington. Megan served on the board of the Spokane Estate Planning Council for many years and as President for the 2021-2022 year. Megan grew up in University Place, WA and Juneau, AK and has lived around Washington, Oregon and Washington, DC. She received a B.S. from University of Oregon, studying journalism, public relations, economics, and Spanish. She worked in Washington, DC for a few years after college before attending Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, WA. After law school, she earned a Masters of Law in Taxation from the University of Washington in Seattle, WA. Her personal passions include sailing, flying (she earned her private pilot license in high school), skydiving (over 1,000 skydives so far), photography, travel, great food, and spending time adventuring with her husband and two energetic young children. In this episode, we talk about: :: Megan's journey to finding passion and creativity as an estate planning attorney :: Common myths and misconceptions around estate planning :: What estate planning is and who should be thinking about it :: Which health-directed documents are important for protecting our healthcare wishes :: Her concept of a capacity committee :: Specifics around powers of attorney :: What may happen if estate planning is not done and you are not able to speak for yourself To learn more about Megan's practice, visit https://www.meganlewislaw.com/ *********** If you enjoyed this episode, reviews are always welcome and appreciated! If you are interested in working with me, visit https://www.peaceadvocacygroup.com/ If you have ideas for future episodes or want to send a message about anything else, go to https://www.speakpipe.com/MindingWellness

This is a true ROADHOUSE Edition episode as A-Hyp randomly meets some strangers and organically curates a podcast worthy of a listen from you, the concerned citizen. Especially if you live near homeless encampments and deal with rats the size of CATS! Write your local councilman says Cliff Marvin, a Tacoma transplant from Brooklyn. He and his friend Nick, from Galveston, Texas are both architects and Cliff has even worked with the BLOCK PROJECT a few times. We quickly get into our favorite pizza in town and I'm shocked to learn the Brooklyn Boy hadn't had Tacoma Pie or Camp Colvos yet! He did however, have very nice things to say about Salamones on Tacoma Ave and Puget Sound Pizza, near Antique Row. We talk about Dusty's and the fact they are opening in downtown Tacoma. We also talk about how they are re-opening the Pine Cone Cafe in University Place! Cliff talks about his time in NYC growing up and living in 3 of the 5 Burroughs. He talks how he fell in love with Tacoma and what makes the pizza so good in New York City. Hint:it is the water. But water from where? Cliff explains that and more in this ROADHOUSE thriller bound to educate any and every listener, LIKEITORNOT

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal's co-host is criminal defense attorney, abolitionist and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. They discuss how a powerful lobbying group used a focus on local control to sink statewide housing reform, and how to overcome that in the next session, a rundown of candidates running for open seats, the disconnect of prioritizing the wants of downtown stakeholders over real solutions to homelessness, the Seattle City Attorney's repackaging of a failed initiative, and mixed results on the plan for some concrete workers to return to work while concrete companies continue to drag their feet on negotiating a fair contract. 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, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, at @NTKallday. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Here's What Happened in Olympia” by Rich Smith from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/15/68343035/the-strangers-rundown-of-2022s-huge-confused-legislative-session    “What Will It Take to Get Statewide Housing Reform?” by Matt Baume from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/16/68207458/what-will-it-take-to-get-statewide-housing-reform    “Surprise Sweep Displaces Fourth Avenue Encampment, Scattering Unsheltered People” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/09/surprise-sweep-displaces-fourth-avenue-encampment-scattering-unsheltered-people-throughout-downtown/    “Downtown Sweep Highlights Urgency of Resolving Seattle's Other “Top-Priority Encampment,” Woodland Park” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/16/downtown-sweep-highlights-urgency-of-resolving-seattles-other-top-priority-encampment-woodland-park/    “City Attorney's Office Introduces Latest Initiative to Target “High Utilizers” of the Criminal Justice System” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/15/city-attorneys-office-introduces-latest-initiative-to-target-so-called-high-utilizers-of-the-criminal-justice-system/    “Harrell postpones Seattle police plan to crack down on ‘disorderly conduct' at Third Avenue bus stops” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/harrell-postpones-seattle-police-plan-to-crack-down-on-disorderly-conduct-at-third-avenue-bus-stops/    “Cigarettes and Fentanyl: All Aboard” by Nathan Vass from NathanVass.com: http://www.nathanvass.com/blog/cigarettes-and-fentanyl-all-aboard    “Some Seattle-area concrete drivers return to work, others await go-ahead from employer” by Nick Bowman from MyNorthwest: https://mynorthwest.com/3398180/seattle-concrete-drivers-return-others-await-employer/    “Concrete strike continues in King County as union workers who offered to return didn't show” by KING 5 Staff & Adel Toay from KING 5: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/concrete-strike-king-county-union-workers-no-show/281-f14d167c-c88c-44db-91c8-591171124209    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. For transcripts and resources referenced in this show, you can visit officialhacksandwonks.com and reference 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 to the program for the first time, today's co-host: criminal defense attorney, abolitionist, and activist Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Hey. [00:00:55] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Hello. Thanks for having me - and this is the second time I've been on - must have been so memorable that first time. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: No, this is your first time as a co-host on the Week In Review. Yes, we did an interview last time, which was very good and incredible. And a number of people were like, well, we see who you want to win. And it's just like, look, if she happens to be making great and salient points, it's not my fault. But yes, just really, really excited to have you here on the Week In Review. [00:01:28] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I'm excited to be here. Thank you. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Well, and so the first thing that we have coming out of the gate was one thing I wanted to talk about - coming out of the end of the legislative session - we talked last week and broke down a number of bills. The Stranger this week had a great article that we'll put in our episode notes that also further broke down what was great about the legislative session, what was disappointing, and how we can move forward. And then Matt Baume also had another article talking about the failure of bills that would have mandated more density, specifically near transit, that would've helped address the affordability crisis that we have here in the state. And I thought it was very good - it was focused on, hey, what needs to happen moving forward to actually succeed in passing bills that require more density statewide? In that, he talked about the AWC, Association of Washington Cities, being a vocal opponent. They are a powerful lobby in the State of Washington. Their purpose, they say, is to represent the over 200 cities in the state. And their position largely was - it's really important to have local control in these and the one-size-fits-all solution that would come from the state just may not be right for our communities, so therefore we need to do nothing. The challenge in that is that most cities have not moved forward on doing anything. As you look at this issue, Nicole, what do you see as being the barriers and, I guess, the opportunities for moving forward successfully? [00:03:16] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think that when I look at this, first I think it's funny that there is a coalition of all these cities that are all saying the same thing - we want local control - that seems to be the only thing that they agree on. But I think that on a state level, there needs to be a floor created for affordable housing and density, and that's really all we were talking about for the most part with these bills. It wasn't any incredibly specific directions that each city has to take on a certain timeline on a certain budget - anything like that. It was about just creating a floor of affordable, dense housing that is needed in pretty much every community. And I think that what I heard a lot in the last year was that - the reverse of there needs to be local control - which was now we have municipalities competing against each other for who can do the least. Seattle is - Sara Nelson and other people are calling out other cities for not doing their part and spending their money on addressing the crisis. And it seems to be like a race to the bottom in terms of who can spend the least. And because the idea, I think, is that if you build services, if you build affordable housing, people will move into them. And why do that when you can concentrate a lot of the unsheltered population in one place that provides the minimum to keep people alive? And that's what I see going on. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and definitely a resistance to people who are defined as others and outsiders from even being able to buy into communities. It was really interesting in this article - there were representatives from cities across the state, from Port Orchard to Tacoma to University Place, and a number of them were leaders within AWC and talked about - we need local control, we are all very different. But one very consistent thread in these is that the median home price in most of these areas has doubled. This housing crisis is not just a crisis in major municipalities. It is a crisis across the board in areas that were affordable - that people used to consider being affordable and that people could buy into and still work in a major area where jobs are concentrated. And still live, even with a commute unfortunately - that it was possible to buy a home there with a median income. It is no longer the case in many of these places. And sometimes, like one of these examples in Port Orchard, they touted - well, we built new homes. Well, yeah, those are half million dollar plus homes adjacent to a golf course. If we're concentrating on making sure cities are accessible to people across the board and that you don't have to be rich and that we aren't displacing people outside of cities and just gentrifying them, then we have to have a solution across the board. Also, interestingly, the National League of Cities, which the Association of Washington Cities is a member of, had a 2019 report that said, "While local control is often at the heart of policies that accelerate progress, there are examples, particularly in the affordable housing policy arena in which state policy is needed." To your point, there has to be a floor. We have to establish a minimum boundary. Cities can determine the right way that they're all going to get there, but what we can't do - what is not sustainable, we're already paying the price for - is continued inaction while just spouting excuses like, well, it's not local control, therefore it's nothing. I would love to see leaders within the legislature say, "Well, you say you want local control? This wasn't successful this session. You now have this coming year to address this within your own cities. If you do, we can find a way to create legislation that respects what you've done." And more than likely if you're taking meaningful action, the floor is going to be below where you set it. But it's not going to be an option to continue to not take action next session and further on in the future. I would love to hear that from legislative leadership and leaders across the state - it just should not be an option. We have to make cities and housing affordable and accessible for people to live in, or else we're going to make our homelessness problem worse, we're going to make our displacement problem worse, we're not going to have people available to fill jobs that are necessary within cities. This is a critical economic development issue just in addition to a housing and social issue. So I hope we address that. Go ahead. [00:08:31] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Oh, I was just going to say too that I really like how you talked about these are communities that used to be affordable. When we talk about Port Orchard - my in-laws live in Port Orchard, and so when they bought their home, it was very affordable and the amount of money it appreciated to was pretty astronomical. And so when we're resisting building affordable housing - and affordable really is - we're talking about homes that are less than half a million dollars, which is just a wild concept that that's where we are with the average home prices in an area. It wasn't always like that. So the idea that these - the people that are already there should be able to stay with this huge, expensive appreciation that they have in their home value, but then not let anybody else in that is going to be coming in at the same level that they came in at. And unfortunately they're not going to be able to afford - they're going to have to have less in terms of space and in terms of all of those things. And so it's interesting to me to want to keep out the same people that are essentially already there, I guess. [00:09:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it absolutely is that issue. And then as I look at this, it's like the people who are in housing whose housing has appreciated and who are resistant to any kind of acceptance of other people in their communities - we're talking about their kids, we're talking about their employees, we're talking about their students. And again, people talk about, well, I can't find anyone to fill this position in my company. We can't find people. No one wants to work. But is it that no one wants to work? Or is it that you're now forcing people who can't live and work in the same community, and maybe the compensation doesn't work for someone who has to commute 45 minutes each way and drop off their kids beforehand and pick them up after? It just isn't tenable for so many reasons. I feel like we leave housing and affordability out of economic discussions and it's just so critical and a big part of those two. So I hope that we see significant action, and that candidates are talking about this on the campaign trail, and our leadership is making it clear in both the House and the Senate - that this is something that needs to be acted on and will be acted on next session, and that cities are on notice that they need to move in the right direction. [00:11:19] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yes, I agree. Yes. That needs to happen. And I think there needs to be some - maybe more clear calling out of what is actually happening. If municipalities are saying, oh, we want to sit down, we want to sit down, we want to talk, we want to talk - but then they're not asking for any more talks and they're not proposing anything of their own. I think it's maybe time to call a spade a spade and say, are you really interested in solving this problem, or are you really just kicking the can down the road? [00:11:47] Crystal Fincher: Exactly. Well, the legislative session did recently conclude, and that means that now we have a number of legislators who are kicking off their re-election campaigns and starting in earnest. One thing I don't know if everyone who listens is aware of is that - while our legislators are in office, they can't actually raise money, so they can't do a major element of campaigning. There is a prohibition against doing that, also for certain employees of the state. So once session concludes, they're all trying to catch up to people who have already been running and doing that. And so a lot of them are - people are receiving a lot more emails from their representatives and appeals for donations - that's happening now. And I just wanted to do a quick little rundown of where there are open seats. There are a number of representatives who are retiring or moving onto different positions, some in the House are running for Senate seats - but that is leaving some positions open that are now contested by several different people. The 22nd Legislative District in Thurston County - having Beth Doglio and Laurie Dolan who are Democrats, and Loretta Byrnes running for those - that's Position 1 there. 30th Legislative District in Federal Way, where Jesse Johnson has decided not to run for re-election - we have Kristine Reeves, who's filed to run, Leandra Craft, Lynn French, Ryan Odell and Ashli Raye Tagoai, I think it is, and Janis Clark. And then in the 36 District in Seattle, where Reuven Carlyle decided not to run and then Noel Frame decided to run for Reuven Carlyle Senate seat, leaving that House seat vacant - there's Julia Reed, Jeffrey Manson, Elizabeth Tyler Crone, Nicole Gomez, and Waylon Robert. And in the 46th District - and just a reminder, I am working with Melissa Taylor - there is Melissa Taylor, Lelach Rave, Nancy Connolly, Darya Farivar, and Nina Martinez who have filed for that seat. That's in north Seattle, northeast Seattle. 47th Legislative District, which is eastern Kent, Covington, Maple Valley area, where Pat Sullivan is no longer running, he's not going to be running for re-election - there's Carmen Goers, Kyle Lyebyedyev, Jessie Ramsey, and Satwinder Kaur, who is a Kent City Councilmember. And then King County Prosecuting Attorney is an open seat because Dan Satterberg is not running for re-election - and so there's Stephan Thomas, Leesa Manion, and Jim Ferrell who are running for that seat. So there is a lot to come - we're certainly going to be having conversations with several of these candidates, but running these campaigns are getting off in earnest now - and you'll be hearing lots and seeing lots, and the end of the legislative session is a big turning point in campaign season with another big milestone coming up. There are lots of people who can file to run and you can start your campaign committee in May - in mid-May is where people officially declare that they're running for a specific seat - and that will determine who actually appears on your ballot. And so that'll be the final say on who is running for what, so people in the interim can potentially switch positions they're running for, choose not to run - lots of choices and paths that this can go down. As you're looking at this crew, does anything just come to mind for you? Or you've run a campaign - a big campaign citywide before - what do see just ahead for these candidates and for voters who are evaluating them? [00:15:59] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I mean, I see some candidates that I think are exciting - I also love Melissa Taylor. I used to work on the other side of Leandra Craft - I think she's smart and knows what's going on. So I think I'm seeing some good candidates. Campaigning at that level is different because there just has to be so much fundraising done, whereas in the City, we're so lucky that we don't have to spend all of our time doing that. I just - I wish everyone the best because - oh yeah, oh, Nicole Gomez too. There's some people to be really excited about, I think, and so that's great. I just wish everyone the best. I hope everyone's taking good care of themselves - that's what I think when I see this list. [00:16:45] Crystal Fincher: Running for office is a very, very tough thing. It's not fun - you're putting yourself out there to be scrutinized - people do not always consider the human when they are communicating with or about candidates. And they are humans - even when we disagree with them, they're humans. I do think, as candidates are kicking off their campaigns, certainly fundraising is a big deal in the City of Seattle - with City races, there are Democracy Vouchers where every resident gets money from the City that they can donate to the candidate of their choice. That is not the case in these campaigns this year - they have to raise all the money they need. And campaigns do take money because unfortunately there is not broad media coverage, and getting your message out to most voters requires communicating directly with them. And so whether it's knocking on their door, giving them a call - which still takes resources - and usually also involves communicating with them via mail or online or on TV - just a lot of different mediums there. And then people are also focusing on endorsements - especially early on, people are trying to figure out - what do these candidates stand for, what have they been involved with, and how have they worked before in the past, what is their history? And sometimes endorsements can be revealing and highlight what that candidate prioritizes, who is in their corner, what kind of issues they'll be strong on and a leading a advocate for - not simply a vote. So lots of that happening right now, and certainly just hope for the best and hope they are successful in getting their messages out. It is an interesting time and campaigns are kicking off once again. I did want to pivot to a number of news items in the City of Seattle surrounding public safety - first being the issue of sweeps of a number of encampments. And so we had a 4th Avenue encampment sweep, which scattered a bunch of unsheltered folks. There's probably other sweeps to come soon, and the issue of another encampment that has been viewed as a top priority at Woodland Park. As you look at what's going on with these sweeps, what do you see as far as what's happening? [00:19:33] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: What I see is the huge amount of disconnect between what the public thinks is happening and what is actually happening - and that's just such a huge disservice to everyone. I know that there's a narrative out there that people are refusing services and they're refusing shelter. And I guess the idea is that some people are camping out in the cold and rain, because that's preferable somehow to be sheltered. And that's not what the case is - we don't have enough places for people to live that they can afford to live in. We don't have the services that are needed to stop this from continuing to happen. Also, the thing is - it really just moves the problem around. There's nothing really - it will clear one area of sidewalk for a certain period of time, but all it does is move things around. And the more people are destabilized, who are already barely, are clinging to stability and security in the most tenuous way possible - are then pushed around and have all the belongings they need to survive thrown away - because that's what we saw in the downtown sweep is - it was different than some of the other sweeps in that they didn't really offer services, they didn't offer anything. There's different timelines that they went by because they called the tents downtown an obstruction, a sidewalk obstruction, which means that they're - all of the things that they're supposed to do during the sweep, they didn't have to do any of that. And they didn't. And so we just see people's belongings being thrown away, tents thrown away. And I think what's also missing from the narrative around these sweeps is just how much stress that puts on service providers. I talk to a lot of people and they say, well, the Navigation Center is just up the street and I'm like, how much do you think that they can handle? Because as a public defender, something that I saw often was people being displaced by going to jail. That means when they get out, they have to get a new ID, a new EBT card, they have to go to DESC and see if they can get a tent and a sleeping bag - because there's things that people need in order to survive. And people don't just evaporate after a sweep, they are still existing. And also my partner has an office in Pioneer Square and he watched the 4th Avenue sweep, and he's seen a lot of sweeps around . That area. And he says, it's just really hard to watch people who are barely hanging on become so dysregulated by the horror of what is actually happening to them. And he said he would see people huddled together in alleyways trying to get away from the police - it's just a really horrifying scene that doesn't - it really truly does not solve any problem other than that one piece of sidewalk for a little bit of time. And so we're spending millions and millions of dollars to essentially make this problem worse. We move it around and make it worse. And so, I get that people don't want to see this anymore, but if that's what they want, then we're going to have to take some steps towards solutions and sweeps just aren't it at all. [00:23:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. You raised so many good points - it's absolutely correct. The bottom line is the actions that we're taking are not moving people into shelter and permanent housing. It is not an ideal solution to have people on sidewalks and have people living on streets. But when people don't have a home to go to and they don't have anywhere else to go, that is the option. That is the option. Unless we just expect people to die, we can't jail our way out of the problem. There certainly is a contingent of people who are just like, well, they shouldn't be on the sidewalk and that should be illegal and that's an obstruction and it's bad, and they should be arrested and they're probably criminals anyway and they're causing problems and creating crime. When the reality is people who are unsheltered are actually many times more likely to be victims of crime. They're a very vulnerable population and that's all just factless propaganda that we're hearing otherwise. But our services are not set up to meet the needs that actually exist, and time after time - when we listen and we hear things like they were offered shelter and they refused, we really do have to dig a little bit deeper and think about what were they offered? So many times what they were offered does not actually accommodate the needs that they have - if they have a partner, if they have a dog - those people that they have relied on that again, because they're in such a vulnerable position and because they are so exposed to the likelihood of having crime committed against them, having people that they can count on who help to look out for you, that help to protect your belongings - is essential to survival. And a lot of times we're asking them to give that up for a night in a shelter, for a week in a shelter. It's not even like they have the opportunity to transition in a permanent way and okay, maybe it's going to be okay. That stay in the shelter could be absolutely destabilizing for them and could tear apart the only thing that is keeping them safe and warm and alive. And so we just have to get really serious about this. I think Marc Dones has talked a lot about this issue and that we have to get real about - when we see such high "refusal rates", which can just be a service didn't fit. And when we see high rates of people being referred to services and then not showing up or following through, there's a reason for that. And if we want to get to the root cause of this issue and if we want to get people off of our sidewalks, which I think everybody wants, then we have to actually address the issues there and meet the needs that exist, not the ones that - they have to be solutions that meet the needs that they're identifying that they have, not what we think they should have, not what we think they deserve, not what we think is right or good or moral or all of that stuff. If we aren't addressing the things that they say will, hey, yes, that is something that I could do to move forward to get off the streets, then we're just moving people around to different areas. And again, a sweep is just moving people off of a block - the City and the County will acknowledge, have acknowledged - that no, it's not solving the issue of homelessness, it's moving them off of a block. I think another missing part of this conversation is that we seem to be prioritizing the needs and wants of downtown moneyed interests and not those of the rest of the community. We're perfectly fine spending tons of money - allocating tons of time and officer resources, City resources - to clear a block here and there at the behest of the Downtown Seattle Association, or the Chamber, or a business owner who's been loud and vocal, but we're actually not doing the same thing in other neighborhoods where just regular people are living. In fact, we're displacing the problems that existed in the downtown area to other communities - freely admitting it and saying, hey, we just spent the money that we could have spent to house people - which is the biggest problem of homelessness is people lacking houses - and we're treating this like a criminal solution and basically putting the problem into your lap now. And doing a victory lap because this one block downtown is clear for now. It just does not make much sense to me. And I just feel like so many people are just like, well, you don't care and you want all the sidewalks to be like this. No, no one does. We just want to actually not keep kicking the can down the road and waste the money that we could be using to actually solve this problem. [00:28:33] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Absolutely - and I also think that there's - I don't really understand why there is so much comfort in subsidizing downtown businesses using all the resources there to make sure that they can have what they want, but everybody else has to deal with the fallout and they just have to take it on. But like downtown - their sidewalks, everything - the City as a whole pays to subsidize clearing those blocks for them and for their businesses. And I don't understand why anyone is okay with that idea, especially because yes, we're not talking about solutions. And I think that if you're not talking about getting people housed, then you are just talking about moving the problem around. And there's a lot of reasons why - you were talking about people might refuse services, but there's also - and they're very real. Like you said, there's a community aspect that is the only thing that's keeping a lot of people truly alive, truly safe, truly alive - the modicum of safety and life that they have. And that's not considered. And I think that it's a very convenient - to say, well, they refused services - but it's just like, well, did you give them a three-night hotel voucher where they can't take any of their belongings? And so therefore they know if I do this, then I'm going to be out again in three days and I'm not going to have any of the things that I need to survive. There's a lot more that goes into decisions about what services to accept and not, rather than just personal preference. And I think that's how it gets sold - is like, oh, well, you maybe don't like this, but that's what there is. And it's just - first of all, I think people should have choices. But second, we're talking about the difference between life and death. And so the idea that, and this is what I would see in court all the time too, especially around issues like addiction or not having shelter is - well, if we just punish you harder, then you won't be like this anymore. I'm - this person lives under a bridge and is fighting for their life. I don't know how much lower we can take this - there's no point in making people who are suffering suffer more. I think there's this idea that they'll just suffer more and then they'll just stop - suffer more and then they'll magically have money to move into an apartment that costs twice as much as it did five years ago? That's this weird, magical thinking that is really, I guess, hypnotic on some level, but it's really pervasive. And we can see that it hasn't worked, so I don't really understand clinging to those notions. But yeah, that's where we are. And it's incredibly - I saw a picture the other day of some bike officers at a sweep and there was 12 of them just in the picture - and if you think about median income for a sworn police officer for SPD, I think it's $163,000. So even just looking - if we just rounded to $150k - 12 officers at $150k in this picture - that's almost $2,000 an hour. And I'm sure that was only a small number of the officers that were there. So in addition to parks, in addition to all of the other services that may or may not be provided - we're spending gigantic amounts of money to make the problem worse. And that just doesn't make any sense. If you want people off the sidewalk - I do too, this is horrible. Yeah, and I think there is this idea that if you say you don't like sweeps, then you must love people living in the street. And I think it's the complete opposite - you can be in favor of the sweeps, but you are not in favor of getting people off the street. You are in favor of getting people off your street temporarily. So it really - but I think it's really hard for people when the narrative is, oh, they're refusing services - as if people are being offered an apartment and they're saying, you know what - I really like it outside in the cold and rain. Yeah, it's hard, it's hard, there's - the media around this issue is really hard, making it really difficult for a lot of people. [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. Another thing that we saw this week was the City Attorney Office pivoting back to a strategy - another strategy that we've seen unveiled many times before - an initiative to target "high utilizers" of the criminal justice system. And so Ann Davison has identified - I think it was 118 individuals who they say are responsible, 118 "high utilizers" who "create a disproportionate impact on public safety in Seattle." And so there have been similar initiatives launched in 2012 and 2019. And you may have heard other terms like high-impact offenders, prolific offenders - but this is the same strategy that they're using there. These clearly were not successful programs in the past, but we are returning to them. And certainly this is something that has been championed by more conservative folks, by the "law and order crowd". And we have varying opinions with this - there's a PubliCola article that goes over this - but King County Department of Public Defense Director, Anita Khandelwal, views the initiative as just repetition of a failed strategy, saying, "Over the last decade, the city has repeatedly announced similarly named initiatives that would focus more law enforcement resources on those already most policed as a strategy for addressing public safety. This is a tired strategy of arresting, prosecuting and jailing. It's expensive and clearly ineffective." Lisa Daugaard, the co-executive director of the Public Defender Association and co-founder of the LEAD diversion program, who we've talked about before - most recently supportive of the failed Compassion Seattle initiative - sees potential for success, saying the initiative is built on a solid foundation - addressing the needs of "high utilizers" on a case-by-case basis. She believes Davison could avoid the errors of past crackdowns by pushing her counterparts in city and county governments to expand programs like LEAD to accommodate a new surge in clients. Also, Lisa admits that if LEAD took on all 118 of those people's clients, they would not have any more capacity for additional clients in the future. And again, it's important to note that it does not appear that Ann Davison has expressed at all that she has any interest in diverting these programs to LEAD, or any other diversion program that is focused on treating more root causes to prevent this recidivism and reoffense that has been a hallmark of just arresting and jailing people. We have to do different things in order to get a different result. What do you think about this? [00:36:47] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think it's funny - the repackaging every year - Ann really sold herself as this - someone so opposite of what Pete Holmes did, but now she's - this is the same exact thing. And it really is just window dressing in my opinion. And the idea that we can spend more on law enforcement and it's going to help is so ridiculous. The one thing that the 118 people that were identified have in common is none of them have shelter. [00:37:28] Crystal Fincher: Literally none? [00:37:30] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Right. Yeah. No, none of them do. They're all unsheltered. And so instead of spending this astronomical amount of money on more law enforcement, why don't we put money into housing? Because also when you look at the breakdown of the repeat crimes, it's usually low-level shoplifts and trespassing, which is just sleeping under an awning. And so how much of that could we just remove by getting people sheltered? And that seems to be the last solution. It's just - try everything else, except for providing shelter and services to people, which are so - it's so much less expensive to house someone and give them wraparound services - wraparound services like onsite case management, medication management, things like that - is so much less expensive than putting them in jail. And it's stable, right? Because no matter how much you hate that someone sleeps under an awning or steals a sandwich, no matter how much you dislike that, the criminal justice system will always fail to provide a solution because it's a temporary thing. The maximum sentence on almost every misdemeanor is - well, the maximum sentence is either 90 days or 364 days. And with the way jail time works, everyone's going to be back out on the street in 9 months - that's the max. We cannot just think of jail as this permanent housing solution and permanent incapacitation solution for low-level misdemeanors that could be so - I don't want to say easily, because it's not easy - it's not getting people into affordable housing, we don't have any first of all. And it's not an easy solution, but it's the only one that actually makes any sense. And I think that when we talk about LEAD or any of these other things, we're just putting more money where it doesn't belong. I don't think lawyers and cops should not be dealing with these situations. That's not where the money should go. The money should go to service providers, to housing, to professionals that deal with addiction or mental health issues - that's where the money needs to go and those are prioritized the least, and it's all about arrests and incarceration. And again, it's just like the sweeps - you're kicking the can - there's nothing about that that's going to solve the problem. And so no matter how many times someone gets arrested for these things, they're going to get out of jail. If it doesn't escalate into a felony and we're talking about the people that are these "high utilizers", or a couple years ago repeat offenders or prolific offenders, we're talking about a lot of misdemeanors. We're not talking about people with a bunch of murders or something like that. [00:40:24] Crystal Fincher: Committing violent crime, assaults - that type of thing. [00:40:27] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, so if we're talking about this low-level stuff, there's - it's a completely inadequate response that sucks up all of the resources needed to actually combat the problem. [00:40:39] Crystal Fincher: It does, and it is a real challenge. We have done this before, it has not worked. We keep spending resources on what has been proven to not work, while simultaneously demanding data that proves that doing anything else will completely solve this issue, and create a nirvana and just be the end-all and be-all, when that is actually not the standard that we're applying with our humongous expenditure of resources. And just another reminder that jail is really expensive. It costs a whole lot of money. The criminal, just our entire criminal legal system is a really, really costly system. So we do have a lot of resources available - we continue to make choices to spend them on lawyers, on jailing people, on all of the people and buildings and apparatus to support that. And when we actually have tons of data that that does not fix this problem - in fact, it is likely to make it worse. And so if we are focused on data-driven approaches, that is what is clearly being indicated - what we have a long track record locally that we can draw on that proves that, but certainly also looking nationally - so much data to back that up. We will have to see. The last thing I wanted to talk about was a story that came out this week - David Kroman wrote about it in the Times - with Harrell postponing Seattle Police Department's plan to crack down on disorderly conduct at Third Avenue bus stops. The police department was looking at using the City's criminal code regulating disorderly conduct on buses - things like smoking, playing loud music, littering, drinking alcohol, "loud raucous and harassing behavior" and other conduct that is inconsistent with the intended use and purpose of the transit facility, transit station or transit vehicle. These have often not been cited. We will put it in the episode notes - there's actually an article I need to track down by a bus driver that I thought was really thoughtful. And it does seem like it is a fact that there is more disruptive activity happening on buses than there was before. This bus driver was thoughtful and like, yeah, this is happening - and also there are lots of reasons why it's happening, and there are lots of reasons why taking a criminalizing approach may not be helpful, why taking a different kind of the law and order thing or just kicking people off buses may not be helpful. It's a complicated thing to solve. We do need to acknowledge that driver safety is important, that rider safety is important, but also have the lens that if we want to address this problem - again, like the conversation we just had - simply arresting and jailing someone actually doesn't fix and solve the problem. A lot of times this is a result and a symptom of failures in so many other places of people not having access to mental health treatment that they need, of substance use disorder treatment that they need, public health problems that we actually don't have those facilities for. What is your view on this, and on Mayor Harrell's decision to actually step in and postpone it? [00:44:34] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: I think it's interesting because again, like as we already talked about, it's not a solution. There's lots of reasons for why these things are happening and it's not because there's lax enforcement. First of all, there is enforcement on buses - I've had many bus cases myself and there is some degree of enforcement. Is that something that's going to - or has that been working? Is it going to continue to work? Is the scope of the problem in a lack of enforcement? And it doesn't really seem to be. Like you said, there's lots of reasons that these things are happening. And when we're talking about mental health, addiction, housing - all of these things - addressing these things are going to help with those issues, but that's not what we put money towards. We just keep throwing it at this system that is not working. It's interesting to me that it was walked back - they're putting that on pause. And I wonder is that because they realize - oh, that's actually not going to make that much of a difference - but there's also the fact that buses and bus shelters are not under the City's jurisdiction. Those are county issues, so maybe that was not known - I don't know - beforehand. But when the City talks about cracking down on things going on on the buses, they don't have the jurisdiction to do that. So that could be one reason why it got walked back as well. [00:46:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. That's really interesting because - very clearly talking about enforcing things on buses - which yes, there is a jurisdiction issue there - but it also looks like they were planning to take action within 25 feet of transit stops. Is that defined as - technically the stop facility - or is there, I guess that's a really technical and wonky question, but I could totally imagine, to your point, that there are jurisdictional questions. [00:46:49] Nicole Thomas-Kennedy: Yeah, I don't know what that - I have not looked that up. No, I think that's under City jurisdiction - that would be under City jurisdiction. Yeah. Just not anything on a bus - I don't think would be. But yeah, I would have to look that up, but I do think that would be the City still. It just depends - there's different parts of the City, like when - I won't go into jurisdictional issues, because no one wants to talk about those things for long periods of time - but they don't have as much control. Let me just say - they don't have as much control over things going on on a bus as they think they do. If someone's committing a felony on the bus, then SPD could potentially get involved, but it's still - it's going to be prosecuted by the county. And if it's misdemeanors, the misdemeanors on a bus are also going to be prosecuted by the county, because of county - see, I could go on, it could be a really long time. [00:47:47] Crystal Fincher: Well, I just learned something because I did not know that misdemeanors committed on a bus would be prosecuted by the county and not city. Very interesting - these discussions are very interesting. But I think overall we'll just keep our eyes peeled on it and continue to update on it. Just another quick update in terms of the concrete workers strike - there was talk this week about some of them potentially returning to some job sites as a show of good faith and an attempt to lessen the impact on the greater community. That seems to have had mixed results and a mixed outcome where some talked about returning, others didn't. One particular company looked like workers were willing to return and the company was unwilling to let them work again. But again, we've seen city and county leaders say that they want a quick resolution and that this is impacting various projects around the county, but also workers need fair conditions. And the workers are saying, hey, they're asking us - when you consider inflation - to take a hit to our salary, to healthcare benefits, and to our pension - it's across the board. And companies saying, but we're technically offering more money than we did before and so it should all be good. And still not doing much to come to the table and participating in this activity - hoping that public pressure just forces the workers back and they can just ride out the storm and do nothing, and hope that public pressure does some negotiating on their behalf. So we will continue to follow it - the county, we had talked about before, had tried to issue an RFP to other companies to try and work around this and have greater protections for unionization and worker conditions. And that - no one responded to that RFP actually, so we seem to just be in this position - and unless there is some specific call or pressure, it seems like - on the companies to negotiate in better faith and to move closer to the workers, it looks like we're going to be stuck in this position for quite some time. So we will continue to see how that unfolds. And again, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, March 18th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer Shannon Cheng, with assistance from Emma Mudd. And our wonderful co-host today is criminal defense attorney, abolitionist and activist, Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. You can find Nicole on Twitter @ntkallday, and you should be following Nicole. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcast - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced on the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pierce County Council Chair, Derek Young. They reflect on the triumphs and tragedies of this legislative session including a transformative transportation package, the failure to pass the climate and missing middle housing bills, rollbacks in police accountability, and a victory for legislative workers. Then they dive into the mega-city proposed in south Pierce County and the challenges unincorporated areas face from missing out on the investments that cities make. 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, Derek Young, at @DerekMYoung. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “WA Democrats agree on funding for $17B transportation package” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wa-democrats-agree-on-funding-for-17b-transportation-package/    “Why Washington state's missing middle housing bill died” by Joshua McNichols from KOUW: https://www.kuow.org/stories/why-washington-state-s-missing-middle-housing-bill-died    “5 major things the Washington Legislature approved in 2022” by Melissa Santos from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/politics/2022/03/5-major-things-washington-legislature-approved-2022    “These clarifications to police accountability legislation will go into effect immediately” by Shauna Sowersby from The Olympian:  https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article259078253.html    “Legislation Will Allow Police to Use Force to Stop People from Fleeing” by Paul Kiefer from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/03/08/legislation-will-allow-police-to-use-force-to-stop-people-from-fleeing/    “How pro-worker bills fared in Olympia” by David Groves from the Stand: https://www.thestand.org/2022/03/how-pro-worker-bills-fared-in-olympia/   “‘Mega City' proposed for south Pierce County” by Tony Overman from The News Tribune: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article258930478.html     “Pierce County talks of investing in ‘dumping ground.' Would forming a city there be better?” by Josephine Peterson from The News Tribune: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article258752158.html#storylink=mainstage_card7    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 today's co-host, Pierce County Council Chair, Derek Young. Welcome. [00:00:51] Derek Young: Thank you, Crystal. I've always, since I was a kid, wanted to be on almost-live and so I'm super thrilled to be here. [00:00:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, we are almost-live each Friday, and well today is the morning after the end of the legislative session which concluded late last night. So just starting off with recognizing what happened late yesterday - the flurry of activity - what is most notable to you about this legislative session overall? [00:01:20] Derek Young: So, I think two things. One, they've managed to pass what I consider a transformative transportation package - that's probably a play on words there that I didn't intend. And also, on the flip side, the failure to pass House Bill 1099, which was a bill basically telling local governments to deal with climate change in our comprehensive planning. There was obviously a lot of other good legislation that got passed, but those for me were the yin and the yang of the really, really great and the disappointments. [00:02:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so there in the transportation package, what made it so transformative? [00:02:12] Derek Young: For me, it's two things. One is that it focused more on maintenance and restoration which is important, rather than building lots of new highways. I know there are advocates that will say that it still builds too many highway miles, but compared to previous packages, this is more tightly focused. But the bigger thing to me, and this is a critical issue, is that it invests in local transit for the first time in decades. And that's a big deal for communities like mine that have really struggled to rebuild our local transit networks. And I just couldn't be happier because it just hasn't happened in a long time. Part of that was because of, frankly, years of work by Representative Fey - who I'm super proud because he's from South Sound, so well done Jake. But also Marko Liias, who was new to the role in the Senate. So, grateful for their hard work. [00:03:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly. And Marko Liias, now the Senate Transportation Committee Chair after Steve Hobbs, the previous chair, was appointed to be Secretary of State after Kim Wyman left to serve in the federal government. So, I think you're absolutely right. A huge increase in the amount of funding for everyone who gets around in ways in addition to or aside from cars. A big increase, the biggest investment in that that we've seen so far. And in highway projects, I think there is broad agreement and understanding that maintenance is absolutely necessary and we're behind the ball on that and are moving, making progress. There is some expansion, which in some ways is frustrating and just the urgency with which we need to move in the opposite direction is notable. But I'm hoping that with this understanding and concluding this expansion that we have in this package - moving forward, we focus much more on maintaining the road infrastructure that we have as opposed to expanding it. In there, you talked about local, transit investments. What kind of a difference will this make within local communities? [00:04:45] Derek Young: So, this'll make sense to people on South Sound, but just to put a real bus wheels to the ground kind of thing - this will mean our four main trunk routes, literally Routes 1, 2, 3, and 4, we're clever that way. We literally named our top routes 1, 2, 3, and 4. And those will all now go to 15-minute headways. For folks in King County, that may sound like not such a big deal, but for those of us down here, that is a huge deal. And why it matters is that frequency is king when it comes to whether or not people choose to use transit or not. And so our major routes will now be able to move to that standard. The rest of our routes will not, so let's not get too carried away in terms of what this means, but that's a big step compared to - right now, we have one single route and that's Route 1 that is on 15-minute headways. And so that's a huge deal. The other thing it does is invest in some capacity projects. So, for example, it puts $10 million towards our bus rapid transit project. We're slowly closing the remaining gap to finishing that and that'll be our first non-rail high-capacity transit route and that replaces Route 1 in Pierce County, most of Route 1. So, that will serve tens of thousands of people and it's also where we're planning lots and lots of high-density growth. So, this is going to be transit-oriented development for miles and miles in South Pierce County and I couldn't be happier. [00:06:46] Crystal Fincher: Well, and you bring up growth - there were certainly a number of bills introduced to help effectively manage growth within the state and within our cities. One of those, the middle housing bill was not successful - we've talked about that before in this program - to better allow cities to absorb density within existing built areas and to help reduce the amount of sprawl. Another bill that was not successful, that you mentioned, HB 1099 failing - is really foundational in how we plan our communities. What was HB 1099 and what kind of difference would it have made? [00:07:26] Derek Young: So the essence of the bill was basically that we add climate change as a required planning principle or planning element to our local comprehensive plans. For those that don't know about what comprehensive planning is about, this is all part of the Growth Management Act, and basically local governments have to plan for housing, transportation, infrastructure. And then from there, our schools plan from what they receive from those documents, same with fire departments, you name it. Everyone figures out how to build their local services based on that. So, adding climate change to one of those documents makes it not only a requirement that we reduce our carbon footprint as a region as growth develops, but it also says that it's now a challengeable requirement. Basically that a third party could say, "You're not meeting your climate change goals. You're not planning for enough housing. You're not planning for enough transit. You're not planning for correct transportation, infrastructure, whatever." And that would make it basically incumbent on local governments to plan for denser, higher quality, more sustainable development. I thought we were there, to be honest with you. It was one of those things where everyone's saying, "Yes, I support this." And somehow it still didn't pass in the end. [00:09:10] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it was a big challenge. And you talk about how important the Growth Management Act and the comprehensive planning process is. It really is the guide by which local communities build and grow, and provides the bounds within which people have to operate and setting those bounds is really important. And as decisions are made, to your point, if something falls outside of those bounds, it can be challenged and potentially stopped. It's the lens through which all of the local planning decisions are made. I think a lot of times people underestimate how foundational this is, and how much planning determines just about everything about how our communities grow and look and change - to how our just basic services are provided, water and sewer and all of that, how the road and transportation network develops, how schools and services are sited within communities. How your community looks is really shaped and dictated by this. So, we're all facing the challenges of climate change. The effects we're already feeling and cities are faced with the responsibility for mitigating extreme heat, extreme cold, dealing with wildfire smoke, pollution and the effects of that, everything that we're dealing with. And so, to have this as a consideration in planning makes complete sense since this is a factor that we have to contend with. We know these cities are growing, cities have to plan for that growth. We have revenue projections, people have to plan within those revenue projections. We have climate change and people have to plan in consideration and in response to climate change. And yeah, it did seem like we were here. It took a bit of a path coming out of the House. It did look like everyone was on board. Initially, when it came out, the word was it was weakened, led by Rep van de Wege to take out some of those references in climate change. Went over to the Senate, those were put back in. Gave people the feeling that there was a consensus and it could be done, went back to the House, indications were that it was going to pass. It seemed like there were the votes there to do it and it didn't. Very disappointing. And this is not something where you can kick the can down the road. What happens, I guess, what's the consequence of this happening this year, and for folks being like, "Well, it seems like we can get to this next year." Is that going to be helpful? [00:12:03] Derek Young: Yeah. And this is the part - I wonder if legislators understand the consequences of this, because the largest counties in Washington are due to have our comprehensive plan updates - basically due by the end of 2023. We are starting our planning process right now, or excuse me, 2024, but we're starting that process now because the updates are a big deal. It takes a lot of work. These documents are hundreds of pages. And if we don't have that requirement in place before next year, it's not going to happen. So, for the bulk of the population of Washington, it will be another eight years before we have to respond to those requirements. Now, some of us are going to try to do it on our own - we're going to try to do the right thing, but it's a lot easier if we're all doing it as a collective effort. And the example I'll give you is this - let's say you have a city that has decided to site tens of thousands of new jobs, but doesn't provide the housing for it. Well, all those people have to live somewhere, right? So they're going to move somewhere else. Well, that means they have to drive far out of their homes, back into the city, to get to their jobs. How many vehicle miles are we adding to our list? Transportation is our largest source of carbon emissions in Washington. How many hours does that take out of their lives, away from their communities, away from their families? And then on the other side of that as well is what are we doing to our local environment? The rubber on the road is literally our biggest source of pollution into Puget Sound. So, in terms of sustainability, there is nothing we could do more than to start planning with that climate model in mind. I just think there's nothing that we could do more for future generations than to begin to plan with climate change in mind as a guiding principle because the worst thing that happens - let's say Derek is nuts, climate change isn't real, we're not causing it from carbon emissions, whatever. The worst thing that happens is that we improve public health, make Puget Sound cleaner, and we all save a lot of time to spend more time with our families and improve our quality of life. Okay, so that's good planning, right? So, even if we aren't worried about saving the world, we can at least make our lives a little bit better. [00:15:06] Crystal Fincher: We certainly can. Big missed opportunity - to your point, especially with larger counties, the planning process has started. This involves every department, touches every element of local government, and is a thorough and comprehensive review from the bottom all the way to the top, which takes time and a lot of effort, a lot of employee time. This is not a short process where you're just editing an existing document and calling it a day, updating some dates. This is essentially a review and an evaluation of how every element of government operates and incorporating climate has an impact on how every element of government operates. And really being forced to contend with every decision that you make has an impact, positive or negative, on the climate. Having to take that into consideration and mitigate any negative consequences or avoid negative consequences is a big deal. Big missed opportunity. There are several other things that happened. We'll be talking about them in shows to come, certainly. Melissa Santos wrote probably the first of many just recaps of what happened following the session last night. Some of the big headlines from the session - our ban on selling large capacity magazines for firearms, a big step forward in terms of gun safety and regulation that a lot of organizations have been lobbying for, for years. Certainly as we are facing increasing gun violence and the need to address that, this is viewed as a step in the right direction. There are people who are enthusiastically opposing it and saying it violates their Second Amendment rights, but I am certainly a person who, while not opposing firearm ownership, overall thinks that these kinds of regulations just make sense. And even if it doesn't solve every single one of the issues possible in this, reducing the amount and opportunity for gun violence is certainly a positive thing in my estimation. There was a delay and a restructuring of Washington Cares, our long term care program. We've talked about that previously in the show, but they're looking at making some fixes to that, helping more people become eligible for that - some people who may have been left out. They said that they're exploring portability of the program for people who may leave the state, so certainly getting that in better condition. There are some public safety measures that were changed. There were police accountability laws that were revisited. And so, last year the legislature approved new limits on police uses of force. There was vociferous, enthusiastic objections by many in the public safety community. Some of that was viewed to be not exactly relevant, but some was considered to be necessary and made in good faith and they said that they took steps to help clarify that. So, one bill helped to clarify that police are still allowed to use physical force to help transport people to mental health treatment, if they're in a mental health crisis. Another one allowed police to use physical force against people who tried to flee when they were stopped for questioning. And, again, the necessity of those changes was certainly up for debate, but the legislature decided to move forward with those. One that did not change was a bill that would have impacted how police are allowed to engage in chases. And so that law was not changed. Lots of advocates were heavily in favor of that and feeling that it didn't just revise or fix things, that it actually moved things backwards and expanded the situations where police could engage in police chases and basically lowered the threshold to engage in those situations. Worker - staff collective bargaining bill passed. Started with - there was an original bill that died, another bill introduced that started with major issues, but changes were made to it that seemed to have addressed many of the changes that advocates felt were necessary and many wound up being in favor of that bill and considering that a success. Lots of stuff around there. Was there anything else in particular that you found notable this session? [00:20:06] Derek Young: Yeah, I think it was important to clarify the use of force issue. And I use the term clarify intentionally because it turns out that when the legislature passed the reforms, there actually was no definition of force. So, what the legislature and what most people on the street would consider force, they're thinking violence, right? They're thinking, "I'm in a struggle with this person. I'm using some physical kind of act." Our local prosecutors and city attorneys interpreted that as anything that is literally touching and even going so far as the threat of restraint, ordering someone to stop. That went too far because when you are beginning to try to understand a criminal scene, it is very rare that they have probable cause. Probable causes is basically, "I have evidence you've committed a crime." Usually you need a little time to sort something out. And I'm talking like I'm a law enforcement officer here, but that's the way things go. And so being able to detain someone and say, "Look, I need you to stay." And keep them from leaving the scene - that is an important thing. On the flip side, that doesn't mean that you should be using excessive force. And so, differentiating between those two, I think is really important. So, that to me was an important clarification. I get the impression that that's not - when the legislature passed the reforms that it did last year, I got the impression that that's not what they intended, and what we heard from them was, "We disagree, basically, on these interpretations." So it seemed to me that it was, "If this isn't your intention, please clarify it." And so they did. So, I thought that was critical. Speaking as a former legislative staffer, I just want to say congratulations to them for finally gaining their rights and honestly never giving up. Because it was - how difficult must it be to demand your bosses, while they're in session, give you your rights while you're at your busiest, right? So, I was incredibly impressed by that. It's actually important for our democracy that we not have people that are paid poverty wages and treated unfairly doing the hard work that guides legislation. So, this is one of those things that most people in the public will never notice, but it turns out treating employees fairly and treating your staff fairly are good things. And so out of the things you mentioned, that was the one that I think will fly by most people and I just wanted to point it out as something that was a good, good thing. And I was happy to see them claw it back. [00:23:46] Crystal Fincher: Very good thing. Very excited about it. We've talked about it on this program before. And to me, it was also an issue of, "Are Democrats living their values?" Lots of rhetoric about how important unions are to workers, how important workers' rights are. I sincerely believe that and it seems like if one does sincerely believe that, then they don't object to that when it comes to their own staff and their own circumstance. And saying, "Well, it's good for all those other workers, but not for mine." That's a really bad look. And it seemed like that was the message being conveyed when the legislation initially died, before it was brought back. And, absolutely, kudos to those workers for taking collective action. They had a sickout. The legislature absolutely relies on those staffers. They are the ones doing the work and keeping everything running and nothing would progress or proceed without the very hard work of the staff there who are dedicated, who are making less money than they would be in many other circumstances - many of whom do want to contribute to our community and our democracy and to be in a position where they want the opportunity to have their grievances fairly addressed, especially in the context of previous grievances not necessarily being fairly addressed. This was something that they felt was necessary to keep people safe and healthy and protected in their work environment, and it did seem to be absolutely necessary. So, congratulations to Rep Riccelli, who is certainly a leader in getting this through and resurrecting it after it died, working to make the positive changes, listening to feedback to amend the bill and get it in the right place. So, very gratified to see that collective bargaining rights will be extended to legislative staffers. As we move forward - just talking about it, it's so great to have you on. [00:26:01] Derek Young: Sorry. I was just going to call out one thing you mentioned just real quickly. It's not just the collective bargaining - that protection for the workers is so critical because how many times have we heard in the past where legislative employees have not been properly protected? That to me is one of the most critical aspects of this. Having basically a grievance process - that to me is super critical. So, it's overlooked as a part of this, everyone tends to think about salary and benefits, but having a process to protect those employees - that's huge. [00:26:36] Crystal Fincher: Very huge. And I mean, we see examples throughout the state and a herd of examples with legislative staffers, where without a clear and effective grievance process, that mistreatment was allowed to flourish. And that people who were found to have treated their employees poorly or created a poor, unhealthy or toxic work environment are not meaningfully punished, dealt with, and employees were not meaningfully protected throughout the process. Many ended up in situations where there was high staff turnover, where there was no remedy, and so it basically forced employees out. Just really negative situations that now, hopefully, there will be a meaningful process to rectify those situations, keep employees protected, and help people who are spending a ton of time and effort and energy there to just be protected in all of those ways, and to have the opportunity to have a voice in their own work environment and in their own situation. I did also want to talk about, and excited because you are the Pierce County Council Chair. And sometimes we are very King County focused here, but it is really important to understand what's happening throughout the state and in other counties. There's been lots of conversation in Pierce County and the Tacoma area, areas south, about how, especially unincorporated areas, are invested in. Looking at projections for growth, both jobs and population occurring in many of those unincorporated areas and conversations about, does it make sense to incorporate some of those areas into cities? How are investments going to be made to help prepare and absorb that growth? What is that situation currently in Pierce County? [00:28:42] Derek Young: So, glad you asked because I will just start it by saying, we want these neighborhoods and communities to incorporate. It's actually something that we would encourage. It's actually unusual to have such a large, urban, unincorporated area. And it's certainly not what is intended by the Growth Management Act under the state. The Growth Management Act wants growth to happen in cities and not necessarily in counties. But for those of your listeners that are in King County, they may not be aware that if the urban unincorporated part of Pierce County south of Tacoma were to incorporate, it would be the second largest city in the entire state. It is a huge number of people, a couple 100,000, and we've been planning for a significant amount of growth that continue to happen there. It's already denser in most places than the city of Bellevue. So, these are large areas. It also happened, I would say, rather haphazardly. There are historic decisions that were made, and this is the thing about local government and land use and transportation planning - the decisions you make today will echo for decades. And that's certainly the case in Pierce County. There were lots of mistakes where basically growth was just allowed to happen in a haphazard way. It looked, at one point, like we were going to pave our way to Mount Rainier, and that was not the best idea in the world. And if you look at how you lay out a transportation grid, get resources - water, sewer, so on, so forth - just not a great idea. But that's what happened and we have to deal with it now. So, there is a fair amount of frustration as a result and the thing is that counties are not greatly equipped to handle that. We actually have very different tax structures than cities. We're only allowed to do certain things compared to cities. Just this one example, and this has been a constant frustration of mine, the multifamily tax exemption that basically encourages quality apartment building, so on, so forth, to get more housing - counties are prohibited from using that whereas cities have it. So, your community can look exactly like any other city, except the fact that you are living in an unincorporated area means that you're not eligible for that. Same is true of utility tax. We can't do business licensing the same way. We can't even require garbage collection. I'm not kidding. We can't - [00:31:47] Crystal Fincher: I did not know that. [00:31:48] Derek Young: Yeah, it's a weird, weird state rule. So, the point being that most of these areas belong in cities and whether or not they incorporate on their own - in each smaller community, most of them identify separately. There's a push by Representative Morgan to try to think about maybe incorporating one larger city and we're open to all ideas. There's been a few different efforts and they've each failed. Many years ago, there was a push to incorporate lots of cities. And so in the mid '90s, University Place, the city of Lakewood, Edgewood - they all incorporated at the same time. And since then, there's been a pretty big hole. We haven't seen any communities incorporate. So, the other option is annexing to a city, and that's an even slower process because the existing city residents - they may not think the same way as the new residents. So, for example, in terms of city services, will it be a net benefit in terms of tax revenue or will it be a net drain on your existing revenue? So, that's something that they have to consider, but it's definitely something that we want to encourage, which sounds odd as the county - we want to be the local government. But counties are always going to be the regional government. If you look at King County, for example, nearly all the urban area is incorporated into a city. There are a couple pockets that are not. There are a couple areas that are on the fringe of the urban area, but for the most part, it's incorporated. And, by the way, City of Seattle - incorporate White Center, for God's sake. I mean, it's a little crazy that that hasn't happened yet. Or Burien. One of the two. Someone do it. [00:33:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah. It certainly makes sense. And to your point, county governments are usually viewed as the regional layer and are not the ideal body to handle just those day-to-day, on-the-ground things like cities do. Which creates the conversation like we're having in Parkway, Spanaway and Frederickson. Certainly in King County, talking about areas like Skyway and White Center being neglected, really feeling underinvested in because the typical investments that are made by cities and in the overwhelming amount of places in the county that are handled by cities, it just makes those kinds of issues fall to the back burner, oftentimes. Or just on the scale that the county operates, dedicating resources to one pocket or to areas that are very small in comparison to the county, but very meaningful to the people who are living there, is a tension that continues to exist. So, I will definitely be following this carefully. In this package, it looks like there's $200,000 that Representative Morgan had dedicated to studying the feasibility of incorporating into a city for those areas. Whether or not the city solution is right, I do not know. Probably best for the people who are there to decide, and the feasibility study is probably going to be very helpful and useful for that, but there has to be a solution for how to manage these local areas that, to your point, are large areas, are dense and highly populated areas, are some of the most populated areas in the state, but are and have been historically underinvested. And now we're expecting them to absorb a lot of growth, which is not being absorbed into other incorporated areas and cities because we are enforcing that and we keep not moving forward on policies that would encourage that. But if this is not managed effectively, then again, we fall into the trap of making housing more expensive, of siting jobs further and further away from where people live, making traffic worse, putting a strain and demand on our utilities and resources. Building housing where it doesn't currently exist is a very expensive thing for cities and communities to do - not just having to extend city infrastructure out there to serve it, but also to then have to maintain that for it's lifetime - is incredibly expensive and costs that are typically not captured anywhere within development. We're very bad at capturing those costs and really reflecting the true cost of building outside of areas that are already populated and that have housing, and that's what we're looking at and we better manage that better than we have before. The state may have not taken big steps in making that possible, but hopefully local communities will use the initiative to do that. And with that, thank you so much for joining us today on March 11th - time is flying and now we're past the legislative session - March 11th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, helped out by Emma Mudd. Our wonderful co-host today is Pierce County Council Chair, Derek Young. You can find Derek on Twitter and you should follow Derek on Twitter @DerekMYoung, D-E-R-E-K- M- Young. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcast - I listen on the Overcast app - just type Hacks, I may not listen to Hacks & Wonks, but other podcasts. Anyway, just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

Join Pastor David for this excellent interview with Mike Moffitt of Bible Jazz. Mike is a Pastor at University Place Presbyterian Church in University Place, WA. Tune in to listen as Mike drops wisdom and encouragement. To include how God used the gift of prophecy to help him out. To get ahold of Mike: http://uppc.org/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/biblejazz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/uppcbiblejazz Twitter: https://twitter.com/BibleJazz If you would like to give: Cash App: https://bit.ly/GiveForJesus Venmo: https://bit.ly/GiVeForJesus PayPal: https://bit.ly/GIVEforJesus --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/restoring-your-voice/message

For the first time in two years, UNC students will be able to go to class without masks. The university is dropping its indoor mask mandate effective Monday. Some students are pushing for UNC to create more gender-neutral restrooms. As Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine, the UNC community showed its support for the Ukrainian people. The 24-hour recycling center at University Place will close at the end of May because the owners plan to redevelop the property. "Creek Week" organizers hope to teach residents about the importance of local waterways.

Ephesians 6:10-18 NIV 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit,which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people.   Romans 8:26b-28 NIV ...the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God's people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.    Ephesians 6:18 NIV 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people.    1. YOU ARE CALLED TO FIGHT FOR PEOPLE Judges 6:12-13 NIV 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.” 13 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?' But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.”   Judges 6:14-16 NIV 14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian's hand. Am I not sending you?” 15 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.” 16 The Lord answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.”   Judges 7:2 NIV 2 The Lord said to Gideon, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.'    2. YOUR STRENGTH CAN BE A HINDRANCE    Judges 7:2 NIV 2 The Lord said to Gideon, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.'    2 Corinthians 12:8-9 NIV 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”    Judges 7:15-16 NIV 15 When Gideon heard the dream and its interpretation, he bowed down and worshiped. He returned to the camp of Israel and called out, “Get up! The Lord has given the Midianite camp into your hands.” 16 Dividing the three hundred men into three companies, he placed trumpets and empty jars in the hands of all of them, with torches inside.    3. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH HIS INVITATION   Acts 1:8 NIV 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”   Acts 2:1-4 NIV When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.   Judges 7:19b-22 NIV They blew their trumpets and broke the jars that were in their hands. 20 The three companies blew the trumpets and smashed the jars. Grasping the torches in their left hands and holding in their right hands the trumpets they were to blow, they shouted, “A sword for the Lord and for Gideon!” 21 While each man held his position around the camp, all the Midianites ran, crying out as they fled. 22 When the three hundred trumpets sounded, the Lord caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords.    2 Corinthians 4:7 7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.   

Hope for Healthcare, Episode 12 |  with Tam and James Gronewold This is Hope for Healthcare, where patients and providers share the messy, intimate, real stories that have defined their relationship with healthcare—and might just help you define yours. “I said 'Tam, I need to leave the hospital; I have to get out of here or they're going to kill me.'”James Gronewold James Gronewold has lived all of his adult life in a wheelchair due to a paralyzing automobile accident when he was just 17 years old. Although diagnosed a C-6-7 quadriplegic, at 64 years old he has a full and happy life.  Married with two children and two grandchildren, he recently retired from a career with the Federal Government after 38 years of service. Tam Gronewold is a Personal Fitness Trainer and Corrective Exercise Specialist with her own practice in University Place, WA.  With an emphasis on trauma resolution and a strict no-shame policy, Tam lives to help others find health, enjoy movement and appreciate all that their bodies are capable of. The two met and fell almost instantly in love in the autumn of 1988 and married in July of 1989.  Navigating life and healthcare has been a constant challenge for the both of them—but they have faced the best and the worst the industry has to offer together for nearly 32 years.