Hacks & Wonks

Hacks & Wonks is a show hosted by political consultant Crystal Fincher, who talks 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.

Nick Brown Discusses Key Issues in Washington State Attorney General Race 04/23/2024

Week in Review: April 19, 2024 - with Ashley Nerbovig 04/19/2024

Denver's STAR Program Offers Promising Alternative Response to Mental Health and Substance Use Crises 04/16/2024

Week in Review: April 12, 2024 - with Guy Oron 04/12/2024

State Legislative Session Falls Short on Housing As Seattle Comprehensive Plan Process Ramps Up 04/09/2024

Week in Review: April 5, 2024 - with Erica Barnett 04/05/2024

Week in Review: March 29, 2024 - with Naomi Ishisaka 03/29/2024

King County's Community-Led Approach Showing Promise in Combating Gun Violence 03/19/2024

King County's Community-Led Approach Showing Promise in Combating Gun Violence King County is taking a comprehensive, community-focused approach that early data suggests is helping steer young people away from cycles of violence. In an interview with the Hacks & Wonks podcast, Eleuthera Lisch, director of the King County Regional Office of Gun Violence Prevention, discussed the promising impacts of the county's community violence intervention initiatives. At the heart of the strategy are organizations like Regional Peacekeepers Collective and Rainier Beach Action Coalition - Restorative Solutions that employ street outreach workers and "violence interrupters" - credible messengers with lived experience who can rapidly respond to shooting incidents. When violence interrupters are deployed to active scenes involving law enforcement, their role is crucial. "They will be able to de-escalate tensions, they will be able to form rapid rapport, and they will be able to create a follow-up and safety plan for the individuals that they are able to connect with," Lisch explained. Their expertise in crisis intervention and rapport-building can help defuse volatile situations and ensure the well-being of those involved. Violence interrupters don't just react to youth gun-violence, but work proactively to prevent it. "They're providing daily contact - they're connecting with that young person, they're checking in on their well-being, their safety," said Lisch. "They're helping make sure that that young person is able to access rides and supports to get to and from court as needed, to get re-entered into school, re-engaged in school, to get to employment opportunities." While the work is still maturing, Lisch pointed to some early positive signs of impact, including: The average age of those involved in shootings rising into the 30s, suggesting fewer youth are getting caught up in violence cycles Over 400 high-risk youth currently being intensively mentored Reductions in youths' re-hospitalization rates after gun injuries Decreases in losses from youth shoplifting near outreach sites "We're seeing loss prevention happening - that there are less young people, through whatever crisis they are in, going into stores and taking things that don't belong to them," Lisch said. She cautioned that transformational change can take 4-5 years to manifest fully as interventionists build trust. But the initial data "is a strong indicator that we are seeing a downtrend in young people involved in gun violence." Lisch stressed the need for sustained funding and coordination across jurisdictions. “First and foremost, our advice is to fund peace, fund safety…If we're seeking safe communities and we're seeking peace, we have to invest in the strategies that help us get there. The county is working to evaluate the efforts and demonstrate their cost effectiveness. “We've just recently contracted a cost-of-violence analysis to help support our local elected leaders in King County and at the state of Washington level to understand the cost savings of community violence intervention strategies.” Even as the community intervention programs show promise, Lisch emphasized there are ways all residents can get involved and be part of the solution. "We can all participate in safe storage, and we can all participate in amplifying the message that community-led solutions are important and that they are a functional part of a holistic public safety framework," she said. "We often talk about gun violence being a disease. I want to emphasize, as strongly as I possibly can, that the community is the cure." The data suggests this public health-focused approach, with the community leading the way, is making a positive impact. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find the King County Regional Office of Gun Violence Prevention at . About the Guest Eleuthera Lisch Eleuthera Lisch (She/Her) is a violence prevention professional with over 27- years of experience developing, implementing, and bringing to scale cutting edge gun violence prevention, intervention, public safety, and community reconciliation programs, both nationally and internationally. Eleuthera serves as the inaugural director for the Regional Office of Gun Violence Prevention for Public Health-Seattle & King County. As a seasoned strategist, social change innovator, advocate for social justice, and champion for community safety and well-being, Eleuthera proudly supports grassroots to “grass tops” partnerships and emerging leaders. She has raised millions in funding/endowments for gun violence prevention programs and other services in Seattle and King County and has consulted to provide subject matter expertise in cities across the nation. She received a White House Champion for Change Award in 2012 for her work with the Dept. of Justice National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention and featured as a model "social change agent" in Paul Shoemaker’s Can’t Not Do, The Compelling Social Drive that Changes the World. Eleuthera is proud to be a member of the National Office of Prevention Directors Network. She is grateful for the giants whose shoulders the movement to prevent gun violence was built on and honored to work with communities and champions across the nation who strive to ensure that all communities, families, and individuals can live free of violence and thrive. Eleuthera was born in Puerto Rico and is the proud daughter of noted activist Arthur Lisch and teacher Paula Lisch. She lives with her husband of 30 years, Patrick Burningham, in Southeast Seattle, Washington. Find the King County Regional Office of Gun Violence Prevention on Twitter/X at . Resources “” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times | Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health | Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice “” by Nazish Dholakia and Daniela Gilbert from Vera Institute of Justice | King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office | Public Health - Seattle & King County “” | September 26, 2023 Press Release from Office of Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30446023

Week in Review: March 15, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank 03/15/2024

Week in Review: March 15, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank Hacks & Wonks Week in Review: Presidential Primary, Legislative Retirements, Police Recruitment in Seattle, Seattle Public Schools Board, and Burien Gets Sued Presidential Primary Takeaways In this week's presidential primary, Trump and Biden secured enough delegates to clinch their parties' nominations. While Trump's impact worries moderate Republicans in Washington like Dave Reichert, Biden faces pressure from the "uncommitted delegates" protest vote demanding an end to violence in Gaza. Washington Legislative Retirements Several longtime Democratic legislators, including Frank Chopp and Karen Keiser, announced their retirements after the recent session. This exodus provides an opportunity for a new generation of more progressive leadership. Police Recruitment in Seattle The Seattle City Council discussed subsidizing housing and lowering standards to recruit more police officers amid a staffing shortage. However, mounting evidence and feedback from police suggest the culture within the department and lack of accountability are deterring recruits, not council rhetoric or compensation. Seattle Public Schools Board Appointments Seattle Public Schools is in the process of selecting two people to fill vacancies left by two departures from the Seattle Public Schools Board. Highlighting the diverse range of candidates, including labor leader Joe Mizrahi and Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce's Sarah Clark, the segment explored the potential policy implications and the importance of educational governance in the city. Sheriff Sues Burien Over Unconstitutional Anti-Camping Ordinance Burien passed a stricter anti-camping law aimed at homeless individuals, which the King County Sheriff's Office refused to enforce as likely unconstitutional. In retaliation, Burien moved to defund the county's contracted police services, prompting criticism that it is escalating rather than solving homelessness. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Melissa Santos from Axios “” by Katie Campbell from KUOW | Northwest Progressive Institute “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Casey Martin from KUOW “” by Sami West from KUOW “” by Jadenne Radoc Cabahug from Crosscut “” by Scott Schaefer from The B-Town Blog “” by The Seattle Times Editorial Board /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30391723

Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz Shares Strategies for Running for Office 03/12/2024

Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz Shares Strategies for Running for Office In a recent interview on the "Hacks & Wonks" podcast, Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz provided an insider's guide on how to prepare and run for elected office. Drawing from over a decade of experience in political campaigns and advocacy, Diaz offered detailed advice for prospective candidates. Diaz stressed knowing your "why" for running as a motivating force. "Think about what problems you're trying to solve or what communities you're trying to represent," she said. Align your passion with the appropriate position, whether school board, city council, or state legislature. Assembling the right team is critical, according to Diaz. This includes identifying trusted people to handle key roles like communications, field operations, fundraising, and campaign compliance. Diaz advised being intentional about building a team that reflects the diversity you want to see. Once committed, assemble a "kitchen cabinet" of trusted family, friends, and community leaders to comprise your core team, Diaz advised. "You need to figure out who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable asking for help." Budgeting is crucial, and Diaz recommended using unionized vendors and allocating at least two-thirds of funds for direct voter communication like mailings and advertising. "Yard signs don't actually vote," she quipped. On fundraising, Diaz's top tip was simple: "You don't get any money that you don't ask for, so ask everybody unabashedly." This includes calling personal contacts like friends, current and former colleagues, as well as adversaries of your opponent. Authenticity in messaging is paramount. "Be authentically who you are all of the time and be willing to own where you might disagree with people because I think that matters as much in governing as it does always agreeing with people. People respect you more.” But running for office is just the first step – Diaz also offered advice for translating campaign advocacy into tangible policy actions through ordinances and legislation. She recommended focusing first on achievable goals to start delivering wins while getting accustomed to the new role. Throughout, Diaz emphasized building bridges and bringing more people from underrepresented communities into the process as future leaders. Diaz also emphasized building a diverse campaign team that creates opportunities for mentorship. "The more of us there are … the better our policies can become." Resources Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. The Washington legislative session for this year just ended and we've received news about several legislators who are not running for re-election. This opens up opportunities for new candidates to run this year to represent their communities in the legislature, in addition to hundreds of local elected positions across every community in our state. So we thought this was a great time to talk with Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz about how to run for office. Olgy was born and raised in Pierce County to parents who immigrated from Guatemala. Throughout her career, she has worked to foster a more reflective democracy and expand access to power through work with local nonprofits like One America and Planned Parenthood, in the Washington State Legislature, and in candidate campaigns across Pierce County. Over the last 13 years, she has talked to voters in English and Spanish all over Washington. Olgy is passionate about conservation, tribal sovereignty, and wildlife, and serves as the vice chair of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition. She served on the City of Tacoma's Human Rights Commission, worked in the Washington State House of Representatives and Senate for five years, and is the Immediate Past President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington. She spends most of her spare time building up future civic leaders through key leadership roles and has trained hundreds of political candidates across our state. We both serve on the board of the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future, an organization that does just that. Olgy has been effective in advocacy, productive in governing, and successful at winning elections, which is why I'm so thrilled to welcome her to this show about how to prepare for a successful run for office. Welcome back to the show, Councilmember Olgy Diaz. [00:02:38] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Hi, Crystal. How's it going? [00:02:40] Crystal Fincher: It is going well because I'm talking with you this morning - thought this would be a good opportunity to talk about how to prepare to run for office, what the most important things are to consider - because a lot of people don't have any exposure to this - the things that are visible about campaigns aren't necessarily the most important things. Lot of times when people think about running, they think about yard signs and parades and delivering speeches, or they have this picture of the West Wing in their head, or Parks and Recs, or Veep or whatever it may be. But a lot of times it's just not reflective of what running a campaign, particularly a state or local campaign, a local government or legislative campaign looks like. So just starting out, Olgy, what do people need to do to prepare to run for office? [00:03:33] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I think the biggest things that folks can do to prepare are really sort of reflect - think inward - and think about what problems you're trying to solve, or what communities you're trying to represent, and where that is needed. So the thing that's going to get you through the hard days - the days where you feel betrayed or left behind or just generally out of energy on a campaign - your why is what's going to get you through. And so you've got to really think about - if I am deeply passionate about making sure that kids have access to classrooms that don't have moldy walls or leaky ceilings, and that they've got a curriculum that makes sense, and that they've got maybe some access to after-school services, that's probably someone who's deeply passionate about running for school board, not Congress. So making sure that your interests align with what you're wanting to govern over - I think is the deepest and hardest part of getting ready to run for office - because a lot of people will gravitate towards some of those offices that look shiny or feel like they are name in lights, really sexy. But really, if you're deeply passionate about climate change, you might be the best fire commissioner and not the best state legislator. And that's not to push people out of some of the bigger races, but it's also helpful to start at the ground level and work your way up - makes it much easier to have been elected to something else before you go and run for governor. It really is a nine, ten month, however month long you're running for office job interview. And actually in any good job interview you're doing, you're going to want to see what this job actually does - read the job description, read the budget, read the minutes, read the notes of what the people who are doing this job already do - so you can prepare yourself for that work. A lot of offices, I would say more offices than not, in Washington state don't have staff. So you're going to be the expert in your thing - so be prepared to be savvy, be researching. And get ready - so think about, if I've never served on a board, even my little PTA board or my nonprofit board - go sign up. I don't know of a single government who doesn't have a board or commission that they're looking for volunteers who are passionate about work. And that's where you can meet people in the community, it's where you can build a network, it's where you can learn about different topics. Sure, a lot of these positions are unpaid, so you've got to find the volunteer time to do it. But running for office is also unpaid, unfortunately. So at some point, you do have to be wanting to serve the public - so I think it's really helpful to try to start serving on boards or commissions at any level of government to try to just get that - How do we work together? Understanding - How does this governing body work? How do you organize? It can be one of those early tools of learning how you put your teams together and how you build coalitions. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you raise a number of important points. I really do want to underscore you talking about - just know why you want to run, what is motivating you. It's always a bit dismaying to have someone come and be like, Yeah, I really want to run. I really want to be on the city council. Then you asked, Okay, so what do you want to do? What do you want to accomplish? What do you want to do to help the community? And they haven't thought that far yet. All they have thought about is that they want to be elected. That is a red flag for me. It's a red flag for a lot of people. Know how you want to help. And like you said, it should be something you're passionate about. And then you have to align that with different positions. There are so many jurisdictions and positions up for election - city councils, school boards, parks districts, port commission, state legislature, county council, all of these different things - and they're very different positions at different levels of government. So are you interested in public and community safety and want to do that? That's probably going to happen more at the local level. Are you interested in intervening with climate change? That may be something you can impact a lot at the port. Or like you said, it doesn't have to be statewide lands commissioner - could also be fire commissioners, different things like that. Know if the role is a legislative position or an executive position - those are two very different types of roles. Are you going to be making decisions together with a team? Are you the one who the buck stops with and you're doing that yourself? Those are all things to consider and you have to think about - do your interests and skills align with that particular position? So for someone who has thought about - Okay, I am really fired up about this specific set of issues, I have identified what positions seem like they match best for me. I think I do want to run. I think I do want to do this. What's the next step that they should take? [00:08:32] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: They should absolutely get sign-off from family and friends - whoever that chosen family is, whoever that internal family is - because it's going to take everyone. And sometimes, especially in smaller races, you don't have the ability to get a high-paid consultant. And so your mom might also end up being your speechwriter. I think oftentimes folks do the best when they have someone who is closer to a normal voter as opposed to a political junkie actually listen to their speeches, listen to their answers, really listen to whether or not you're giving jargon or whether or not you're giving something that really resonates with the average person. And so your kitchen cabinet of folks that you assemble is going to be some mix of family and friends, plus people in the community - prominent folks and leaders and activists - I think those are some of the best assets that you can have, especially in these smaller races where you're not going to have a bunch of paid staff. Because somebody might have a friend of a friend who knows how to do graphic design and they can do all your Canva stuff for you. You're starting something very grassroots, very deep and passionate, and you need to figure out who your people are so that you have them with you in the trenches. And sometimes if you're busy, like a lot of us are working and running for office, you need to figure out who's just going to do the laundry - just the little things that make sure that you're able to keep going through the campaign cycle really, really matters. And so start assembling that list of who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable and ready to ask for help. I think that's one of the things that I have seen really knock down candidates - is an unwillingness to either ask for help, ask for what they need, or say no. And any mix of those things can really tank your campaign, so you got to be really secure in what you need, where you're trying to go, and how you're going to get there. [00:10:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - think you're 100% correct - you do need to sign off and negotiate how all of the people in your life are going to function during the time that you're running. And also with work - really important - for most of the people who are probably going to be listening to this who would be considering running - probably are working. And running for office is a significant time commitment - much more of a time commitment as things get closer to the election. But it's something that you do want to talk with your job about, talk with who you're reporting to about - make sure that they understand that you may need some flexibility, or figure that out as time goes on. It is really tough for someone to run while working an inflexible job. Unfortunately, there are things that both happen during the day, that happen during the evening - lots of demands on your time and resources at different times. And so understand what the road looks like - certainly something you're going to have to negotiate with and contend with and plan for. I want to talk about putting together the actual campaign team, which is one of the first things that someone, once they do make a decision to run, is going to do. What should their considerations be as they look to put together a team? [00:11:40] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yeah, so as I mentioned, there are a lot of races - say you're running for city council in a small city or you're running for port commissioner - there might not be enough resources either in terms of your own fundraising capacity to bring in a high paid consultant. Or there might not be, frankly, consultants - there's not enough consultants for how many candidates we have in this state. One of the places where we're running really low actually is fundraisers. And so you got to think about what the major roles are in a campaign. And those are - traditionally - someone to help you, organize you, or keep you on task with fundraising. Someone to help you make sure that you can reach voters in a way that will actually reach them - and so that is either a communications professional or a general consultant who will do different kinds of mailings, or text messaging, or help you figure out which folks you want to talk to at the doors or on the phones. That can bleed into a little bit with what's called a field director, so that's someone who can look at the lay of the land, look at who traditionally votes, and figure out who you need to talk to and how many times you need to talk to them to make sure they hear your message. And I would say a lot of times folks often want some sort of a social media director or some sort of a comms professional who's not just deciding how they meet voters where they're at with the message and how they develop that message, but also who is actually just trying to help drum up support and excitement about your campaign with your followers and with potential new voters. And those are two different lanes from a similar - it all works very closely together - better communications can help you get more fundraising, more money, more volunteers. But it's really pivotal that you identify who can take those roles, whether or not it's people who you actually pay and hire to do that. All of those roles are jobs that exist in the political ecosystem, but they're all also jobs that someone who maybe just does social media work on their own can help you with if they're a volunteer. So making sure that you have a time when you're coordinating all these folks if you're doing it all with volunteers, or maybe you have money to pay a fundraiser, but not a general consultant, or vice versa - those are the two major roles that people will often pay people for. And then the big one that is, I think, the most worth money - because if you're doing illegal things, it's hard to win a race - is compliance. We have a state that has one of the best transparency in campaigns and elections. So you've got to make sure you have someone who's willing to go to the trainings or who just knows that work because they're a professional in that work, who's willing to file your stuff in a timely fashion, make sure that all your disclosures are done, make sure that everything that you're raising and spending is reported above board because that's something that can really ding you in a campaign by either your opposition or just by the public. You're not trustworthy if you can't be bothered to do the homework of telling people what you're up to in a state where that's really required of you. So I think those are the four major roles is comms, field, treasury, consulting, and fundraising. [00:14:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that treasury piece is so important - just fundamentally - and would be one of the first people I locked down and put together. This is something that I often advocate, regardless of the size of the campaign - even if it's a small town or a big legislative or congressional campaign - have a professional paid treasury and compliance person. A lot of people don't realize that the campaign calls for a treasurer - you have to declare that when you file for office. And so a lot of times they think it is purely a financial thing. And so I have a friend who's a bookkeeper, I have a friend who's CPA who can totally do that - but that's actually the easier and simpler part. Alongside with treasury and built-in when we talk about treasury in a campaign context is that compliance - is the having to file all the required disclosures and reports, to follow the many campaign and spending regulations - everything from how you can accept money, maximum amounts that you can accept, how you track that, how you keep track of and collect cash and deal with that, the information you have to collect from all of the donors to report, how long before an election you can accept gifts of a certain size. All of that is a ton of rules and regulations. The PDC does a very good job in providing classes for people who are not professionals. So if you did want to have someone in that role who wasn't already doing it - start early, have them prepare by going to those trainings and doing that. But the compliance part is the most important part of that - I just cannot underscore that enough. Also, it's probably good to talk about the difference between people here, these positions - okay, so campaign manager and consultant - What is the difference? What do they do? In the campaign context, usually a general consultant is handling strategy and communications usually. The details of that can vary based on what your needs are, who's on your team, what is contracted - but make it a point to be clear on what those roles and responsibilities are, have a contract so that there's no confusion about who is... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30341388

Week in Review: March 8, 2024 - with Erica Barnett 03/09/2024

Week in Review: March 8, 2024 - with Erica Barnett Week in Review: Conservative Initiatives, Comprehensive Plan, and Ax Murderer Controversy Conservative Initiatives Pass Democratic Legislature In a surprising move, the Democratic-majority in the Washington state legislature passed three conservative ballot initiatives into law, bypassing the need for a public vote. The initiatives ban a state income tax, expand parental rights regarding instructional materials and student records in public schools, and give police broader authority for vehicular pursuits. Barnett warned the parental rights measure could be wielded to out LGBTQ students: "It is outing trans kids, it is outing potentially gay and lesbian bisexual kids...it's a violation of the rights of privacy of children and teenagers." The decision avoids a costly campaign battle, but Barnett questioned if it signals Democrats being "willing to negotiate instead of fight" well-funded opposition. Mayor's Comprehensive Plan Faces Criticism Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's proposed 20-year Comprehensive Plan allows for just 100,000 new housing units, despite projections that 250,000 more people will move to the city. Critics blasted this as woefully inadequate to address the affordable housing shortage. Barnett called it "stunning in its lack of ambition" beyond mandated zoning changes. Fincher urged residents to attend public meetings and directly press the mayor's and councilmembers' offices, saying "They need to hear from you, their constituents." Revelation of Ax Attacks on Homeless People Raises Concerns Weeks after a suspect's arrest, Seattle police admitted they withheld information about horrific ax attacks targeting the city's homeless population. The lack of public warning sparked outrage. Barnett speculated police view such crimes against the unhoused as "not affect[ing] the general public." Fincher condemned the "dehumanizing conversations and rhetoric...about visible street homelessness" that enable such violence. Both hosts emphasized the need for accountability and citizen engagement from Seattle's elected leaders on these intersecting crises around housing, public safety and inequality. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Erica Barnett, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jinkins for The Seattle Times @ErinInTheMorn on Twitter/X: “” by Vivan McCall from The Stranger “” by Susie Neilson, Jennifer Gollan and Janie Haseman from The San Francisco Chronicle “” from PubliCola “” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger “” by David Ziff from Ziff Blog “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Justin Carder from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30291978

Executive Dow Constantine Details How King County Tackles Homelessness Crisis Through Housing Solutions 03/05/2024

Executive Dow Constantine Details How King County Tackles Homelessness Crisis Through Housing Solutions In an interview with the Hacks & Wonks podcast, King County Executive Dow Constantine outlined the county's approach to addressing the region's homelessness crisis - a crisis he says fundamentally stems from a lack of affordable housing. "The reason people don't have housing is because they can't afford housing," Constantine said. "It's a tremendously bad, unfortunate side effect of the economic story that we've seen unfold here over the last 20 years." Constantine stressed that the root cause of homelessness is people not being able to afford a place to live amid soaring housing costs. Other factors, like addiction, have been shown to be made worse by homelessness, but are not the root cause of it. "If you say they're not housed because they're addicted, that is simply saying that we're not providing the appropriate service," he stated. The county has taken a regional approach by partnering with cities through initiatives like the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to fund services and shelters. A key effort is the Health Through Housing program, which has acquired over 1,200 units by purchasing and converting former hotels and motels. "We had the University of Washington come in and study [this approach]...what we were anecdotally observing was absolutely true - that this made an enormous difference in people's lives," Constantine said. "About 95% of people who come into this permanent supportive housing are successful, meaning that they don't end up back in homelessness." However, the county has faced challenges getting some cities like Burien to site shelters and affordable housing projects amid pushback from opposed residents. Constantine urged residents and elected officials to see this as a shared crisis requiring regional cooperation. "For elected officials: you have to develop a spine...your jurisdiction has to do its part of the solution," he stated. "For residents: everything will work better when we're all participating and accommodating folks in your community." Looking ahead, Constantine said state legislative action is needed to reform Washington's "woefully inadequate" tax system that leaves cities and counties underfunded for affordable housing and services. "We have to adopt a mentality that we're all in this together, and that this is a shared challenge, and the solutions have to be shared," he concluded. Resources “” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times “” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist “” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times “” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times “” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times “” by Lauryn Bray from South Seattle Emerald Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, today I'm very thrilled to be welcoming King County Executive Dow Constantine to the program. Welcome. [00:01:00] Executive Dow Constantine: Thanks for having me. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for coming. And thank you for having a conversation that I think is very important - one that is on the forefront of many people's minds, that we see as we go about our daily lives, and unfortunately some of us have to experience - and that is dealing with homelessness, and the role that the county is playing in addressing homelessness in our region. Just starting out, what has been your approach to addressing our homelessness crisis, and why is it so important for the county to be involved? [00:01:33] Executive Dow Constantine: So a brief but really complex question. It is important to us because the reason our government exists is to seek to make this a welcoming community where every person has the opportunity to thrive. And it is tremendously difficult to thrive if you don't have a safe, secure place to call home. The county has a wildly complex system of governance, including local governance - so, there is one county government, there are 39 city governments, there are myriad special districts. And of course, there's the state and much more. And it is often difficult to figure out who's on first - who is in charge of which aspect of this complicated picture of housing and homelessness. So we have taken on the role of trying to create partnerships to bring together all of these jurisdictions, regardless of their formal responsibilities or authorities to stitch together a complete approach to helping our shared constituency - those folks who are unable to secure housing. The county is Public Health - the county has some considerable region-wide human services programs that we have constructed, notwithstanding the fact that we're only technically responsible for those programs in the unincorporated area of 250,000 people. The county has a lot of capacity that some of the smaller cities don't have. And so in many cases, sort of by default, we've stepped in to try to bring together all of the parties. Seattle has its own capacity - Seattle's a big city with an appropriately sized government that has experts, it has the capacity to go out and seek funding, to go out and hire experts and do the work. So we work in partnership with them, but we also try to help the smaller cities that don't have that capacity be able to step up and do the work for their constituents. And we can't do it alone. And all of that is to say that the county is not the be-all and end-all in this arena, so we sought to create a regional authority where we could unite, bring together all of the contracting that governments were doing for outside entities to provide services to the people. And that was really the motivation for starting the effort on the Regional Homeless Authority. [00:03:54] Crystal Fincher: And I wanted to talk about that a bit because I think people wonder - we've heard a number of officials from cities around the area, including Seattle, talk about how important this is to address regionally - that it's hard to address within each silo of each jurisdiction, and so a regional solution is needed. The King County Regional Homelessness Authority seemed to be an answer to that. But it's unclear sometimes what is within the scope of the authority, and what the county is doing, what cities are doing. So speaking from the county - where do you overlap, or where do you work with the KCRHA, and where do you operate independently? [00:04:34] Executive Dow Constantine: So I'm going to oversimplify in order to hopefully make it clear. But we had a lot of places where we're entering into contracts with nonprofits to go out on the streets and provide services. And then the City of Seattle had a lot of contracts, often with the same nonprofits. And those contracts were on different schedules, and had different requirements, and required a lot of paperwork by those nonprofits - things that were not contributing to actually getting people off the street. And so we decided to try to take all of that and put it into a single entity with a single set of processes - and the city and the county contributed staff who had been doing that work in our respective governments. The homeless authority is in charge of helping people who are on the streets - not through homeless authority employees providing direct services, but by contracting with those folks who can help people on the streets - getting people into shelter, getting people into housing, getting people into the services they need to be able to stabilize their lives and exercise the kind of control over their lives they want to have and that they used to have. The authority is not in charge of housing - of building housing, of creating housing stock. And that has been a source of considerable confusion over time - is to come back to the obvious basic issue that people are homeless because they don't have housing, they can't afford housing. And therefore, the authority should be building housing - no, that is not their job. That is our job, the city's, various cities' jobs. It is the housing authorities' jobs, it is the state's job. And keeping clarity about that and keeping the authority focused on the mission of contracting for direct services to folks on the street is important in order for all of us to be more effective. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So as we get into talking more about what's happening in specific areas, I want to talk a little bit about what you just brought up - that homelessness is primarily a problem of housing, people not having housing. However, we hear people around the region - some saying, This is really an issue of addiction, this is an issue of criminality. It's not a housing issue. These are people who sometimes want to be out on the streets and don't want to have housing and don't want to have jobs - that kind of narrative. What do you think of that, and what is your approach to the issue of homelessness and what it's comprised of? [00:06:58] Executive Dow Constantine: So the reason people don't have housing is because they can't afford housing. They may have been evicted from housing for the inability to pay rent or lost their home because they couldn't pay their mortgage. They may have lost their housing because of domestic violence or because they were acting out in some way because they have an untreated or undertreated behavioral health challenge. But fundamentally, it's because people can't afford housing. There is too much money chasing too little housing in our region. And that is a tremendously bad, unfortunate side effect of the economic story that we've seen unfold here over the last 20 years - where there's just so much more money being paid to so many more people and then a bunch of people being left behind. So if you say - Well, they're not housed because they're addicted or they're not housed because they have an untreated mental health problem - that is simply saying that we're not providing the appropriate service in order for them to be able to exercise that authority over their own lives, to be able to earn money, and be able to get the housing they need. It also means that we have an affirmative responsibility to deal with the housing imbalance so that there is housing for people to rent at wages you can afford. It is a dodge simply to try to blame the victim all the time here. People want to say - Well, that would never happen to me because I'm a responsible person. I would never have a drug addiction. I would never get into a bad relationship. I would never lose my job - all those sorts of things. But that can happen to anybody, and we have to view every single person on the streets as though they are our brother or sister, or our daughter or son. And if we do that, then we will see our obligation to help them - not by simply being paternalistic toward them, but rather offering them the help they need to exercise agency - to be able to do what it is they want to do, which is live with the dignity and security. And to reconnect with their families and friends and peers. You go talk with folks who are living in homeless encampments - they are mostly from around here and they mostly really long to be able to simply be accepted in their community again, to be able to see their kids, to be able to be seen in the community as a person who is worthy of respect, and to carry themselves with dignity. And depriving them of that is just utterly unacceptable and inconsistent with who we want to be. [00:09:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, one of the things that we've learned over the past several years - and that the county has actually helped to operationalize - is the type of shelter, the type of housing that is most helpful. We've seen a move away from congregate housing to individual rooms where people can feel secure, can lock a door, and can really start to stabilize. Why has that been so important and how has the county been able to implement that? [00:09:58] Executive Dow Constantine: Well, sometimes congregate shelter - just an emergency shelter overnight - is essential. You're out on the street - it's unsafe either because of the weather or some other factor and you need to get inside. But being brought inside, given a mat on the floor, and then being kicked out with all your stuff at 7 in the morning is not a prescription for long-term progress. You just keep cycling through, you can never get your feet under you, you can never get stabilized, you can never get on track to deal with whatever underlying challenges you might have, or the simple act of getting cleaned up and applying for a job and starting to make money again. So when COVID started, we started moving people from congregate shelters into individual hotel rooms we had rented - it became clear that those people, in addition to avoiding getting COVID, were getting better in a whole lot of other ways. That having a door on the room with a lock on it, the ability to have their stuff be safe, the ability to get a full night's sleep, to have a bathroom to use when you wanted to started to get people calmed down to reduce the trauma and increase their ability to accept the other help that was available. And that help might be behavioral health treatment, that help might be job counseling, that help might be a whole range of things that could offer people a path back to the lives that they lived and that they want to live. And we had the University of Washington come in and study the hotel that we had in Renton, where we had moved many, many people who had been in congregate shelters, cycling in and out every day. And the university quickly identified that what we were anecdotally observing was absolutely true - that this made an enormous difference in people's lives. It was not their permanent home. It was not what they ultimately wanted for themselves. But the step up to a room of your own made a huge difference in their ability to start taking stock of the rest of their lives and being open to accepting the other help that was available. And so we really pursued that, and we've now purchased 1,200+ units through our Health Through Housing Initiative. We just opened a facility in Auburn - it's great, it's an old hotel, not that old - that folks are now moving into with supports on-site. And we're soon opening one in Redmond. And just as we found in the original Renton hotel, about 95% of people who come into this permanent supportive housing are successful, meaning that they don't end up back in homelessness. Some of them spend a lot of time in permanent supportive housing - some of them ultimately move into a place that was purpose-built for that - but a lot of folks move on to a job and subsidized, affordable housing, and ultimately to reclaiming their lives. And that is what we want. We want to prevent people from coming into homelessness, and we want to offer them the supports they need to exit homelessness. [00:12:55] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about the Health Through Housing initiative a little bit more because it does seem to be a model that is working. And one of the things that seems to be tough, that a lot of areas are having challenges with, is how to work between jurisdictions - how a county can work with a city, its elected officials and leaders, be responsive to the local needs and residents and their concerns, and the need to house people there locally, and balancing sometimes differing perspectives and needs there. How have you worked through that process with cities, and what advice would you give to other counties in the same position and cities when it comes to working with the county? [00:13:41] Executive Dow Constantine: Well - how have we worked through it? Usually with great patience. We don't have land use authority inside of cities. We don't have permitting authority inside of cities. Even if we're bringing the resources, we have to work with those cities to get a place sited. What we offer to do is work with them to choose the operator so that the nonprofit operating it is one that the city's comfortable with and to have some percentage of the folks moving in be people who've been homeless in the local community - and I think those are all reasonable accommodations. And some cities have been quite successful - their leaders have stood up and worked with skeptics in their community in order to get sites up and running. Other cities have been less successful where the opponents of doing anything have ultimately kept them from taking action and moving forward. We're getting more and more success as people see that when these facilities open, they are not a blight, but a blessing - that they are able to get people off their streets locally and to help folks from around the region get their lives back. And I will say that the system we have where every local community essentially gets to approve or veto the housing that we collectively need is an awfully tough environment in which to solve a problem of this scale. The legislature keeps taking measured actions to require more of local jurisdictions, to say - No, you really do need to site these places. You really do need to include more affordable housing. You really need to include more housing generally. And in general, those measures have been successful. But there are still some communities that are being tugged back and forth by folks who just don't want to be part of the solution. We had a big challenge - permanent supportive housing issue in Kenmore, where Plymouth Housing had been working on a project in cooperation with the city for years, and there was an election and then the council majority changed - and suddenly they disapproved the permit. That building now, I'm pleased to say, is going to be sited instead in Redmond. And the city of Redmond stepped up and said - This is not okay. We want to help those who are in need in our region of the county. And they've voted to proceed, and they're moving forward pretty quickly on identifying a site and getting the funding to help Plymouth Housing build that building. [00:16:04] Crystal Fincher: Now, you did mention the legislature taking some actions to help make it easier to address this housing affordability, housing quantity, homelessness crisis. Is there any legislation that you're tracking right now that you think would be very helpful moving forward? [00:16:23] Executive Dow Constantine: I can't speak to any specific legislation this year. There was a bill introduced quite late, as I understand it, that would require cities to accommodate facilities like the Plymouth Housing facility we just discussed. But in general, the legislature and the county have multiple approaches - there's subsidy and then there's leverage, where they have essentially regulation that says in order to receive our funding for other things, you have to accommodate a certain amount of housing. And I do think that our cities more and more are getting with the program - that they are each having growing pains - they're each having a struggle between those who don't want anything to change and those who realize that the future is coming, whether you prepare for it or not. And as they see success in their neighboring cities, they realize that maybe a little bit of change is not the... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30239533

Week in Review: March 1, 2024 - with Rich Smith 03/01/2024

Week in Review: March 1, 2024 - with Rich Smith On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith! Crystal and Rich discuss the significance of the Stranger endorsing “Uncommitted Delegates” in the March 12th Presidential Primary. They then celebrate the legislature’s passage of the Strippers’ Bill of Rights and mourn the deaths of rent stabilization and even-year elections at the hands of the Senate Ways & Means Committee. Finally, they cover Seattle City Council’s inexcusable silencing of protesters with arrest. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Rich Smith at . Resources “” from The Stranger Election Control Board “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Rich Smith from The Stranger “” by Rich Smith from The Stranger “” by Rich Smith from The Stranger “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and 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. An update from last week's Tuesday topical show - public comment on bringing three surveillance technologies to Seattle has been extended from the original February 29th deadline to March 22nd. Check out our audiograms from this week and get your comment in now. Today we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:01:20] Rich Smith: Hey, Crystal - how you doing? [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Doing? I mean - I'm doing. All things considered, I'm all right. All things considered is doing heavy lifting in that statement, but here we are. But hey, we have a presidential primary going on. We have ballots now, and there is a movement that The Stranger has endorsed for Uncommitted Delegates - for those who identify as Democrats - in the March 12th presidential primary. What is that? And why has The Stranger decided to endorse that? [00:01:55] Rich Smith: Great questions. Yeah - well, you've got your primary ballot. You've got some options there. They include Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson - who dropped out, and Uncommitted Delegates. Uncommitted Delegates is just a delegate that will, if that bubble gets more than 15% of the vote share after the primary, go to the national convention - which is scheduled for August of this year in Chicago. And in the first round of balloting, when voting on the nominee, they just aren't pledged to vote for any particular candidate unlike the pledge delegates, which Joe Biden will almost certainly win the vast majority of at the conclusion of the primary. So functionally, that's what it means - uncommitted delegate is someone who can decide who they want to vote for at the convention rather than just doing it ahead of time. And The Stranger endorsed it for a number of reasons. Chiefly, we do not like Joe Biden's response to the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. We do not like his hard right turn to the right. We do not like a number of other things that he did or did not do during the course of his four years in office. And this is the only time - the Democratic primary - where we get to raise an objection, make our voices heard in a language that he can hear, which is the language of delegates at the convention. The thinking is - if we send some uncommitted delegates, if the movement gets big enough, then during that first round of voting, the delegates can make a little noise if the war crimes are still going on. [00:03:39] Crystal Fincher: Now, one important note in this effort, because a lot of people were saying - We're going to write-in "Ceasefire," we're going to write-in a different candidate. That is, in Washington state - because of state law - a suboptimal option because officials only tally write-in votes from candidates who file "timely declarations" of a write-in candidacy and who also exceed the number of votes earned by the second place candidate. So that "Ceasefire" vote, that write-in is not going to be tallied or reported. It'll get lumped in with people who write-in some random name of a friend or someone who they wish would be president there. So the actual most organized and impactful way to register that vote is Uncommitted Delegates. There also have - heard some people who typically vote for Democrats say - Well, I want to cross over and vote for Nikki Haley instead of Donald Trump because I find Donald Trump offensive and don't want that. I don't know how much of an impact that is going to have here in Washington state. One, ultimately, most of the votes will wind up going to a Democrat - we're a blue state, that's not controversial. But two, even on the Republican side, NPI just came out with a poll this week showing Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the Republican primary among Republicans - about 75% of Republicans saying that they planned to vote for Donald Trump in that poll. So what's the hope - to get Nikki Haley from 20% to 25%, 25% to 30%? I don't know how much of an impact that is. Obviously, people are free to choose however they do want to vote, but very important that you do make your voice heard, that you are aware of what the options are, what the ballot looks like. And again, for the Uncommitted Delegates option, that's actually a bubble that you can fill in - you don't have to write-in anything, and that's how that would be registered. Also, a reminder that the presidential election ballots are due by March 12th, 2024. Don't forget to sign the outside of your ballot. In presidential primaries, we have to declare the party on the outside of the ballot - without those things happening, your ballot can't be counted. So make sure that you - one, participate and vote your conscience. There is a very effective way to do that right now. [00:06:10] Rich Smith: Yeah, we need as many people to do it as possible so we can send as many delegates as possible and show Biden that his behavior on foreign policy matters and on immigration - two domains over which the executive branch has almost exclusive control. I know that Congress has the purse or whatever, but as we've seen with the sending of weapons to Israel in December - Joe Biden, if there is an emergency, the executive branch can skirt Congress and send the money anyway. And the way that the national security apparatus is set up, especially with the continued authorization of use of military force, Biden can bomb the Houthis without talking to Congress much. He's got a lot of power and it's just so rare to get the opportunity to speak directly to a president about foreign policy. We don't have a draft, people aren't really talking about foreign policy when they vote - foreign policy isn't at the top of their list of things that they vote on. And so, presidents don't feel like they have to respond to Democratic pressure because there's not a lot of Democratic pulleys that give us power over him, basically, on those policies - on immigration and on foreign policy. So we rarely, rarely get this opportunity - it's certainly worth doing for that reason. [00:07:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I've talked about this a lot of times before, but primaries are your opportunity to truly vote your conscience. There's a lot of pressure in a lot of different directions in general elections. And it's not just a referendum on one person - sometimes we are in the position of picking the lesser of the two evils. But when that is ultimately the choice, it is on us to do all we can - in the meantime and around that - to lessen the evil overall. And so it is the time to be able to vote your conscience. There are lots of people who are having lots of discussions about voting in November, about Biden versus Trump. But this isn't that time. This is a Democratic primary where you can vote your conscience and you can send a message in a way that is stronger than just about anything we can do, especially as Washington state residents. So I certainly will be taking advantage of this option and want to make sure that lots of other people know that this is an option for them too. [00:08:35] Rich Smith: Hear, hear. [00:08:37] Crystal Fincher: Also want to talk about the legislature this week. There was a positive thing - a positive, I mean, maybe there are more positive things - but there was a positive thing that happened that's worth talking about. A Strippers' Bill of Rights passed. What did this bill do and why is it important? [00:08:55] Rich Smith: The bill did a lot. The bill established and added a bunch of labor protections for strippers in Washington state who have been needing them for far too long. It repealed the lewd conduct codes - the WAC, as they call them, Washington Administrative Codes - which were used and cited to raid gay bars in Seattle in January. And in doing so, it creates a pathway for strip clubs to apply for liquor licenses, so they can help offset the cost of some of the labor protections the state will now force them to implement - having panic buttons in certain areas, more safety training, lowering the house fees or the rental fees that strippers have to pay to clubs before they go on stage for the night so that they start the night indebted. And if the fees are too high - sometimes they're as high as $150, $200 a night - they will work a whole shift and just give all that money to the club owner and go home empty-handed. So this bill capped those fees to help strippers make money and express themselves sexually without the burdensome fees. What does it do? It frees the nipple and the jockstrap in queer bars so that the police don't have a reason to barge in as they did in January with their flashlights and their photographs - taking pictures of people in jockstrap in the clubs. It will more or less revolutionize the strip club industry in Seattle and give the workers the protections that they've long needed. I don't know if you've been to a strip club recently in Seattle, but it's kind of sad in there. It's not really a social atmosphere. People are there to sort of drink Dr. Pepper, and watch people dance, and then go get loaded in the parking lot, and then come back in. And that creates a kind of menacing atmosphere. And so the hope is - and that's supported by a state report released in 2020 - that having a more social atmosphere, having stuff to do there that's not just watch dancers and mull a lap dance will create a safer and funner environment for everybody and liberate sexual expression. But before this, with the lewd conduct laws - everything that a stripper did on stage was criminalized. They technically couldn't walk off stage with too sheer a bra or they would be having a threat of arrest. They couldn't take tips while they were dancing on stage without actual threat of arrest. There was a bunch of proximity rules in the codes that would have made lap dances illegal, basically. And so it decriminalizes stripping, essentially, in Washington and makes us the last state in the union to allow alcohol sales - in a kind of roundabout way. Basically, the repeal of the code means there's no enforcement of alcohol sales in clubs and it allows them to apply for the state's other liquor licenses - so that's the kind of roundabout way they're doing it. But it's incredible. It takes the boot of the state off the neck of marginalized communities and is a real win. [00:11:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is a marginalized community of workers. Workers that have been denied rights, been at risk of criminalization and penalties and everything that comes with that. Workers deserve protection - starts just as fundamentally and as simply as that. And every employer owes safety and fair compensation to their employees or to contractors working on their behalf. And so, this certainly brings us in-line with the modern world in many ways. And so just pleased to see that the legislature took action to protect workers in this way. Now, the legislature failed to take action, unfortunately, in some other very key areas - in areas that Democrats, certainly the House of Representatives, defined as priorities, defined as very important. Starting with the failure to pass rent stabilization, which would have, among other things, capped rent increases at 7% annually - which is still a healthy increase. But right now there is still continuing virtually unlimited rent increases across the state. I have talked about before - my neighbors received a 45% rent increase annually - in one year - from previous year. And this is contributing to housing insecurity. This is contributing to our homelessness problem. This is contributing to income inequality. And it's contributing to rising house prices across the state overall. This, in particular, really does fail to help our problem of displacement here in our communities - was just so disappointed to see this. Why did this happen? [00:13:48] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was a little bit - the short answer is that two men with somewhat adorable electoral ambition decided to quietly strangle the bill in the Senate's Ways and Means Committee, after a State senator representing Southwest Washington - Annette Cleveland - strangled the bill in a kind of clumsy and public way in the Senate's Housing Committee. And they don't offer many reasons for doing so, and the reasons they do offer are not good and unsupported by evidence. So in the Ways and Means Committee, you could only lose two Democratic votes, basically, to get anything through. The Ways and Means Committee is stacked with conservative Democrats, certainly fiscally conservative Democrats. And so Mark Mullet is on the Ways and Means Committee - he represents Issaquah, and he's just a true believer. He thinks that a rent stabilization package at 7% will decrease construction of new housing in the medium to long-term. And so it is not worth protecting the 40% of households in Washington who rent now from astronomically high rent increases that push them out of their communities - that's too great a risk - a potential medium to long-term decrease of indeterminate size in the number of housing units constructed in Washington. This is the kind of information that they're providing. Van De Wege did not give a reason. Rep Strom Petersen, who had talked to Van De Wege, asked him if he needed any amendments on the bill - they were willing to negotiate cap size, they were willing to negotiate all manner of exceptions. And Van De Wege shrugged and said, No. So not even giving a full-throated principled reason for quietly doing this to millions of Washington renters. And Annette Cleveland beforehand strangled the bill in her committee, saying that - it was spreading, basically, misinformation as far as I'm concerned. She said that the rent cap of 15%, which was the one that she was considering at the time - extremely high, almost comically high rent cap - would only catch the most egregious abusers because landlords would, as a matter of course, raise rates 15% every year. Because if they can't raise it however much they want, then they'll raise it to the cap every single time. This is silly. Everyone will tell you, even the f**ing landlords will tell you that a 3% to 5% rent increase on an annual basis is the kind of norm. That's what the developers and lenders are both agreeing on when they sign their contracts. That's the stuff that they're counting on when they're figuring out their returns on investment. So a 7% rent cap is more than genuous, especially with the exceptions in the bill. In any event, aside from that, she also cited a bunch of old papers talking about first-generation rent control, which is much more strict than the rent stabilization measures that the legislature was discussing. Those arguments are also - in recent review from academics - a little bit suspect, a little bit rosier, actually, for rent stabilization, and we could have a whole show on that. But anyway, she cited those disingenuous anti-rent control arguments to justify her support of killing rent stabilization measure, which is a completely different policy. And she insulted her colleagues while she was at it by citing the Urban Institute report that was actually less critical of rent stabilization than she made it out to be. But showing that she was concerned with the bill's impact on Black and brown people - doesn't want to raise the rents on those communities - and so decided to kill a bill that would make sure that they wouldn't face high rent gouging prices that have been pushing them out of their communities for the last two decades. I know I'm ranting here, but I can't underline this enough. This bill is too late, but must pass. We really could have used rent stabilization at the beginning of 2010 when rents started shooting up, and would shoot up over 92% over that decade. Rents have been sort of flat in aggregate for the last couple of years, but that doesn't mean, as you say, that landlords aren't jacking up rents on people to economically evict them because they can. That sort of stuff needs to stop - that bill would have prevented it - the Senate Democrats didn't let it happen this year. [00:18:08] Crystal Fincher: Didn't let it happen. And it should be noted that two people who were critical to killing this bill - Mark Mullet and Senator Van De Wege - are also running for statewide office. Mark Mullet is running for governor as a Democrat. Kevin Van De Wege is running for lands commissioner. Really interesting choices to refuse to help 40% of the state's population. [00:18:35] Rich Smith: Just a number of coalition partners - the Members of Color Caucus in both chambers prioritized this bill. The LGBT community came out, especially in Seattle, to do a big rally in support of this bill. Hundreds of people descended on the Capitol steps in Olympia during this session to support a bill from every part of the state - east, west, north, south. Every renter has been feeling this pressure, and the state legislature on some bulls**t about potential long-term costs to the housing supply - which they cannot quantify or have not quantified, I haven't seen the number. If so, please send it over to me - I can't wait to have that discussion. And the only salvo that they're giving us - and I'll stop talking after this - is, Well, next year, Mullet won't be there because he's giving up his seat to run for governor. Van De Wege won't be there because he's giving up his seat to run for land commissioner. A couple of other senators are going to announce their retirement - Sam Hunt has announced his retirement, we've got maybe a couple more. So those places on Ways and Means will be replaced by politicians who don't have the same politics as these conservatives. So next year, it'll be a whole new legislature. The complexion will change and yada, yada, yada. And in the... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30191488

Week in Review: February 23, 2024 - with Matt Driscoll 02/23/2024

Week in Review: February 23, 2024 - with Matt Driscoll On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by metro news columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll! With two weeks left in the State legislative session, Crystal and Matt dig into several bills with potential for huge impact and needing public support to get across the finish line - HB 2114 (rent stabilization), HB 1932 (even-year elections), and SB 6105 (Stripper Bill of Rights). See the resources section for links to contact your legislators about each of these bills! Next, they discuss the promise of the City of Tacoma’s detailed Anti-Displacement strategy, Mayor Bruce Harrell pledging no new taxes at his annual State of the City address, and no charges against the SPD officer who killed Jaahnavi Kandula. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Matt Driscoll, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by The Seattle Times Editorial Board “” by Rich Smith from The Stranger “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune “” by Shea Johnson from The News Tribune | City of Tacoma “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review shows 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, our producer Shannon Cheng was guest host and welcomed back Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget to discuss how the City of Seattle is rushing to bring three surveillance technologies to the streets of Seattle with minimal public input. Make your voice heard at the final public meeting next week on Tuesday, February 27th at 6 p.m. 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: Metro News columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll. [00:01:31] Matt Driscoll: Thank you for having me - it's always wonderful to be here. And of course, as luck would have it, hammering started in the background. Hopefully that's not too annoying, but yeah - it's great to be here. Thanks for having me. [00:01:42] Crystal Fincher: Excellent - love having you back. Well, we have a couple weeks left in this legislative session, which is scheduled to end on March 7th. Houses have already gotten done passing legislation that originated in their chambers, now the other chambers are taking up things. And there's a few bills that I wanted to talk about that are trying to make it through, that a lot of organizations have as policies, and that would be really impactful to residents throughout the state. The first one is one talking about rent stabilization - different than rent control - rent stabilization basically limits rent and fee increases during the year. So this is something that a lot of renters have been talking about. We've certainly covered the housing affordability crisis at length on this program, but it really is a challenge for renters facing seemingly endless rent hikes. And those rent hikes currently don't have any caps. We've seen instances of rent literally doubling in some places, but fees 20-30% increases annually, which is way beyond the cost of inflation, generally, and really challenging for people to be able to afford. This has been cited as contributing to income inequality, to our homelessness crisis, and to just regular affordability, to displacement. Really challenging, so one thing that has been in the works for over a year has been the effort to try and limit rent increases. This bill would limit rent increases to 7% during any 12-month period, which is still a pretty substantial increase for most people - but within the realm of reality and affordability and achievability for a lot of people. How do you see this bill? [00:03:38] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting and it is very similar to a citizens' ballot initiative that we covered here in Tacoma last election cycle, which did place some rent increase limits on local landlords and some caps on local fees. To me, it's kind of the other side of the coin - although this coin is probably not a coin, it has a bunch of sides. But we talk a lot about just the affordable housing crisis and the need to build more housing of all kinds, particularly affordable housing - being able to meet all sorts of different economic demographics with that. And this is another side of that, which is people faced with the crisis of housing, calling on lawmakers and policymakers to enact some protections and some regulations to keep them from just getting gouged and forced out financially. And particularly in this bill and in the initiative that ended up passing just barely in Tacoma, I mean, the rent increases and the fees that they still allow are not insignificant. And the fact that we see the pushback to it that we do, particularly from landlords' associations, and conservative lawmakers, really speaks to how out of whack the market is. If you can't get by by raising rent 7% annually, I think it raises questions. Now, there are, I think, some legitimate concerns about how far to crank that lever, because I personally believe at some point, if you do crank it too far, you are going to impact the "mom and pop" landlords who do exist, who are real providers of legitimate affordable housing to people and housing to people that they might not be able to get otherwise. So I do think you have to walk that balance. Certainly to me, this bill seems reasonable, but I'm sure for a lot of lawmakers, it comes down to that question of how much reach do you want the government to have in dictating what are supposed to be those free markets we love so much in this country. But really, this conversation is indicative to the crisis that's happening in cities across Washington and across certainly the West Coast, where the cost of housing is just greatly outpacing any income growth or job growth that we might have. People are freaked out, and rightly so. You talk about all the necessities, whether it's food or - there are safety nets for that. But I think the housing one is one that feels really close because there aren't safety nets. If you lose housing, you lose housing. If you need to go to a food bank, you can go to a food bank, but there's not a house bank. And so it'll be interesting to see what happens and then see where the momentum goes on this. [00:06:02] Crystal Fincher: It will be interesting to see where the momentum goes. And you raised a good point in talking about the Tacoma Renter Protection Initiative, which is similar to other renter protection initiatives and legislation we've seen in various cities throughout the state - whether it's Spokane, Bellingham, Tacoma, Federal Way, we've seen local communities across the state take action on this because this is plaguing communities. That housing expense is almost everyone's biggest expense and so if that is skyrocketing, that's taking families' available discretionary income, that's impacting the local economy, and obviously causing a lot of housing insecurity that is really putting a lot of people in tough positions, and communities in tough positions, and governments and how to deal with that. And it's so much more expensive to deal with once it gets to the crisis level - once someone is displaced or can't afford housing, loses their apartment. All of those are really, really expensive to deal with from a city and county perspective. So I am hopeful that this legislation passes. It's currently in the Senate and it faces an uncertain future, so this is going to be one where community feedback to all of your legislators is really going to make a difference on this - particularly your senators, because they're going to determine the fate of this. There are a number of people on the fence - some moderate to conservative Democrats who have voiced some concerns. Jamie Pedersen is working on this in the Senate - has expressed some reservations, but has certainly heard a lot of feedback from his constituents who overwhelmingly are renters in his district. We'll see how this turns out, but this is one where - for folks listening - if this is something that's a priority to you, reach out to your senators. Fortunately, we make it really simple in Washington to be able to send communications about legislation. We'll also put links in the show notes to make that easy. But they're going to need to hear from you on this - certainly would be a big step forward for the state in terms of renter protections here. Also want to talk about another bill, which we've certainly talked about before and recently in our conversation with Andrew Villeneuve in one of our Tuesday topical shows, that the Northwest Progressive Institute has been very active with. The even-year elections bill, which has advanced out of the House and then advanced out of the Senate State Government Committee. So it's looking fairly positive, but still has to go through some more hurdles. This would enable cities and towns to choose to hold their elections in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years. This is a big deal because turnout is much higher in even-numbered years. And as we've seen in the state of California, when we do put those other races - municipal races, local races - on the ballot with those national races, people still vote, still great turnout, even better turnout than they would see in those odd-year elections. We just got done with an election in November that had the lowest turnout since we've been keeping records here in Washington. It is a problem. We're deciding elections with sometimes close to only 20% of the residents participating in the election - that's not representative. I don't think that's doing anyone any favors. The more people who can participate, the better. I also sometimes hear - This is all a progressive conspiracy to turn things out because we see so many elections that trend progressive in the end. And one thing that I would remind people is Seattle is a very visible place. Seattle has more progressive voters than conservative ones, so certainly elections in Seattle and therefore King County do trend as ballots are counted in the final days - those late ballots certainly do trend in a progressive direction. That's not the case statewide. It really just depends on what the local population is. If we're looking at southwest Washington, for example, those often trend red in a lot of those swing districts there. It just really depends on what there is on the ground. And even in those situations, I still think it's better for more people to participate in elections, and voting, and deciding what their communities are going to look like. What do you think about this bill? [00:10:23] Matt Driscoll: First and foremost, Crystal, it's awfully generous of you to acknowledge that even where there are more conservative voters, it's better for more people to vote - that's very bipartisan of you, I appreciate that. This is one of those ones that makes me question myself - am I a super liberal hack? Because there really doesn't seem to be a good reason not to do this, in my mind. At the end of the day - participation in democracy, in our elections - the more people, the more registered voters we can get involved, the better. That's what we should all want. None of us should be afraid that our arguments should stand up and they don't - if they're in the minority, they're in the minority - that's the way it's supposed to work. I will say that there's also part of this that frustrates me because we do look at those even-year versus odd-year elections, and one of the reasons that this gets cast as perhaps a progressive-motivated thing or a progressive scheme is because in those odd-year elections, the voting demographic does skew older, whiter, landowner, property owner - that's real - and i guess the frustrating part about it is just progressives could vote. I just went through that election last November and it was brutal to go through the endorsements. I do think election burnout is real. It does feel like there's always an election. I think we got to be generous to the general public and realize that most people are just trying to get through their lives, and put food on the table, and get their kids to school, and all that. And I think we're asking a lot of them to constantly be kind of in election mode, which is certainly how it feels. But at the end of the day, if progressives are concerned about the disparity, they could just vote in odd-year elections and they just don't - historically - we talk about it every time until we're blue in the face, and then they don't. But full circle - this is about participation. Whether we like the reality or not, the reality is people don't vote in off-year elections nearly as much as they do in the even year. We have historical data backing this up. And I also think it's important to note that all this bill will do is give places the ability to do it. It doesn't dictate it. It's local control of it. If you want to make that change, you can. So to me, again, I don't see an argument against this. It seems like a no-brainer, but so little is a no-brainer when it comes to Olympia. [00:12:34] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with what you're saying. And as this makes it through and follows the path that a lot of bills do, one of the things that happens is amendments are offered and sometimes accepted. So this passed the House. Once it did arrive in the Senate, it received some amendments that passed out of committee. I'm not in love with these amendments. One of them not only requires the city to basically opt-in legislatively and pass an ordinance to say we're going to do this, but now it requires a popular vote from the people. So the city has to both adopt an ordinance or policy by its legislative body- [00:13:10] Matt Driscoll: An odd year? Do they have to vote in an odd year? Is that part of the stipulation? [00:13:15] Crystal Fincher: You know, it probably is. And yeah, it would have to receive approval from its voters. Now, this is something where the voters vote for their city council or their town council - whatever their government legislative body is, usually a city council - who make decisions like this all the time. Putting this out to a public vote is a costly endeavor. Elections aren't free. You have to pay to administer them, it's costly, it's time-consuming. And as you say, this is probably going to be on another odd-year election ballot. This is pretty simple. I wish we would let people and the electeds that they selected make these decisions. I would love to see that amendment taken out before it does get to a final vote, but we'll see how it goes. It would be progress either way. Definitely better than nothing, but would love to see as much good as possible and not add another hurdle to this that is seemingly unnecessary and also costly at a time when a lot of cities and counties are dealing with budget deficits and are really trying to trim costs instead of add them. Another bill that you covered this week is about a proposed Strippers' Bill of Rights that's currently in Olympia. What is happening with this and what would it do? [00:14:29] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I mean, I kind of became mildly fascinated with this over the last week because it was pretty new territory for me, to be honest with you. So basically, the background on it is adult dancers, strippers in Washington essentially lack a whole lot of protections that I was, for one, shocked to hear didn't exist - like requirements of clubs to have security. In recent years, there have been some slight upgrades, installations of panic buttons and stuff, but really it's kind of a Wild West out there in terms of staffing, and training requirements, and de-escalation requirements. And basically, whether you frequent strip clubs or not, just picture a strip club and think of all the things that you would assume would be in place to protect people and employees and the reality is that many of them don't exist currently. And so this bill would do a lot of that around training, de-escalation, that sort of thing - which all, to me, feel like no-brainers. And I think in the legislature's view - from the testimony that I've heard, at least in the House - it seems to be a shared sentiment. Where it gets tricky is this bill also opens the door for the legal sale of alcohol in strip clubs. And at least initially going into it, for me, it's a juxtaposition until you get into it. Because on one hand, you're talking about safety and regulations. And then - oh, yeah, we're going to add alcohol - and you're like, what the? that doesn't necessarily seem like that's about safety. But at the end of the day, as I learned and wrote about - and others have written about it plenty this session - essentially the deal for strippers is they pay a nightly rate, if you will, to work, to perform. They're independent contractors. They're not employees of the strip club. So you will end up owing $100, $200 just to start your shift. And then the money that you make in the process of your job, after you pay that back, that's what you make. One, that's clearly exploitative. It sets up bad situations, as you can imagine. But the reality of it is because there's no legal alcohol sales in Washington strip clubs, that's really the only financial model that exists for club owners. And so it puts pressure on them to exploit the dancers. And then that puts pressure on the dancers to maybe ignore warning signs about things that make them uncomfortable because they're all of a sudden in financial distress trying to pay what they owe just to work. So it just creates this whole set of tensions that I think - really a lot of the supporters of this bill would argue - really decrease the safety in these clubs. So this bill would do all of that - it made its way through the Senate, it's now over to the House, it's out of committee as of earlier this week. But the hang up is going to be around that alcohol point. I think most lawmakers seem to agree with the safety measures, but there's hang up around the alcohol and how that works. We could go into the weeds - some legislators think that the Liquor Cannabis Board already has the ability, they could just make a rule. Liquor Cannabis Board says - No, we need you to grant us the licensing authority, yada, yada, yada. It's all very complicated, but it's going to come down to the booze. [00:17:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this is really interesting - I personally am absolutely in support of this. Strippers are workers. They deserve protections that any worker deserves. Employers have an obligation to protect their employees, or in the case of independent contractors to protect the people who they are making money from when they work in their establishment. As you said, this does... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30082083

Why Seattle’s Proposed Surveillance Mash-Up is a Lose-Lose with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget 02/20/2024

Why Seattle’s Proposed Surveillance Mash-Up is a Lose-Lose with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget On this topical show, special guest host Shannon Cheng welcomes back Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget to discuss how the City of Seattle is rushing to bring three surveillance technologies to the streets of Seattle with minimal public input - a final public meeting happens next week on Tuesday, February 27th, 6pm! Amy and BJ fill Shannon in on Seattle’s Surveillance Impact Report process and their concerns that three technologies - Acoustic Gunshot Location System (AGLS, aka ShotSpotter), Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV), and Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) - are being rushed through without providing the public transparency into potential privacy concerns, especially relating to equity and community impact, ahead of their potential adoption. After identifying the problems the City claims to be solving with these surveillance technologies, Amy and BJ discuss how each proposed technology, both individually and in combination, have been shown to be ineffective and at times harmful when used in other cities around the country. They then provide examples of solutions proven to address gun violence that show great promise but are chronically underfunded. Finally, Amy and BJ share a host of opportunities that concerned listeners have to make their voice heard, including at the final public meeting next week on Tuesday, February 27th, 6pm! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at , find Amy Sundberg at , and find Solidarity Budget at . Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of , a weekly on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for . She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she , with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, . She is particularly fond of Seattle’s parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog. BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid. Resources | City of Seattle Information Technology “” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist “” by Puget Sound Prisoner Support for Puget Sound Anarchists | City of Seattle “” by Tom Schuba and Fran Spielman from The Chicago Sun-Times | Presentation to Seattle Public Safety Committee - February 13, 2024 | Solidarity Budget | Solidarity Budget | Solidarity Budget “” by Lindsay McKenzie from StateScoop @DivestSPD on Twitter/X: “” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald “” by Justin Phillips from San Francisco Chronicle “” by Hanna Love from The Brookings Institution Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everybody. This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I am going to be your special guest host again today, and I'm super excited to be welcoming back to the show Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget. Some of you may recall that we did a show back in November about the Seattle City budget process. And we talked at that time about a proposed crime prevention pilot program that included technology such as ShotSpotter and CCTV. Well, today we're sort of doing this as an emergency show because we're trying to follow up on what's happening with the City's process in acquiring and implementing these technologies. So I just really wanted to have these experts back on to fill us in on what's going on and why it's important. So starting off, what is happening? What are these surveillance technologies that are being considered by the City? [00:01:41] Amy Sundberg: Good to be back. We're happy to be here talking about this. Yeah, so there are three different technologies that are currently being discussed and reviewed. The first one is Acoustic Gunshot Location Systems, or AGLS - or colloquially known as ShotSpotter. So I would say as we continue to have this conversation, you should consider those phrases interchangeably. I might say AGLS, I might say ShotSpotter, but it's the same technology in either case. The second one is CCTV, and the third one is a Real-Time Crime Center software. [00:02:13] Shannon Cheng: When we talked about budget back in November, I feel like there were only two at the time. And now we're talking about three - is that true? [00:02:19] BJ Last: Yes, that has come in. They're claiming magically that it's all going to work under the same dollar amount. Back when we talked, it was just the AGLS, the Acoustic Gunshot Location Service, and the closed circuit television cameras, the CCTV. So now it's the Real-Time Crime Center, the RTCC, which is largely just a massive compiler of data that goes and pulls in tech from ShotSpotter, from AGLS microphones, from City-owned CCTV cameras, from privately-owned CCTV cameras, and a bunch of AI algorithms - a real quick overview of what that one is. But yeah, we're now up to three techs as a suite. [00:02:57] Amy Sundberg: I should say, too, that the RTCC software also will integrate the license plate readers, which we just saw a massive expansion of at the end of last year. [00:03:05] Shannon Cheng: Right. Just to remind everybody where we were at at the end of 2023 - during that budget process, funding for this surveillance technology was allocated, and I believe it was $1.8 million total. And of that, $1.5 million was supposed to be for a pilot project for this Acoustic Gunshot Locator System plus the CCTV - and there was no Real-Time Crime Center at the time. And then the other $300,000 was for this expansion of Automatic License Plate Readers that Amy just mentioned. So where are we now with these three surveillance technologies? [00:03:46] Amy Sundberg: Well, we are in the middle of a convoluted process that BJ and I and others have been spending a lot of time trying to understand and to help other people understand. So it's called a Surveillance Impact Review, which all surveillance technologies that are going to be used in the City of Seattle now have to go through this review process because of an ordinance that was passed. [00:04:09] BJ Last: And do you want to give a shout out to who was the primary sponsor of this ordinance? It is our current mayor, Bruce Harrell - just a fun one to know, given with how this process is unfolding. [00:04:21] Amy Sundberg: I actually didn't know that, and that is kind of ironic - so thank you for sharing. So this process has to be done for any technology that is deemed to be surveillance technology, which all three of these technologies have been deemed. And it is a review process that has many steps. We have the draft reports available now, which I believe were filled out by SPD and maybe also the executive's office. And right now we're in the stage where we are able to give public comment. So there has to be at least one public hearing for this report - they are having two public hearings. One of them already happened, and the other one is upcoming on February 27th at 6 p.m. at Bitter Lake Community Center and online, of course. [00:05:14] BJ Last: And I will say this process is being exceptionally, I'd say, rushed and short. So they started taking public comment on February 5th. They stop taking public comment on February 29th. So y'all can do the math - that's well less than 30 days that people actually get to go and provide feedback on this. And as Amy mentioned, there will be a grand total of two public hearings on this. So we're looking at literally less than a hearing per technology being done - three technologies, but only two total hearings. And as a comparison of how this works - Dayton, Ohio, an area I think a lot of people in Seattle would probably look down as like red state, flyover country - when they were looking at adopting just one of these technologies, they had 13 public hearings versus nominally progressive Seattle doing its grand total of two for three technologies. [00:06:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so at the end of last year, the City allocated the money for these technologies. Now they're going through this process. As you said, it's this Surveillance Ordinance - so that took effect in November of 2018. It was designed to provide greater transparency when deciding whether the City was going to adopt any technology that is surveillance, as Amy said. And just to be clear, this is not just restricted to the Seattle Police Department wanting to implement surveillance technologies. When I was looking back at some of the past technologies that had to go through this process, SDOT had to do this for some cameras they had for traffic detection to help streets moving smoothly. So this is just - whenever we're implementing something that is going to be observing, it's so that the public and the city council can understand - what are the impacts and are there any concerns that we need to know about before we just roll all this stuff out onto our streets. So that's where we're at. And in the past, I noticed it took them maybe 6-7 months to go through this process. But as you're describing it, BJ, it sounds like it could be less than a month that they're trying to do everything right now. [00:07:16] BJ Last: Correct. They're trying to limit all the public input to less than one month just to go push it through. You did a great job summarizing the Surveillance Ordinance, Shannon. It really was designed so the people of Seattle get to meaningfully - A) find out what surveillance they're potentially going to be impacted to, and B) get a chance to evaluate it so that we don't end up - Oh wow, there's this new surveillance because five people fell for a sales pitch. That people of the city actually got a chance to research the thing, find out what they were dealing with, and that's really hard to say that's happening when you're trying to do three different technologies in less than 30 days. [00:07:50] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, that's a lot of information. I admit I've been having trouble wrapping my head around everything. So it sounds like we're already past the point of one of the public meetings having happened. We're recording this show Thursday, February 15th. The first one happened on Monday, February 12th. So what was that public meeting like? Did they provide in-depth information about the impacts that these technologies might have? And how did people react? [00:08:17] Amy Sundberg: No, I wouldn't say that. About half of the meeting was a presentation about the technologies, but it was more about why they're going to adopt them - what they think will be helpful about the technologies. They didn't really go over any of the negative impacts that we are so worried about. And then there was a chance for public comment. I would say there was about 15 or 16 people who wanted to give comment at this first meeting, which - people didn't have a lot of advance notice. And like you said, it is three different technologies - some of which people are hearing about for the very first time - and they are technical. It does take some time to learn even what they are and how they work and why we should maybe be worried. So 15 or 16, given that, I feel like was higher than anticipated. And what I heard over and over again is people saying - This is too rushed. We need to slow down. We have concerns. We are against this surveillance technology. And also this is too fast, and this process is not serving the people of Seattle well. I would say there was maybe one comment that wasn't that. It was very uniform, in terms of people being very concerned about this. And it was at noon on a Monday, so people are taking their lunch break or time off in the middle of a workday - that's how worried they are, right? I am happy that the second public meeting is in the evening to give a different demographic of folks the chance to come out and give comment. But I still think two one-hour sessions is not sufficient. I will also say that there are other worrisome things about this process. For example, there is a Surveillance Advisory Working Group. And how they plug into this process is once everything else is kind of done, they are supposed to review these reports. And then they complete a civil liberties and privacy assessment, which for a surveillance technology, you can see how crucial that would be. And right now, that group has one confirmed sitting member. So they can't meet quorum, right? And I know that there are some other folks that are lined up, but they do need to be confirmed in the committee first. And again, this is being very rushed - the mayor's office gets to appoint some and then the council gets to appoint some - the timing of it all makes me feel uncomfortable, to be frank. That this is going to be rushed right before these three technologies are going to be discussed - who is being chosen and why? I don't know the answers to that, but these are questions that we're going to have to ask as those appointees come on board. And then they're going to be brand new, and right away have to do this review. Again, a very rushed process. And then perhaps my - all these things are very concerning, but one of my biggest concerns is the Racial Equity Toolkit component of this process. So all of these Surveillance Impact Reports have to have a Racial Equity Toolkit as part of the process. And it's been very unclear as to how - is the Racial Equity Toolkit a concurrent process? Is it a separate process? What is the timeline? What kind of outreach is going to happen? How are they reaching out to the impacted groups? Are they making sure to do so in a way that is best for those groups and to do it in a variety of different ways, et cetera, et cetera? There's a lot of open questions that I have not been able to get answers to thus far. I've been hearing that possibly these public hearings that we're having for the Surveillance Impact Report might be kind of rolled into the Racial Equity Toolkit, which seems inappropriate to me, frankly, for technologies that have such potential for grave misuse and negative impact. As well, we do not yet know exactly where this technology is going to be deployed. We've been told several locations - Aurora Avenue North, Belltown, and the Downtown commercial core - that's what we were told last year. Then a couple weeks ago, they added Chinatown International District - apparently at the last minute, and they don't know where. They've said that it's probably not going to be all of these places, but wherever they're going to deploy this technology, they need to do - in my opinion - a separate RET, Racial Equity Toolkit, because each neighborhood is going to have different dynamics, different demographics, different things going on, different groups that need to be consulted. And I haven't heard about any individual outreach. So it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I have been actively asking and I have not been able to find anything out that this is actually happening. As well, you're going to want to look at reports, studies for racial impacts, potentially. Again, I'm not seeing those being cited in the draft report. So it seems like a very slapdash, non-serious job that is being done. And it doesn't seem like the communications that have been sent out to the public don't seem to come from an administration that's serious about equity and social justice. And I'm very concerned, frankly, that I am even having trouble getting my questions answered. [00:13:38] BJ Last: Also, that's a great point on the four different areas that are up for consideration, because there are four areas - again, two public comment periods. Last one that's open is up in Bitter Lake - that is not exactly close to Chinatown International District, that is not close to Belltown, that's not really close to Downtown core. So three of the four areas that could potentially get this will have never even had a public hearing in their area. Fortunately, people can join that remotely, but that's also not even an option for everyone. So they've said this might go out in one of four areas. They're not even trying to do outreach in each of those areas, which is - as Amy said, seems like a problem, and that's something they're not really taking seriously. Same with when they wrote up the Surveillance Impact Reports - there's a section of what studies have they looked at for each technology. And for two of the reports, those are entirely blank. And for one of them, for CCTV, they referenced one study that actually found this has no impact on violent crime. So this seems very slapdash, just trying to push it through, not trying to get the community involved. [00:14:41] Amy Sundberg: We also really expected to see them talking to other cities. None of these technologies are particularly new. A lot of cities have used these technologies, have deployed them in various combinations. I will say also, it is not new to put all three of these technologies together in one place. Chicago, for example, does it - they've been doing it for a while now. And we're seeing a lot of cities backtracking - having had a contract for ShotSpotter or similar technology, and then discontinuing that contract. And just this week, we got the news that Chicago is going to be discontinuing their very large contract for ShotSpotter by fall at the latest. And it seems that it would make sense for a city who is considering deploying this technology to talk to other cities about the experience that they have had, especially if it seems like maybe they've had kind of a negative or mixed experience. [00:15:37] Shannon Cheng: So what I'm hearing from the two of you is that we're on the brink of potentially acquiring or implementing these technologies, which we have some concerns about, that the product of this Surveillance Impact Report process is to provide the city council a holistic view of what these technologies are meant to do, whether they work, what kind of drawbacks they might have. And unfortunately, it sounds like the process that they're going through, there's just a lot of things wrong with it - the speed at which it's going, the incompleteness of their filling out the draft report, the not making sure that the last group who is going to review the report before it goes in its final form to city council even has people on it. It just makes you wonder - it's not like they didn't know this was coming. I remember when we spoke last November - BJ, you pointed out they had been trying to get ShotSpotter since the year before. They had an entire year. Now they've had two years to start planning, filling out this report, getting all these ducks in a row. And it just seems like we're now here at the last minute and there's some kind of false sense of urgency being put on the city council - who is also brand new to all of this... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/30037233

Week in Review: February 16, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank 02/16/2024

Week in Review: February 16, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert chat about Raise the Wage Renton’s special election win, how a rent stabilization bill passed out of the State House but faces an uphill battle in the State Senate, and the authorization of a strike by Alaska Airlines flight attendants. They then shift to how gender discrimination problems in the Seattle Police Department create a toxic work culture that impedes recruitment, the inexplicable pressing forward by Seattle on ShotSpotter while other cities reject it, and the failure of a philanthropic effort by business titans to solve the regional homelessness crisis. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at . Resources “” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times “” by Rich Smith from The Stranger “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist | Washington State House Democrats “” by Alex DeMarban from Anchorage Daily News “” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola “” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist “” by Craig Wall and Eric Horng from ABC7 Chicago “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times “” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical shows and our Friday week-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:08] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back here again, Crystal. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. Well, we've got a number of items to cover this week, starting with news that I'm certainly excited about - I think you are, too - that this week, in our February special election, Renton had a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage which passed. What are your takeaways from this? [00:01:31] Robert Cruickshank: It's a huge win, both in terms of the margin of victory so far - nearly 60% of Renton voters saying Yes to this in a February election with low turnout. It will raise the wage to around $20 an hour in Renton. And I think it's a clear sign that just as we saw voters in Tukwila last year, and just as in fact voters in SeaTac 11 years ago - kicking all this off - moving to $15 an hour with a city ballot initiative that year, voters in King County, Western Washington want higher minimum wages. And I don't even think we need to qualify it by saying King County in Western Washington. You can look around the country and see - in states like Arkansas, when people put initiatives on the ballot to raise the wage, they pass. So I think there's, yet again, widespread support for this. And I think it also shows that the politicians in Renton - there were several city councilmembers like Carmen Rivera who supported this. There are others, though - the majority of the Renton City Council didn't. They spouted a lot of the usual right-wing Chamber of Commerce arguments against raising the minimum wage, saying it would hurt small businesses and make it hard for workers - none of which actually happens in practice. And voters get that. Voters very clearly understand that you need to pay workers more - they deserve more, especially in a time of inflation. This has been understood for well over 10 years now - that the minimum wage wasn't rising quickly enough and it needs to keep going up. So I think it's a huge wake-up call to elected officials - not just in local city councils, but at the state legislature - they've got to keep doing work to make sure that workers are getting paid well and that the minimum wage keeps rising. [00:03:04] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. I also think, just for the campaign's purposes, this was really exciting to see. Again, not coming from some of the traditional places where we see ballot measures, campaigns being funded - great that they're funding progressive campaigns in other areas, but that these efforts are largely community-led, community-driven. The Raise the Wage Renton campaign, the Seattle DSA - the Democratic Socialists of America, Seattle chapter - were very involved, did a lot of the heavy lifting here. So really kudos to that entire effort - really important - and really showing that when people get together within communities to respond to problems that they're seeing and challenges that they face, they can create change. It doesn't take that many people acting together and in unison, speaking to their neighbors, to have this happen in city after city. And like you said, it started in SeaTac, and we see how far it's carried. I also think, as you alluded to, this puts other councils on notice. I know the City of Burien is talking about this right now, other cities are looking at this locally. And we have been hearing similar things from Burien city councilmembers that we heard from some of those Renton city councilmembers who declined to pass this on their own. They were parroting Chamber of Commerce talking points. They were parroting some old, disproven data. People recognize and so much data has shown that when you empower people, when you pay people, that is what fuels and builds economy. The economy is the people. So if the people aren't in good shape, the economy is not going to be in good shape. People recognize that. And we really do have to ask and reflect on - I think these elected officials need to reflect on - who are they serving? And where are they getting their information from? Because in city after city, we see overwhelmingly residents respond and say - This is absolutely something we want and we need. And there's this disconnect between them and their elected officials who are parroting these talking points - Well, we're worried about business. Well, we're worried about these. And I think they need to really pause and reflect and say - Okay, who are we really representing here? Where are we getting our information from and why are we seeing time after time that these talking points that have been used for decades, from the same old people and the same old sources, are completely falling flat with the public? I think they should be concerned about their own rhetoric falling flat with the public. They're certainly considering where these elected officials are as their reelections come due, as they're evaluating the job that they're doing. So I think they really need to think hard, evaluate where they are, and get aligned with the people who need the most help, who are trying to build lives in their communities. And stop making this go to the ballot. Stop making the people work harder for what they need - just pass this in your cities and make it so. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: Absolutely. It would be certainly better for working people - for the elected officials to do this themselves. I am noticing a growing trend, though, of progressive and left-wing activists - socialists in this case, DSA - going directly to the ballot when needed. We saw it in Tacoma with the renters' rights legislation last year. We've seen it last year with social housing. And now again this week, House Our Neighbors came out with the initiative to fund social housing, which they had to split in two - due to legal reasons, you had to create the developer first, and then now you have to fund it. And again, the city council had an opportunity to do both here in Seattle. They had the opportunity to create the authority. They passed on that. Then they had the opportunity to fund it. They passed on that. And I am bullish on House Our Neighbors' chances to get their funding initiative, which would be through a payroll tax on large employers, passed by voters this fall. Because again, social housing was super popular at the ballot last year in a February election. Now they're going to go for November 2024 election when there's going to be massive turnout. It's unfortunate that people are having to put a lot of time, money, effort into mounting independent efforts to get things on the ballot - that's hard. It takes a ton of work, not just the gathering signatures and raising money, but just keeping a coalition going and all the meetings and stuff. But hats off to the people who are able to do that. It's not a sustainable way to get progressive policy done, but in a moment where there are more members of city councils who are aligned with the big corporations and wealthy donors, it's what you're going to have to do and it's building power. Ultimately - hopefully - it starts leading into successful victories in city council elections around the region, just as it's led to successes at the ballot box for initiatives. [00:07:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We saw in this effort, as we've seen in others, significant opposition from some elements in the business community. There were some businesses, especially small businesses, who were supportive of this, who were either already paying their employees higher wages because that's how you attract people in business - is not doing the absolute bare minimum. But we saw significant resources spent. This campaign was outspent. And still, the people made it clear what they wanted with another really, really impressive and strong margin. So we'll continue to follow where that goes. We will certainly continue to follow other ballot measures on the ballot as they develop this year, especially with House Our Neighbors and the Social Housing Initiative in Seattle - just going to be really interesting to see. Moving to the legislature, significant news this week that rent stabilization has passed the State House and now it moves on to the Senate. What will rent stabilization accomplish? [00:09:03] Robert Cruickshank: So the bill, HB 2114, which passed out of the State House - it was the last bill they took up before the deadline to pass bills out of their original house - limits the amount of increase in rent each year to 7%. So a landlord can only raise your rent 7% a year. This is modeled on similar legislation that was adopted in Oregon and California right before the pandemic - in Oregon and California, it's a 5% annual increase. This being Washington state, we can't do things exactly the way that are done elsewhere - we've got to water it down a little bit, so it's 7%. But it's not rent control in which a property or a apartment is permanently capped at a certain level, no matter who's renting it. Like the Oregon and California laws, this one in Washington would exempt new construction. And the reason you want to exempt new construction is to encourage people to keep building housing. And there's plenty of research that shows now that one of the most effective ways to bring rent down, not just cap its growth, is to build more housing. So building more housing and then capping the annual rent increase on housing that's been around for a while generally works. And you're seeing this in California and in Oregon - especially in cities that have been building more housing, rents have come down while those living in older apartments, older homes, are seeing their rents capped, so they're having an easier time affording rent. This is all good, and it made it out of the State House on mostly a party line vote - Democrats almost all in favor with a few exceptions, Republicans almost all against. Now it goes to the State Senate where there's a number of conservative Democrats, like Annette Cleveland from Vancouver who blocked the Senate's version of the bill, who's against it. Surely Mark Mullet, a conservative Democrat from Issaquah running for governor - surely against it. And Rich Smith in The Stranger had a piece yesterday in which he related his conversation with Jamie Pedersen from Capitol Hill, one of the most rent-burdened districts in the city, one of the districts in the state of Washington - legislative districts - with the most renters in it. And Pedersen was hemming and hawing on it. And so it's clear that for this bill to pass - it surely is popular with the public. Democrats, you would think, would want to do the right thing on housing costs going into an election. But it's gonna take some pressure on Democrats in the State Senate to pass the bill, especially without watering it down further. The bill that Annette Cleveland, the senator from Vancouver, had blocked in the Senate would cap rent increases at 15% a year. It's like. - Why would you even bother passing a bill at that point? 7% is itself, like I said, watering down what California and Oregon have done, but 7% is still a pretty valuable cap. Hopefully the Senate passes it as is. Hopefully the State Senate doesn't demand even more watering down. There's no need for that. Just pass the bill. Protect people who are renting. [00:11:44] Crystal Fincher: Agree. We absolutely need to pass the bill. I do appreciate the House making this such a priority - building on the work that they did to enable the building of more housing, which is absolutely necessary, last session. And this session moving forward with protecting people in their homes - trying to prevent our homelessness crisis from getting even worse with people being unable to afford rent, being displaced, being unable to stay where they're living, to maintain their current job. So that's really important. But it does face an uncertain future in the Senate. I do appreciate the reporting that Rich Smith did. He also covered some other State senators on the fence, including Jesse Salomon from Shoreline, John Lovick from Mill Creek, Marko Liias from Everett, Steve Conway from Tacoma, Drew Hansen from Bainbridge Island, Sam Hunt from Olympia, Lisa Wellman from Mercer Island, and Majority Leader Andy Billig being on the fence. And so it's going to be really important for people who do care about this to let their opinions be known to these senators. This is really going to be another example of where - they've obviously had concerns for a while, they're hearing talking points that we're used to hearing - that we know have been refuted, that maybe that information hasn't gotten to them yet. And maybe they don't realize how much of a concern this is for residents. They may be - they're in Olympia a lot of time, they're hearing from a lot of lobbyists - and they aren't as close sometimes to the opinions of the people in their districts. But one thing that many people need to understand is that many of these districts are having legislative town halls coming up as soon as this weekend, but certainly in short order. We'll put a link to where you can find that information in the show notes. Make it a point to attend one of those. If you can't, call, email, make your voice heard - it's really going to take you letting them know that this is a priority for you in order for this to happen. It's possible. So we really need to do all we can to ensure that they know how we feel. [00:13:58] Robert Cruickshank: Exactly. And those State senators you named, they are all from safe blue seats. Not a single one of them, except for maybe John Lovick in Mill Creek, is from a purplish district where they have to worry about any electoral impact. Although, to be honest, this stuff is popular. There are plenty of renters in purple districts who are rent-burdened and who would love to see the Democratic majority in Olympia help them out, help keep their rent more affordable. So it's a huge political win for them. Some of this may be ideological opposition. Some of them may be getting a lot of money from apartment owners and landlords. Who knows? You got to look at the case by case. But gosh, you would hope that the State Senate has political sense - understands that this is not only the right thing to do, but a winner with the electorate, and passes the bill. But it is Olympia. And unfortunately, the State Senate in particular is often where good ideas go to die in Olympia. So we'll see what happens. [00:14:48] Crystal Fincher: We will see. We'll continue to follow that. Also want to talk about Alaska Airlines flight attendants this week authorizing a strike. Why did they authorize this, and what does this mean? [00:15:01] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think it goes back to what we were talking about with workers in Renton. Flight attendants work long hours - they're not always paid for it. They're often only paid for when the flight is in the air. And their costs are going up, too. The expense of working in this country continues to rise and flight attendants continue to need to get paid well for that. Flight attendants' union is very well organized. There's the good Sara Nelson - Sara Nelson, head of the flight attendants' union, not Sara Nelson, head of Seattle City Council - is an amazing labor leader and has done a really good job advocating for the flight attendants across the industry. And you see that in the strike authorization vote - it was almost unanimous with almost complete 100% turnout from members of the Alaska Flight Attendants Union. Alaska Airlines has been facing its own issues lately, especially with some of their Boeing jets having problems. They've also, for the last 20 years, at least tried to cut costs everywhere they could. They outsourced what used to be unionized baggage handlers at SeaTac many years ago - that caused a big uproar. It was, in fact, concerns about Alaska Airlines and how they're paying ground crews that was a major factor in driving the SeaTac minimum wage ballot initiative way back in 2013. So here we are now - the Alaska Airlines flight attendants looking to get better treatment, better wages and working conditions. And huge support from the union. And as we've seen in this decade in particular, huge support from the public. And I think it's really worth noting - you and I can both remember the 90s, 2000s, when workers went out on strike weren't always getting widespread public support. And corporations had an ability to work the media to try to turn public against striking workers - now, teachers always had public support, firefighters had public support, but other workers didn't always. But that's really shifted. Here, there's a widespread public agreement that workers need to be treated well and paid well. You see that in Raise the Wage Renton succeeding. You see that in the huge public support for Starbucks workers out on strike who want a union contract. And if Alaska Airlines forces its flight attendants out on strike, you will see widespread public support for them as well, especially here in western Washington, where Alaska maintains a strong customer base. People in the Seattle area are loyal to Alaska, and they're going to support Alaska's flight attendants if they have to go out on strike. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's still a number of steps that would need to happen in order for it to lead to an actual strike.... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29987913

Week in Review: February 9, 2024 - with David Kroman 02/09/2024

Week in Review: February 9, 2024 - with David Kroman On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman! Crystal and David dig into why Seattle is putting less money into new affordable housing project this year and how this week’s launch of a second social housing initiative by House Our Neighbors may be appealing to voters wanting to see progress on the issue. Next, they discuss the pressure on Mayor Bruce Harrell to deliver results now that a City Council friendly to his agenda has taken office and how the new Council’s relative inexperience was on display at initial committee meetings. Finally, the show wraps up with a troubling story of the for-profit Tacoma immigration detention center refusing to allow state inspectors access after hundreds of complaints about the facility’s poor conditions. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, David Kroman, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times | House Our Neighbors “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Tom Fucoloro from Seattle Bike Blog @KromanDavid on Twitter: “” “” by Grace Deng from Washington State Standard Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I welcomed Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart for a conversation about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities in Washington, the damaging role of stigma, what harm reduction is, and why it's so important. 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: Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. [00:01:22] David Kroman: Hello. Thanks for having me. [00:01:24] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thanks for being here. Well, there is - been a decent amount of news this week. We will start off talking about news you covered about why Seattle is funding fewer new affordable housing projects this year. What's happening and why are they seeming to step back here? [00:01:45] David Kroman: Yeah, it's interesting, and I would say kind of concerning for the general affordable housing landscape. So back to as far as 2018, Seattle has always made these annual announcements of how much money they're going to be putting towards affordable housing. They pair it with federal tax credits and private donations, but it usually ends up being over $100 million a year. Last year, for example, it was $147 million - I think it was about that the year before. This year, the award is only $53 million for new affordable housing projects - that stands out because voters just passed a new housing levy that's triple the size of the one before it. There is still money - less money, but there's still money - coming in from the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. And there's also the JumpStart payroll tax, which is supposed to go towards housing. So all those things together would suggest there's a lot of money for new affordable housing, but the problem is that a lot of the projects that the city has funded in the past are struggling with their finances. The combination of interest rates and some wonky details about what loans they're on mean that these 70 projects or so that are in the works, or at various stages of development, need something in the order of $90 million to prop them up. So it's a frustrating reality for people in the affordable housing world because they want to be building new housing, they want to be putting new units on the market. But because of just the nature of construction industry and where interest rates are at, a lot of that money is getting sucked up into basically paying for housing that we thought we'd already paid for. [00:03:17] Crystal Fincher: So does this money that is usually allocated annually - does it only go to the construction? Does it ever go to propping up other projects? Did this happen by surprise for the city? It doesn't seem like it was telegraphed that it would be this much of a hit. How did this change come about? [00:03:36] David Kroman: Yeah, the Office of Housing always helps out with operations and maintenance, and they see that they have a certain obligation not to just fund the construction, but to make sure that the buildings that they're helping fund function properly and can actually house people. I don't think it's uncommon that they go back and help out buildings that they'd already funded. As far as I know, though, it has never gotten to this size. It was telegraphed actually a few months ago - their initial announcement of how much money would be available suggested that it was going to be quite a bit smaller. I think people thought there were some more technical explanations for that. But what's really happening - in affordable housing, there's basically two loans that these affordable housing buildings get. There's the construction loan, which is what they get to put up the building. And then there's their final loan that they convert to once they've leased up enough of their units and are bringing in enough rent - because, despite the fact that it's affordable housing, the calculations that the banks make around these still require that they're collecting some level of rent from their tenants. Usually that process takes two or three years for them to convert from their construction loan to their final loan. But for a lot of reasons, they're just having a really hard time doing that. They're having a harder time filling their units - I think that's probably worth following up on why that is exactly. And then they're having a harder time collecting rents - some of that does go back to some of the pandemic era policies that were intended to stabilize people in their rental apartments. So they're not able to get to the point where they can get off of their construction loan. And that is a really bad loan to be on for a long period of time, just because the rates and interest rates on those are way higher. And so I think that reality is just coming to pass this year, that basically every single one of these projects is functioning on a construction loan. But if the Office of Housing didn't go back and help them weather this storm, then we're looking at a much worse problem, which is affordable housing buildings that have already been built and people are living in them - but them just basically going belly up or needing to be sold. And so kind of a rock and a hard place for the Office of Housing - they have a choice of spending on new buildings or helping out the buildings they've already funded. The choice in some ways is fairly obvious because you don't want to lose these buildings you've already built. But it does mean that future projects take a fairly significant hit. [00:05:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, it does look like that and it's important to keep these projects moving and healthy so that they don't go belly up or cause a large amount of destabilization in the market. But looking forward, especially with this hit to new affordable developments in an already-crisis level situation with housing affordability, the need for more units to be added - what kind of long-term impact does this look to have? Are we looking at a similar situation next year where we could be looking at a further hit? Is this a permanent injury to affordable housing funding, at least for the short to midterm? [00:06:28] David Kroman: Yeah, it's a good question. I'm not sure, but I do know that something fairly material would have to change between now and next year to make sure that this isn't a problem anymore. The number of units in a building that have to be leased up and collecting rent is like 90%, so it's really high. It used to never be a problem, but it seems like a lot of these buildings are hovering around 80% occupancy/rent collection. So unless the City has some trick up its sleeve for making sure that these buildings are 90% leased up and the people who are in them are paying that rent, it sets up a situation that is out of the City's hands because these are banks making these calls on whether or not they qualify for these cheaper loans. It's not like the City can pass some law that requires the banks to give them a cheaper loan. And so my guess would be it's not a problem that will go away in a year and probably will come up again this time next year. In the past, this has just never been a problem because, unfortunately, affordable housing is in such high demand that banks have never even thought twice about whether or not an affordable housing development would hit 90% occupancy and payment. The deeper concern here is that as banks see that that assumption is maybe not holding up as well, they might be more hesitant to write these loans in the first place. The only sort of cold comfort, I guess, is that this is not really a specific problem for affordable housing. I used to cover transportation - any transportation project is having these massive cost overruns and problems with construction projects too. And so maybe there's a little more leniency on the part of the financers because they understand that this isn't just some negligence on the affordable housing providers part, it's just the reality of the construction industry right now. But that doesn't mean that it's going to start being cheap anytime soon. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: Right - that's almost the takeaway. Everything about building housing right now seems expensive and growing more expensive. Inflation has definitely hit every element of it and interest rates are higher than they used to be, and just everything seems to be contributing to a higher overall cost. And so that's a challenge that we're going to have to figure out how to deal with, especially as it would be one thing if this were 15 years ago - We need to make plans because this is going to become a problem if we don't address it appropriately. But this now is a problem, a major problem, crisis level, where from the legislature to different cities are all acknowledging that we do have to build more residential units - at minimum - in addition to a variety of other policies, in order to prevent rents and housing costs from continuing to skyrocket. So here we are again, but not enough money is currently budgeted to go around. Is this a money issue? I know there's also a big budget deficit that they're in the process of beginning to deal with. Did the money just run out? Is this a matter of priorities? [00:09:21] David Kroman: Yeah, there is one lever I think that the City could pull and is pulling that could actually help this a little bit, which is one of the problems is the permitting timeline - for anything really, but affordable housing included - it used to be a year and a half basically just to get all the permits. There has been some legislation passed recently to exempt some affordable housing projects from design review in an effort to speed things up. That could help because then you're not sitting on a piece of property without actually being able to do anything with it. But yeah, it is a money problem because what it is at the end of the day is just things are costing more. The problem is every time there's a property tax levy in Seattle, the specter of levy fatigue is raised. So far, Seattle voters have never hit that - they have handily passed pretty much every property tax levy put before them. But there is, to an extent, an upper limit on how much in property taxes Seattle officials are going to feel comfortable asking voters to fund affordable housing. And if more than 50% of their money is going towards projects that they already thought had been funded, suddenly the political scenario starts to feel a little more fraught. Meanwhile, the other two funds that the City relies on for affordable housing are also no longer guaranteed solid funds. The Mandatory Housing Affordability pot - that depends on there being a lot of development in the City of Seattle. And of course, we've seen permits for new development plummet, which means there's just not going to be as many contributions from private developers toward affordable housing. And then the JumpStart payroll tax, this new city council is thinking already about this $230 million budget gap that you mentioned, and are not the friendliest to the idea of a business payroll tax. And so shifting the JumpStart tax from pure housing purposes to basically budget relief is very much on the table. And I think nonprofit housing developers understand that. So the problem is that in addition to the housing levy, which is robust and large, not going as far as they had hoped, combined with these other two sources of funds either declining or perhaps being repurposed for political reasons, in general, creates a lot of uncertainty among nonprofit housing developers. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: It does. We will continue to follow this. Thank you for covering that so comprehensively. Well, and that leads into news this week that House Our Neighbors launched a new social housing initiative, basically Part 2 of their initiative process that they talked about before. What is House Our Neighbors? What did the first initiative do? And what are they launching with this initiative that they just filed? [00:11:51] David Kroman: House Our Neighbors is the political side of Seattle's new social housing developer. 2023, they ran an initiative that set up this public developer that was theoretically going to take money and then either buy or build buildings. On its surface, it sounds a little bit maybe like Seattle Housing Authority, but their focus was going to be on mixed income or housing for not necessarily the poorest residents - 80% to 120% AMI. The idea being that if you're trying to raise a family in Seattle, it's really difficult because it's very, very hard to find two-, three-, four-bedroom affordable apartments. This would fill that gap that they see is missing between the market and government provided subsidized housing. The complaint or pushback on the last initiative was that there weren't any funds to do any of that work. That was intentional on the part of the people who ran the campaign because there are concerns about violating the state's rules against having multiple subjects in one initiative. So this new initiative that they're running would be that second step. It would provide a funding source via a tax on businesses with employees earning more than a million dollars. Their hope is to raise $50 million a year and buy or build around 2,000 units of social housing. I don't know that their announcement was coordinated with the Office of Housing's affordable housing announcement, but the two things certainly are related to each other. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And with social housing, it's designed to be permanently affordable, government-owned, mixed-income housing that insulates itself, basically, because it's not part of the private market - where we just got done talking about all of the factors causing price increases in the private market. But because this is public, government-owned, it can move forward with a different model that is conceivably more insulated from market forces, in addition to not having profit pressure attached to it - helping to keep it more affordable with mixed incomes where people paying into the pot help fund the affordable housing for everything else. This did pass in the City of Seattle. And as you said, this was a two-part initiative process. The first part was on whether we were going to establish this public developer. And now comes the time to fund it. So when it comes to funding, what is the funding mechanism? And why was this chosen? [00:14:15] David Kroman: Yeah, the funding mechanism is similar to the JumpStart Tax that we were talking about before, which is it focuses on companies that have an employee making a million dollars or more. And I think the thought behind this - if you think back to the contentious Head Tax debate, which was targeting overall revenue of a business and trying to tax that, that became really contentious because you have businesses like grocery stores that have really high revenue, but super thin profits. So when you have Uwajimaya, for example, testifying against this tax as a beloved local business, people get kind of queasy about it - it basically failed because of that. The argument here is we're not really focusing on the overall revenue. We're focusing on whether or not they have employees that they're paying over a million dollars, because that suggests - if you can pay somebody a million dollars or more, you should be paying some tax on that. And it's a marginal tax, so the first million dollars of that person's salary are not taxed - it's everything above that that is taxed. The City's payroll tax exempts grocery stores and healthcare businesses, or at least healthcare businesses have waiver for a few years. This one doesn't do that. This targets any business that's paying people a million dollars or more. The exact number of businesses that that includes is a little murky. They relied on a couple past legislative efforts at the state and city level to come up with their calculations. If it passed, we'd get a little more sense of who would actually have to pay this tax, but that's basically how it works. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: So what they're referring to is an 'excess earners' tax, and it'd be a 5% marginal payroll tax. As you said, if they had an employee making $2 million, the tax would not apply to that first million. It would only apply to the one million above that at a rate of 5%. They're estimating with that revenue source, they could acquire or build 2,000 affordable units over 10 years. What is the timeline for this initiative now? What do they have to do in order to qualify and get it on the ballot? [00:16:06] David Kroman: They have set 30,000 signatures as their goal, and they want to get it by June - because if they got it in by June, that would leave the current city council no choice but to put it on the November ballot. And anybody who's trying to do a more left-leaning progressive initiative wants to get their measure on the November ballot because turnout in Seattle is going to be probably 80% - it's a presidential election - and the progressives of Seattle figure that more turnout favors them. So the goal is November '24. But they said that if for whatever reason they didn't get there, they would run it anyway at a later ballot date. I just think politically, that would be a little more challenging for them. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. They just filed the initiative. So that process for the initiative to be approved, get to the signature gathering process will be commencing. How does this fit in, in the general overall landscape? Tiffani McCoy, who's the policy and advocacy director with... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29877053

Harm Reduction in Rural Washington with Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart 02/06/2024

Harm Reduction in Rural Washington with Everett Maroon of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart On this topical show, Crystal welcomes Everett Maroon, Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart, for a conversation about their work in Southeast Washington using a harm reduction philosophy to support people, stabilize lives, & promote health and wellness in the community. Crystal and Everett chat about how the opioid epidemic has impacted rural communities, the role that stigma plays in keeping people from the help they need, what harm reduction is and why it is important. They then review the recent roller coaster ride of Washington state’s substance use disorder policy, starting with the Washington Supreme Court’s Blake decision, followed by a temporary legislative fix, then an impasse at the end of last year’s legislative session, and finally a middle-of-the-road deal that recriminalized simple drug possession in addition to newly making public drug use illegal. Crystal and Everett lament the missed opportunity to meaningfully change the system & the continued lack of treatment services relative to need, and wrap up with what can be done at the state and local level to address the opioid crisis. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find more information about Blue Mountain Heart to Heart at . Everett Maroon Everett is the Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart. He supervises their program areas and is also responsible for fundraising, development, and evaluation of the agency. He has overseen a broad expansion of HIV case management services into Asotin and Garfield counties, harm reduction programs into the Tri-Cities and Clarkston, and an innovative, outpatient opioid recovery program across six counties in Southeast Washington. Everett co-authored the now-completed Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health’s (GCACH) Opioid Resource Network, and contributed to the Washington State Opioid Strategy. He serves as a technical assistance provider on the Law Enforcement-Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program expansion in Washington State. Everett also is a state commissioner on the LGBTQ Commission. He has worked on quality improvement projects for various federal and state agencies for more than 28 years. Resources | Community Health and Spatial Epidemiology Lab at Washington State University “” by Mallory Locklear from YaleNews “” by Susan E. Collins, PhD for PubliCola “” by Flannary Collins for Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington | Substance Use and Recovery Services Advisory Committee (SURSAC) “” by Andrew Engelson from PubliCola “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist "" by Andrew Engelson for Crosscut Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I'm very pleased to be welcoming Everett Maroon, who's the Executive Director of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart. Everett supervises the program areas of Blue Mountain Heart to Heart and is also responsible for fundraising, development, and evaluation of the agency. He has overseen a broad expansion of HIV case management services, harm reduction programs to the Tri-Cities and Clarkston areas, and an innovative outpatient opioid recovery program across six counties in Southeast Washington. Everett co-authored the now-completed Greater Columbia Accountable Community of Health's Opioid Resource Network and contributed to the Washington State Opioid Strategy. He serves as a technical assistance provider on the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD, program in Washington state. Everett is also a co-chair of the Washington state LGBTQ Commission. He's worked on quality improvement projects for various federal and state agencies for more than 28 years. And Everett and I also had the opportunity to both serve on a steering committee for a statewide ballot initiative surrounding decriminalization of substances. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, Everett. [00:02:07] Everett Maroon: Thank you so much, Crystal. And it's really great to see you, and I appreciate having some time to talk with you today - so thank you. [00:02:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So I just want to start off - what is Blue Mountain Heart to Heart? [00:02:21] Everett Maroon: Well, it's a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in Southeast Washington state based in Walla Walla. We also have an office in Kennewick and then another one in Clarkston - roughly 30 people on staff. And it was founded in 1985, originally as an HIV concern, where we probably helped about 250 people live and pass away with dignity at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Then was incorporated in 1991 - the organization moved into longer-term case management as the medications for HIV became more sophisticated and HIV went from being a death sentence to a chronic condition. And at that point, we began getting more involved in prevention of infectious disease, including HIV, hepatitis C, and STIs. I came along in about 2010, first as a grant writer and then as the executive director. And it really was notable to me - people would come in - if they had HIV, there was so much the state would do for them. And the state's interest was around public health - so if we keep people from being able to transmit this virus to other people, we'll keep the transmission rate low. In public health, we talk a lot about viral load - community viral load. And so you would add up the viral load of all the people living with HIV or AIDS in a community, and then that's the number that you get. And depending on how many people are in your community, you have a risk assessment for how much you should be concerned about HIV transmission in that community. Well, if you didn't have HIV and you came into my office, I had many more limitations on what I could do for you. Even if you were battling basically the same kinds of issues as people living with HIV had - unstable housing, lack of engagement in the workforce, mental health, substance use - all of these things rise up as things that destabilize people in their lives. Certainly systemic racism - the way that we invite so many foreign-born Latino farm workers to Washington state to pick our agricultural crops every year, but then pay them far below what a living wage would be. And we then expect that there's not going to be detrimental effects on those people. I think we all see that the state needs to do something different around supporting people who are here to make the state so profitable and make its agricultural sector so productive. So it really bothered me that - in one instance, because there was a transmissible disease associated with the potential client, we were all willing to put money into programs to support them. But then if they didn't, they just had the effects of the destabilizing forces around them and we weren't doing much. I really wanted to change that. I thought that we could get more investment in supporting people and stabilizing their lives and improving their wellness and health. And that that would be a good thing for everybody in the community, not just these people who were facing very serious gaps in resources and support. So we met as a board and a staff and changed our mission, amended a few things to it. And now our mission is really about helping people with a variety of different chronic diseases, including substance use disorder. There are certainly things to say about the limitations around the disease model for substance use, but when I'm thinking about federal and state funding for assistance programs, that model really helps create investment, financial support. So from 2010 to today, the agency has grown from about $150,000 in annual budget to about $4.1 million. We've gone from 2.5 FTEs a year to more than 30, and we have 14 case managers across 3 different case management programs. We have a drug user health equity program. And we still continue to have those prevention programs, but they're more aligned with case management. So we use a no-wrong-door approach here - no matter what your initial need is when you walk in, we try to see what other resources we can bring to bear to help that individual. So if you're coming in because you're using, or you need syringes for consuming - say, methamphetamine or something like that - you can also get nicotine cessation kits, you can get Plan B, you can get Naloxone because there may still be fentanyl in the substances you're consuming. We have a wound care clinic. We have a contingency management program for people who want to begin abstaining from methamphetamine. So no matter where someone's coming in, we have a variety of programs that we can try to support that person with. The harm reduction philosophy is one of the umbrella guiding value systems or philosophies for our work, even though we're doing some discrete specific activities for people. So that's, in a nutshell, what Heart to Heart is. We have a board of 9 and a staff of 30, and I think 28 of those positions are full-time. [00:07:47] Crystal Fincher: So who are you typically serving? [00:07:50] Everett Maroon: We see some diversity across our caseloads - it varies a little bit from program to program. I would say that we have somewhere around 55% are men and 45% are women. We do tend to see white, non-Hispanic people out here more often than not in our caseload, but we have about 12% of folks who are Hispanic and some other race - so white, mixed, African-American, Native. We see a lot of people on the far lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, I would say - and that varies a little bit from location to location. So when I look at who we've served in Clarkston, about 12% of our prevention clients tell us that they are unhoused and almost 40% of them are temporarily housed - so that could be like couch surfing or at a shelter. The unhoused number is highest for our Kennewick clients at 35.6%, so majority of people that we're serving in Kennewick are unhoused or temporarily housed. In Walla Walla, maybe about 20% of people are unhoused, but the people who are temporarily housed are in truly atrocious conditions. So there are a lot of people in Walla Walla living in someone else's shed or garage - they don't have access to plumbing, they don't have access to heat or air conditioning in the summer when it's 110 degrees out here. So there're definitely big stressors on the people that we're serving. A lot of the women that we're serving are in very abusive relationships, or they have experience being sex trafficked, or being made to participate in illegal activities in order to have a relationship or to have housing. So there are definitely gender differences in terms of what people are facing among our caseloads. Folks that are in some of the more rural areas that we serve with our mobile clinic - they are very concerned about other people in their small communities knowing what's going on with them. And so they're very reluctant to seek care because they don't want other people to know what they've been engaged in. And that is its own kind of barrier for them. [00:10:22] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And that being tied to the stigma that is causing so much shame, whether it's having HIV, an STI, substance use disorder - a variety of things where the stigma creates this shame cycle, which prevents people from seeking help, prevents people from getting better, and actually encourages the spread because of that and not being treated. Now, we met each other around the issue of substance use disorder. The landscape about how we deal with substance use disorder has changed over the years. Starting out, particularly with you being so engaged in so many different rural areas in Washington state, what have you seen or how has particularly the opioid epidemic impacted the communities you're working within? [00:11:15] Everett Maroon: I think that what you said about stigma is really relevant to answering this question. In large part, we see stigma coming in to sort of silence people and keep them away from seeking help. A 2019 study from Washington State University showed that in general, Eastern Washingtonians have a life expectancy of five fewer years than people living west of the Cascades. Part of the reason why is because of later dates of diagnosis, delayed care - those kinds of things add up for people en masse, and then we see a detriment to the outcomes for them. So if you don't get your cancer diagnosed until you're stage 3, your prognosis is worse than if you'd shown up really early in stage 1. The same kind of thing happens for people who are engaging in substance use. And just to be clear, many people use substances and don't become dependent on them. But when they do, it becomes very difficult very quickly for them to extract themselves on their own. Opioids in particular - because they so mimic this endorphin pathway that we all have as human beings - it's almost impossible for people to just will themselves to stop using because the withdrawal symptoms kick in so overwhelmingly that they just feel terrible. And so to deal with that, they use again. A different way of thinking about how people might seek help is to say it's going to be non-stigmatized for you to come into our office and say - I've been using fentanyl, I've been using meth, I've been using anything in front of me. What can we do today about reducing my use? There are very few places where somebody can walk into a doctor's office and say that and then be taken seriously and aided. When you're talking about rural environments, I think that the stereotype is that people in rural environments don't care about folks that are struggling with these issues. I see directly - I observe - it's that we have such a smaller, thinner resource infrastructure. It's that we have fewer providers. So if there's a problem with one provider, there might not be another one in your health insurance plan that you can go see. So now you got to either work with this person who says something stigmatizing to you, or you just don't do it. And if you return to this place of - Well, I'll just get through this myself. Well, we know that that's really not a good option for most people. It's not a realistic option for most people. So in my rural environment, what we've tried to do is build a trauma-informed, non-stigmatizing or anti-stigmatizing environment so that people know they can come in, tell us the God's honest truth about what's really going on with them. And we're going to start from whatever space zero is for them. So there're definitely folks who can tell us about a time they were entering treatment and then they relapsed and then they were kicked out of the program. Or due to relapse, they missed two appointments and then they were kicked out of the program. Where they admitted that even though they were getting Suboxone for their opioid dependence, they were still sometimes using meth on the weekends and then they were kicked out of the program. So we just believe in our harm reduction philosophy that - if we're not looking to dispose of people, but we're looking to retain them for future engagement, we're going to see better outcomes for them. Because we're going to walk with them as they stumble, because we acknowledge that that's part of what they're facing - occasional relapses and stumbles. And you can do that in an urban center and you can do it in a rural environment. We just have to have the commitment. [00:15:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, I've heard a lot of people have different conceptions and misconceptions about harm reduction, and hearing - Well, if you don't require people to be clean before you help them. If you don't use this as a stick to get them to do what is best for them, then we're really just enabling their problem. We're becoming part of the problem. - Why is that not true? And what is harm reduction and why is it important? [00:15:39] Everett Maroon: That enabling hypothesis is very persistent, almost as persistent as opioid use disorder - it's been around a long time. But when you look at the actual evidence for treatment - in fact, there was a study that just came out that showed that treatment without prescribing a medication is almost worthless. We really need to be thoughtful about what clients need. If somebody had a heart attack after having a heart attack six months ago, the cardiologist would not say to them - Well, you had another heart attack. I refuse to see you anymore. If someone had type 2 diabetes and they walked into the doctor's office and the doctor said - Oh, your blood sugar is really high. You must not be following my treatment plan. I'm just going to cut off all of your insulin and see how you do. We would cite that provider for malpractice. But somehow when we're talking about meeting clients where they are or patients where they are around substance use, people rise up from the woodwork and say - You're enabling them. All we're trying to do is keep people engaged in care so that we don't lose them and we take away opportunities for them to make behavior change. If we're continuing to engage with people and motivating them to come in to see us, then we can provide them with more opportunities to stabilize their lives. If you stop trying to force a particular outcome on a client and you give them room to sort out what their priorities are, you're actually teaching them how to cope with stress the way we want to see people cope with stress - which is in an adaptive, positive way. When we get patronizing with people or we prescribe for people - You must do it this way, you cannot do it that way. Well, I see a lot of people who have overdosed and passed away waiting four weeks or more to get an assessment so they can get into treatment. So I know there has to be more ways for us to reach out to people where they're already at, so that we're not just losing them forever because nobody's going to get better from something if they're not even here anymore. So for me, what harm reduction means is - I'm using a respectful position as a professional to support people how ever they initially show up and to continually be there for them so that we can help them move through these stages of change that we know people go through when they're dealing with some behavioral health challenge. So if we allow people to come in and say - I relapsed last weekend - and they know that they can say that because we're not going to throw them out of the program for that. Then we can say - Okay, what do you think was the root cause of why you used again? And then you can sit down and say - Well, they wanted to please somebody, or it was offered to them and they weren't ready for it to be offered to them, or they haven't really broken out of this friend group that's always telling them to use it, or maybe a trauma happened to them. And then we can respond to that root cause and help them find another way to get through that if that ever happens to them again. If we had just said no to them and pulled a hard line on it, they would do no learning, we wouldn't learn as... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29827348

Week in Review: February 2, 2024 - with Erica Barnett 02/02/2024

Week in Review: February 2, 2024 - with Erica Barnett On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! Crystal and Erica discuss public outcry over targeted inspections of LGBTQ+ establishments and Seattle Council President Sara Nelson’s remarks opposing even-year elections for local races. They then turn to news from King County that the target closure date of 2025 for the Youth Jail will be missed and how the annual “Point In Time” homelessness count will be different this year. The show wraps up with new polling that Seattle voters are supportive of a big Transportation Levy and a stunning update on the Snohomish County gravel yard vs elementary school situation. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Erica Barnett, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Vivian McCall from The Stranger “” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” from PubliCola “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute about their work to advance progressive policies through their focuses on research and advocacy. Among other projects this year, NPI is working to combat the six dangerous Republican-sponsored initiatives and push for even-year elections for local races. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:26] Erica Barnett: Hello - it's great to be here. [00:01:28] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back again, as always. Well, starting out the news of the week was something a lot of people were both surprised and very troubled to see. And that was Seattle's queer community being very alarmed - and now demanding swift change - after raids that included gay bars. What happened here? [00:01:49] Erica Barnett: The Joint Enforcement Team, which is a group of Seattle Police Department officers and the Liquor Control Board of the state, went out and they were checking on a bunch of bars - I think it was more than a dozen. But the thing that has gotten the most attention is citations at two gay bars on Capitol Hill - The Eagle and The Cuff - for lewd conduct. And I believe it was associated with guys being in jockstraps and possibly nipple showing - and frankly, to my mind, very silly stuff that could not matter less. But they cracked down on this and it kind of feels like a throwback to the days when the city and the state were really concerned with behavior in bars and things that are moralistic laws that probably shouldn't even be on the books. So there has been a real outcry since then from the LGBTQ+ community about - why is this something that the Liquor Control Board and the police are focusing on right now? Feels like we're kind of in a backlash era on a lot of different issues from policing to just stuff like this moral conduct BS. And this is just another example of that. It's really unfortunate and kind of shocking that in 2024, the police and the Liquor Board care about whether somebody's butt is showing. It feels very, very silly and very, like I said, very throwback to a different era. [00:03:07] Crystal Fincher: Definitely feels like a throwback to a different era - a few different eras - that aren't all that long ago, some pretty recent. But we can't ignore that happened during a time right now where we're seeing laws passed across the country to criminalize members of the LGBTQ+ community and targeting them in a way that is certainly more severe than we've seen in decades, seemingly. And so there was some pushback by some members of the team there - Hey, this wasn't actually a raid, these were check-ins. Regardless of what you call it, the impact is really the same. It has a chilling impact that scares people out of the space. You've got police seemingly coming in and not just going - Hey, I want to check on you in these situations. They came in as part of an enforcement action, it seemed. They also took pictures of people - they said, for evidence. But again, what are we using these lewd laws for? And I saw some people online say - Well, we don't allow nudity in hetero spaces so we're just treating the gay community the same way. There's nothing to see here. And oh, we absolutely do allow nudity-- [00:04:21] Erica Barnett: Well, and also we should - this is, what frustrates me about this is I feel like the police and the Liquor Board are so far behind the rest of the public. I think if you went out on the street and asked 10 people or 100 people - Should guys be allowed to wear jockstraps at a bar? And if everybody's consenting, should some sexual behavior be allowed at a bar? And should women be allowed to be topless or whatever? Most people would say - Yeah, I guess. I don't care. I'm not going there. You have consenting adults in an environment where everybody knows where they are - I cannot imagine that the public is on board with using police resources, which are supposedly so scarce that they can't respond to 911 calls, on cracking down on people for a little bit of nudity and "lewd behavior." I mean, the fact that we have lewd behavior laws is a whole other subject, but it all just feels very ridiculous to me. [00:05:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and those laws are very relevant as a subject right now. And they are a problem - they are unequally enforced. In fact, one of the owners of one of these queer bars does own several other mainly hetero bars and spoke with authority saying - Hey, my bars that are not gay bars don't have this happen. They are policing these bars differently. And one of them testified that a police officer recently said that they're just starting to enforce these new laws again. It has a lot of people really questioning what the priorities are. As you said, we do actually poll people pretty often in Seattle about what concerns them. And nudity has never made the list, that I've seen - they are concerned about a variety of things of public safety. This doesn't seem to take the cake. And as you said, with a shortage - as they say - of police officers and resources to keep people safe, seems like they could be used in a much better and effective way than taking a picture of someone exposing a nipple. I just don't know where the priority is, and I do hope that this spurs some questioning of officials involved. How did this happen in the City of Seattle? How was there no one involved in this process that could raise the red flag of - Hey, this looks real suspect. This looks like we are not treating this community in the way that we treat other communities. It's just really a challenge. There was a Washington State Liquor Control Board meeting, a couple of them - one yesterday where there's quite a bit of public comment from concerned community members. Members of the board said that this is a very concerning incident for them. They did end up questioning the usefulness of lewd laws overall. They did say - Hey, as an administrative body, it really isn't in our wheelhouse to be changing the law, but we do think that the legislature should review these lewd laws. The LGBTQ caucus within the legislature is going to be meeting about this to potentially address the lewd laws and potentially pulling from some other legislation that had been advanced by sex workers, who have advanced a lot of worker protection safety, workplace safety legislation to potentially help prevent something like this - unequal enforcement - from happening again. Just doesn't seem like lewd laws make sense in our society today, and I do hope they take a look at that. But certainly alarming news to a lot of people, myself included, to see. And surprising in a city like Seattle, but it really does go to show we just can't take anything for granted - that these things can't happen here. Potentially they can. And we need to make sure we're doing all we can to ensure that we are not targeting vulnerable communities. Also want to talk about a story that made a decent amount of news, certainly in political Seattle, this week. And it was news that Council President Sara Nelson opposes an effort to increase voter turnout. What happened here? [00:08:27] Erica Barnett: Well, so there was a story in The Stranger that quoted Sara Nelson from a meeting about a week and a half ago, saying that she had a strong concern about moving local elections to even years. The part that got quoted was - From the perspective of a local government candidate, I don't believe that greater turnout necessarily means a better informed public. And that was the part that got quoted and I think really blew up on social media, sort of suggesting that Sara Nelson - and the article also explicitly said - that Sara Nelson believes that there should be less voter turnout and that it's better for politicians like her who - she is one of the more conservative members of the city council - that it would be better for politicians like her if fewer people voted. And that's what got spread really widely. I will say there is a lot of debate about whether we should go to even-year elections. But that quote from Sara Nelson was - to me, it was a classic example of taking a quote out of context. I was at that meeting and I remember her comments, but that didn't jump out at me. And the reason it didn't jump out was that she went on for several more minutes. And I'll just quote a little bit more of what she said. It doesn't necessarily mean a better informed public when it comes to the issues that impact people's lives directly, from public safety to potholes. These are the issues that we here at the dais deal with, and I'm concerned that there will not be time or there will not be interest in hosting all the forums my colleagues attended last year. Media will not be interested in the lower down the ballot races because of the high profile stuff like President and Congress. Down ballot participation hasn't really been examined and for those reasons, I'm concerned about moving local elections to even years. I think that would be bad for cities across the state. And she was expressing one side of this debate, which is that people in even-year elections - when there's president, when there's Congress, when there's all the statewide races, when there's just tons and tons and tons of other races - people aren't going to continue down the ballot and they're not going to inform themselves or vote in those very low on the ballot races, the ones that deal with potholes, the ones that deal with all those other local issues that the council deals with. So I think that quote was wildly misrepresented, and she was expressing a common argument against even-year elections. Now, agree with it or not, she wasn't saying that she thinks people shouldn't be allowed to vote or that she likes low voter turnout - which it's understandable that that tiny little snippet was interpreted that way. But she did go on for quite a while. And I think it's really unfortunate that the rest of that very long quote was just clipped out. [00:10:56] Crystal Fincher: As you say, Sara Nelson does have a tendency to go on for a while and sometimes the thoughts aren't as clear and easy to parse, sometimes you do have to do a bit of reconstituting to fully understand what she is trying to say. And it is important to have the full context of all of her comments there. I do think that it's important to pay attention to all of the things that she said. And that is one of the things that she said. And it's very possible, as I've seen her do before, where she'll throw out a lot of things - she may not expand upon them or be able to really fully articulate why she said them. But it is important to me that we don't ignore this because we see this happen in a lot of debates where they'll throw out some seemingly fairly common mainstream points of debate - people can disagree, this is generally what they think. But that portion - which I do think it is important to not discard just because there were other reasons also given - was the justification for why people like me, a Black woman, shouldn't be able to vote. A specific tool of disenfranchisement that we are hearing parroted today across the country. She is not the only person to articulate this ever. It's troubling, and I do think it's important to call it out. [00:12:18] Erica Barnett: I just would recommend people watch the entire segment of that meeting on the 22nd. Because I do think that is super inflammatory - people are saying stuff like that all the time around the country. MAGA conservatives want to disenfranchise Black people, want to disenfranchise Hispanic people, want to disenfranchise everyone who won't vote for the Trump agenda. And that is horrifying. I don't think that's what Sara Nelson was saying here. I think that describing her as a conservative in Seattle is very real, but describing her as a MAGA Republican is ridiculous - in my opinion. [00:12:50] Crystal Fincher: I don't even think we need to label her as a standard Republican, as a MAGA Republican, as a conservative. She's definitely a conservative. But I do think we are at a point in time where it is dangerous to ignore that - even if it's one point out of five or six that she made, it is included in the points that she made. And ignoring things like that or not taking that seriously, whether it comes out of the mouth of Trump or out of the mouth of Reagan Dunn or out of the mouth of Sara Nelson, has been what has helped to get us to the point that we're at right now - which is not a great point since we're rolling back voting rights all over the place in the country and in danger of doing that even more. I do see where people could have different interpretations of what she said. I think it's important to, while viewing the full context of what she said and that she did give a lot of other reasons, to make sure that this is never, ever, ever a reason that anyone articulates. And that anytime it's articulated, we hear that and we respond - because ignoring that makes it worse. And saying things in seemingly innocuous ways and putting - okay, three reasonable reasons and a wildly racist reason is how those views are peddled. [00:14:08] Erica Barnett: I don't think she was making a wildly racist point. I am not a defender of Sara Nelson and her policies. I do think that lots of them are very damaging, but I believe she was basically making one point - which is when you have a lot of stuff at the top of the ballot, it is hard for voters to learn about or care about the stuff at the bottom. I share all your concerns, but I also think that it's important to be accurate about these things. [00:14:33] Crystal Fincher: I think it is important to be accurate. I happen to disagree with the other points that she made and think they're disproven by California's even-year elections and the success seen there. There's going to be continued debate on this. But I do think that regardless of what her intention is, it's another intention versus impact statement. The impact of the words that she used has been undeniable over the years and how they're being used now is to disenfranchise. [00:15:00] Erica Barnett: My frustration is mostly that The Stranger wrote this article that was very inflammatory without providing the appropriate context, which is the job of journalists - instead of trying to make somebody a villain when there are lots of policy reasons to make somebody a villain that don't involve taking their words out of context. But I really look forward to the debate on the even-year elections, because I think one thing you can say without any caveats is that Sara Nelson is not going to be a fan of voting reforms of any kind. And I think that that is going to break down along very much progressive and moderate and conservative lines. And I think we'll see hopefully more articulation of why people are for or against this. And that'll be revealing, I think, to people in the public trying to make up their minds on this. [00:15:44] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I think you and I agree that the full context should always be known. I think it is helpful to see the full context of what she said. I just happen to also believe that we can't ignore the content that is included in that context. Even if it wasn't her main point and she didn't have an intent to do that, I just can't ignore that being included - from whoever says it at any point in time - to make sure that that doesn't make it easier for other people to continue to disenfranchise others. I do want to talk about a story you covered this week about the Youth Jail looking like it's going to stay open past 2025, which was its target date for closure. What happened here? [00:16:34] Erica Barnett: Well, essentially what happened is Dow Constantine in 2020 announced that he was going to have a target of 2025 for the Youth Jail to close - and actually more than a target, he said it would be closed. And since then, there has been an advisory group that's been meeting and discussing alternatives to the Youth Jail. And they came up with a list of six recommendations. And that list of recommendations, I think, reflects the fact that there is a real debate about what to do with young people who have committed very serious crimes like murder and if they can be immediately released into, let's say, a low-security or no-security therapeutic environment, or if they need to be in a secure locked cell, essentially. At the same time, the county has not come up with money to do any of the alternatives that are suggested in this report. And they right now don't really have a lot of prospects for coming up with money because unless there's a ballot measure, the money has to come out of the county's general fund, which is between $35 and $50 million in the hole next year. So right now, the proposal is - basically there's some consensus recommendations that came out of the advisory group that are about setting up community supports and standing up more groups to help people, and this kind of stuff that we hear over and over again. It's currently fairly vague and would cost money, but not as much money as the recommendations that were a little more contentious. One, where there is general consensus but not total consensus, was to build these new housing alternatives called "community care homes" for people who leave the Youth Jail but don't have a safe place to go. So those would be essentially group homes. And the need is really in South King County. And those would be quite expensive - you're talking perhaps single family homes, more of a home-like environment. And then the more controversial idea was something that's called "respite... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29773378

Pairing Advocacy and Research for Progress with Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute 01/30/2024

Pairing Advocacy and Research for Progress with Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute On this topical show, Crystal welcomes Andrew Villeneuve, founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute! Crystal learns about the Northwest Progressive Institute’s (NPI) work to advance progressive policies through their focuses on research and advocacy, what’s covered in NPI’s long form blog The Cascadia Advocate, and the importance of reframing in progressive politics. Andrew then describes how six initiatives bankrolled by a disgruntled wealthy Republican are designed to cause a lot of damage to Washington, how NPI’s careful approach to polling has led to successful results, and why NPI is advocating for even-year elections to improve voter engagement and participation. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find Andrew Villeneuve and the Northwest Progressive Institute at and https://www.nwprogressive.org/ Andrew Villeneuve Andrew Villeneuve is the founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) and its sibling, the Northwest Progressive Foundation. He has worked to advance progressive causes for over two decades as a strategist, speaker, author, and organizer. A recent focus of his research and advocacy work has been electoral reform. With Senator Patty Kuderer, Andrew and the NPI team developed the legislation that successfully removed Tim Eyman’s push polls from Washington ballots. And with Councilmember Claudia Balducci, Andrew and the NPI team developed the charter amendment that 69% of King County voters approved in 2022 to move elections for Executive, Assessor, Elections Director, and Council to even-numbered years, when voter turnout is much higher and more diverse. Andrew is also a cybersecurity expert, a veteran facilitator, a delegate to the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, and a member of the Climate Reality Leadership Corps. Resources | Northwest Progressive Institute “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Sonia Joseph and Martina Morris for The Cascadia Advocate “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate - Giving cities and towns the freedom to switch their general elections to even-numbered years. - Shifting general elections for local governments to even-numbered years to increase voter participation. Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, today I'm thrilled to be welcoming Andrew Villeneuve from Northwest Progressive Institute to the show. Welcome! [00:01:00] Andrew Villeneuve: Thanks, Crystal. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: Happy to have you here. For those who may not be aware, Andrew is the founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute and its sibling, the Northwest Progressive Foundation. He's worked to advance progressive causes for over two decades as a strategist, speaker, author, and organizer. A recent focus of his research and advocacy work has been electoral reform. With Senator Patty Kuderer, Andrew and the NPI team developed the legislation that successfully removed Tim Eyman's push polls from Washington ballots - I'm a huge fan of that legislation. And with Councilmember Claudia Balducci, Andrew and the NPI team developed the charter amendment that 69% of King County voters approved in 2022 to move elections for the Executive, Assessor, Elections Director, and Council to even-numbered years - here's to also doing that statewide for municipalities - when voter turnout is much higher in even-numbered years and more diverse. Andrew is also a cybersecurity expert, a veteran facilitator, a delegate to the Washington State Democratic Central Committee, and a member of the Climate Reality Leadership Corps. Welcome - really excited to have you on and talk about everything that you're doing. [00:02:15] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, thank you. I'm thrilled to be here and can't wait to dive into the conversation. [00:02:19] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So starting off, what is the Northwest Progressive Institute and what do you do? [00:02:25] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, the Northwest Progressive Institute is a 501(c)(4) strategy center that works to lift up everybody. We try our hardest every day to advance progressive policies that will enable people to lead happier, healthier, more prosperous lives. We just celebrated our 20th anniversary last August, and we have had a lot of success moving policy over the last two decades. We're particularly adept at using research to show people why we need a particular policy - so that could be health care, it could be environmental protection, it could be more education funding. We're not confined to just one issue - we think across issues. But that does mean, of course, that we see all of the places where we're held back. So we look for areas where we can move issues forward simultaneously and that has led us to do a lot of work on tax reform, election reform, and media reform - because those three issues are connected to every other issue. So that's why you'll see us doing a lot of work on fair revenue. on trying to address media concentration, and trying to make sure that elections are fair. Because ultimately, those things do have results, impacts for environmental protection, healthcare, education, foreign policy, every other issue that we care about. I think we're all frustrated by sometimes the slow pace of progress, and so any area where we can link up with another area and make progress at the same time - that's a real opportunity for us. And there's actually a term for this - it's called "strategic initiatives" - comes from George Lakoff. We're big fans of his work. We also do a lot of efforts on reframing. We try to help people understand what frames are and how to use successful arguments so that you don't fall into the trap of debating the other side on their terms. Because we all know when that happens, the best you can do is lose an argument gracefully - you're not going to win the argument. Reframing is key, and we believe that everybody who works in progressive politics needs to understand how to do reframing. So we're always trying to help people figure out - okay, how do we use words that evoke our values and our policy directions and not the other sides'? So that's sort of a taste of what we do. Of course, we could talk for hours about all the specific projects we've worked on, but that is an overall view of what NPI does. [00:04:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also under the NPI umbrella is The Cascadia Advocate, a publication that I recommend everyone listening follow - very informative. What has been your approach with The Cascadia Advocate and what do you cover? [00:04:55] Andrew Villeneuve: The Cascadia Advocate is a long form blog. It was founded in 2004 in March, and so that means it's going to be celebrating its 20th anniversary itself this spring. And what it is - is it's a place where you can find progressive commentary, sometimes even breaking news, on a daily basis. So if you want to find out why we should pass a particular bill in the legislature, or you want to find out what's happening with Bob Ferguson's latest lawsuit - for example, he just sued Kroger and Albertsons because they're trying to merge and create a giant grocery store chain - we cover those things on The Cascadia Advocate. We publish guest essays. We cover a lot of things that the mass media cover - so we'll sometimes critique how they're covering things, but we'll also provide our own original commentary in addition to just critiquing others' coverage. There's a whole mix there. So you're going to find research findings, media criticism, you're going to find book reviews, you're going to find documentary reviews. You're going to find Last Week in Congress, which is our almost weekly recap - weekly when Congress is in session - of how our delegation voted. So this is a place where you can see Washington, Oregon, and Idaho's Congressional delegations' votes. And that's really helpful. If you're too busy to watch C-SPAN every day - I know I don't have that kind of time because I'm trying to move the ball forward on progressive policy - but I do want to know how our lawmakers voted, I want to be informed. And I imagine a lot of other people listening to Hacks & Wonks would also like to be informed about what our delegation is doing. And so Last Week in Congress is something you can read on Sunday morning - takes a few minutes of your time to skim it. And at the end of that skim, you're going to learn a lot more about how our delegation voted that week. So those are some of the things you're going to find on the Cascadia Advocate. I think it's a great publication. It's well-established and we have a superb code of ethics and style guide and commenting guidelines to make sure that we're putting out a professional product. So we're very proud of that. And the name is right there - Advocate, right? So we're not hiding what we're about. You're not going to have to worry - Well, what's their agenda? How will I know what it is? Because we're going to tell you what our agenda is. We're going to be very upfront about that. But we're also going to be fair, even to those that we criticize. So whether that's Tim Eyman - quoting his emails, letting people know what he said - we're going to tell people what the other side is saying. We're not just going to say what we're saying. But we're also going to be very clear - this is what we believe and this is what we're fighting for. And it's not going to be a mystery to any reader what that is. [00:07:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - I appreciate it. And as many have seen, have shared links in our episode notes many times - recommend that as part of a healthy local media diet. Now, I want to talk about some issues that you've been engaged with since their inception. One of the big ones that we're going to be hearing about, voting on later on this year are the six statewide initiatives coming in 2024 in Washington state. Can you tell us about these and why they're so important to pay attention to? [00:07:42] Andrew Villeneuve: Definitely. So very early this year, a group called Let's Go Washington, which is funded by a hedge fund manager and millionaire named Brian Heywood - he lives not far from me out here on the Eastside in Redmond - east side of King County, that is. He decided that he was going to go all-in on trying to get the right wing back into the initiative business. For those who have been in Washington for a while, the name Tim Eyman is probably familiar to you - Tim Eyman, for years, has been running initiatives to cut taxes and wreck government in Washington state. His agenda is to drown government in a bathtub, so it's basically Grover Norquist at the state level. And Brian Heywood has come along here after several years of Tim Eyman being out of the initiative business. Eyman's last initiative qualified for the ballot in 2018, and it appeared on the ballot in 2019. And despite our best efforts - it had a really dishonest ballot title that it was hard to educate voters what that was, so even though we raised a lot of money and ran the best No campaign that we could - when I say we, I mean the coalition Keep Washington Rolling that formed - we weren't able to defeat that last Eyman initiative. But we were able to go to court after the election was over and get it struck down. So it never went into effect, - which averted a massive transit and transportation catastrophe, I might add. So fast forward a few years, Eyman has been in trouble with the law because he just blatantly disregards public disclosure law, doesn't care about following it. And he also was double-crossing his own supporters - they just weren't getting the truth from him. And so that's why his initiative factory fell apart - when you're lying and cheating all the time, eventually that's going to catch up with you, and that's what happened to Tim Eyman. So he had to declare bankruptcy. The state won a big judgment against him, and he's been out of the initiative business. But Brian Heywood has come in - and Brian Heywood, unlike Tim Eyman, has a lot of money. And he doesn't need to turn to anyone else unless he feels that he has to, but he hasn't done that yet - he's mainly relied on his own money. So he decided that not only was he going to try to qualify a tax-cutting initiative, but he was going to take aim at all these other laws that the Democratic majorities have passed that he doesn't like. So there's six initiatives that he wanted to get on the ballot this last year, so 2023, that are now we're going to be on the ballot in 2024. And that's because these are initiatives to the legislature, so they go to the House and the Senate first. That's something you can do in Washington - you can either submit initiatives directly to the people, or you can submit them to the legislature. And for those who don't know, an initiative is just a proposed law. So it's like a bill of the people - it goes before the legislature. If the legislature doesn't adopt it, then it goes to the people by default. So an initiative - again, just like a bill, but the people get to vote on it, and it comes from a citizen petition. So these initiatives - last year there was going to be 11, but they pared them down to 6. It's kind of like making up for lost time - We weren't on the ballot for several years, so now we're just going to do a whole bunch of initiatives. The first one that they're doing would repeal the Climate Commitment Act. The second one would repeal our capital gains tax on the wealthy, which is funding education and childcare. The third one would repeal the WA Cares Fund, partly by letting people opt out. Then they have one that would roll back our reasonable safeguards on police pursuits. They have one that would establish a parental notification scheme, which is intended, I think, to jeopardize the health of trans youth in part - which I don't like that at all. And then they have one to ban income taxes. And their definition of income tax is anything that falls under this really broad, adjusted gross income umbrella, which could potentially jeopardize the capital gains tax and other sources of funding for things that are really important in our state. So these six initiatives collectively would cause a lot of damage to Washington. We're talking about billions of dollars in lost revenue. We're talking about good policies being repealed. We're talking about a lot of destruction. And so we're working very hard to defeat these initiatives. We've created a PAC that will oppose all of them. And that joint effort is called Stop Greed - to oppose all six initiatives. We have a website - stopgreed.org - and the operation is already up and running. You can donate, you can sign up for the mailing list. If you want to get involved in stopping the six initiatives, we are ready to have your help because this is going to be a year-long effort. We're going to be working with a lot of other allies, organizations that also share our values to protect Washington. But these six initiatives - the legislature can't reject them and then just have them disappear, they're going to go to the ballots. So we have to be ready for that big fight in November. And they're going to appear at the top - so ahead of president, ahead of governor, ahead of everything else that we're thinking about as activists and civic leaders and whatnot. This is going to be the very first thing that people see underneath those instructions - is these six initiatives. So we're getting ready. And again, we invite others to join us in taking on this challenge so we can protect Washington. [00:12:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And this is going to be one of the biggest battles that we've seen in quite some time in Washington state. Those six initiatives that you covered - for those who may not be familiar with Washington Cares, it's basically long-term care insurance that's state provided - trying to meet a need that is massive. Many studies have showed more than half of people over age 60 are going to need long-term care insurance at some point in time for the remainder of their lives. This often is not covered by health insurance, and it is something that has bankrupted people, has left people just in very precarious positions. As we age, as our parents age, this is something that is top of mind for a lot of people. And although no one loves an extra thing to worry about, having the confidence that when you or your family member or friend is in need of care, that they will have access to it is a very, very important thing. In addition to all these other ones - this is our landmark climate legislation, which I've definitely had some criticisms of, but do not support a repeal. I support fixing the areas that need to be fixed. And I think we can't ignore these things. These are some of the biggest pieces of legislation that we have passed that will equip us to deal with the challenges that we face today and that we're going to be facing tomorrow. So really appreciate the effort, the coordinated effort, to make sure that there is a vigorous defense against these. Now, looking at what's going to be involved to beat these - looking at what these ballot initiatives may serve, even beyond their individual goals, is that a lot of times people look to ballot initiatives to motivate a base and to turn out a base. And certainly in Washington state - statewide, Republicans have been not having a good time, have been reaping the consequences of being out-of-touch policy-wise - whether it's on abortion rights to privacy rights, to their views on taxation and things that serve to defund and dismantle our government. What do you see as threats beyond these initiatives individually, but the threat of a motivated conservative voting base here in Washington state in November 2024? [00:14:52] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, I think they're tired of Democratic rule. So they're going to be motivated to turnout because they probably will have Dave Reichert as their gubernatorial candidate - we can't really say nominee because Washington doesn't have a real primary, so we don't nominate people for the general election ballot like they would in other states. But they probably will have Reichert as their candidate, their standard bearer. And that is their best chance to get the governor's mansion since 2012 when Rob McKenna was their candidate in the general election - so I think they're going to be motivated for that reason. I also think the six initiatives are designed to turnout right-wing voters as much as possible - people who are disenchanted with Washington's direction, not happy that we're going a different way than Texas and Florida and Idaho and other states that are Republican-controlled. And so I think that that's an opportunity for them, but it's also an... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29717513

Week in Review: January 26, 2024 - with Daniel Beekman 01/26/2024

Week in Review: January 26, 2024 - with Daniel Beekman On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman! Crystal and Daniel discuss the unsurprising Seattle City Council vacancy appointment and what we might see from a business-backed, Harrell-picked legislative body as they navigate a hiring freeze, a large budget deficit, and upcoming important policy decisions. Next, they turn to the Office of Police Accountability’s conclusion that SPOG Vice President Auderer’s comments about Jaahnavi Kandula’s death were “derogatory, contemptuous, and inhumane” and speculate how Chief Diaz and Mayor Harrell will handle disciplinary action. The conversation then covers Daniel’s recent story about a Snohomish County school’s travails with a neighboring gravel yard and seemingly unconcerned local government. Finally, in the wake of the City of Seattle settling with 2020 protesters for $10 million, Crystal and Daniel wonder whether there will be any meaningful change in how the Seattle Police Department responds to protests. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Daniel Beekman, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times “” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times “” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera and Raise the Wage Renton Steering Committee member Maria Abando to learn more about the citizen initiative to raise Renton's minimum wage. Ballots got mailed out this week, so keep an eye on that and make sure all your friends and family in Renton vote by February 13th. 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: Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman. [00:01:28] Daniel Beekman: Thanks for having me on. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, there is a good amount of news to discuss this week. Starting off, Seattle got a new councilmember. Tanya Woo was appointed by the council to fill the vacancy created by Teresa Mosqueda's election to the King County Council. What was the lead up? What happened here? How did this happen? [00:01:53] Daniel Beekman: Well, it was an interesting situation where so soon after actual elections, we had this appointment process for the City Council because Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda jumped to the King County Council in the same election that elected an almost all-new Seattle City Council, so there's some kind of whiplash there with so much change so quickly. And we saw the new-look City Council appoint someone who narrowly lost in November, which was interesting to see. They sort of had an option of, in theory, choosing someone who fit the profile politically of Teresa Mosqueda, the outgoing councilmember, to fill that citywide seat, or of choosing someone who had just run, or going a whole other direction. And there was a lot of politicking ahead of the appointment. And I think that the new City Council President Sara Nelson said we're not doing anything else until we have this appointment. So we're not going to get down to actual business, which to some extent makes some sense in that you want to sort of have everything set before you start doing the work. On the other hand, it sort of laid down a marker of - this is our first new thing that we're doing as a city council. It's going to be significant, which it is - choosing someone to represent the whole city, at least until November, late November when the election results get certified. But yeah, it was interesting. What did you make of it? Were you surprised that they picked Tanya Woo? [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: I was not surprised at all. In fact, this seemed like it was a foregone conclusion for quite some time. Part of this was telegraphed publicly - it looks like with about a week before, there was a letter from Tim Ceis - who was a former consultant to Bruce Harrell, may currently be a consultant to Bruce Harrell, and business lobbyist - who had sent a letter to some of his allies talking about their success with the independent expenditure effort, referring to the money that they spent in support of electing candidates in this last election in Seattle, which was very successful for them. And saying that they had the right to voice their opinion and state that they wanted Tanya Woo picked. They named her by name and said - She is our person, you should pick her. Also telegraphed from a prior meeting where they narrowed down and selected the finalists where several councilmembers from the dais said - Since someone else already picked Tanya Woo, I'll go with a different person. So it looked like she was the favorite anyway. I think that the relationship that had been established between them was clear. They were all similarly ideologically aligned. They spent a lot of time together during the campaign trail. But as you said, it was a controversial pick because Tanya Woo was just unsuccessful in that election and just lost to Tammy Morales. And so having a portion of the City opt not to have Tanya Woo represent them to vote for Tammy Morales - and I personally am not someone who feels that someone who lost an election should never be appointed, but I do think that the will of the voters does make a difference here. If Tanya would have had similar ideological preferences to Tammy Morales and lost, you could say - Well, they're saying similar things. The voters seem like they would be fine, too. They didn't just reject this. This seems like it could be a pick that does represent what Seattle residents feel best represents them. This is not that case, and so we will see how this turns out. But there's been a shift in ideology on the council now. Interestingly with this, it's not like even if they didn't go with Tanya Woo, the majority of the council wouldn't still be in the same place. But this provides almost an extra insurance vote for them, as they consider the things that are facing the city, whether it's a budget deficit - Sara Nelson already signaling a desire to cut business taxes. They're going through an audit - they're saying right now - with the City and seeing where they can cut spending basically to address this $250+ million dollar deficit that's coming up that may be even bigger because they're also signaling that they want to further increase the police budget. So we'll see how this turns out, but it's going to be really interesting to see them negotiate the challenges that are facing them. What do you think this sets up for the council over the year? [00:06:23] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, it was interesting. I haven't been the reporter covering most of this in the last couple of weeks for us. And going forward, it'll be my coworker, David Kroman, who is doing a great job and will do a great job. But I did just dip in for a minute when the new councilmembers were sworn in - This was early this month. And I remember that Councilmember Tammy Morales made it a point in that swearing in, getting started meeting - and talking about this appointment that they had to make - of mentioning some of the big ticket items and running down the list of what this year might look like. And it was striking to think about what they have coming up. There's a Comprehensive Plan update due by the end of this year, which sounds kind of wonky, but is important. It's basically redefining the growth strategy for the city for the next 20 years. There's a transportation property tax levy up for renewal. There's this potential budget gap that you mentioned. And there's the issue of the contract for the police officers union due. So those are some big ticket things all in this year. And I think it may be the budget, like you were mentioning, that turns out to be the one that's the hottest politically with this new group and where you sort of see the imprint of the new politics to the extent that it is a shift. But I'm sure other things will crop up as they always do. [00:07:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to pay attention to what happens with this council. Also, because this has been an appointment, this person who did get appointed has to stand for election in the very next election - they don't serve the full term after an appointment. So this seat will be on the ballot in November 2024. So that is going to be an interesting dynamic. Robert Cruidkshank talked about last week - this is going to be interesting to see. Given how there was controversy surrounding this appointment, how is that going to impact Tanya Woo, who is assumed to be running for this seat? And how many other people we see who applied for this appointment are also going to be on the ballot? Is anyone new going to be there? So certainly a lot to pay attention to politically here. [00:08:40] Daniel Beekman: I was just curious to know what you thought about that, because I listened to what Robert was saying, listened to your show last week with him - and I think he was saying that he thought the new guard on the City Council is maybe overestimating their political momentum. And that the way this appointment process happened with Tanya Woo being backed by the independent expenditure sort of business types, there could be a backlash in November, which I could kind of imagine in the sense that people don't love the idea of behind the scenes - big business picking their leaders. And it's in a presidential election year, so that could factor into things. But also Councilmember Woo now obviously has support and name recognition and all that and will benefit from being there at City Hall. And support not just from business leaders, obviously. And so I'm curious to know what you think - I understand where he was coming from when he was making that backlash prediction, but I'm not so sure about it. What do you expect? Do you think it'll hurt or help her or what? [00:09:46] Crystal Fincher: It could hurt. The potential is there. And it really depends on how things play out, I think, with the budget, primarily - with some of the real visible issues that they're going to be dealing with this year. I do think that it was notable and novel to have Tim Ceis send out that letter. Now, I don't think that penetrated immediately to the general public. I don't think 80% of people are aware that Tim Ceis sent any communication, or who Tim Ceis is realistically. Kind of same with how many people are really paying attention to the City Council right now. But as you hear these things being talked about, they do know that Tanya Woo lost. And this did make broad news - people are getting news alerts about it. And it's a name that they wouldn't expect to be there. So it's kind of like - Huh, that's different. And didn't she just lose? - which I think is an odd thing. I do think that there has been a - you could characterize it as brazen - that business has a big voice here and that there is a close alignment. And whether or not you view it as them being in the pocket or being a puppet of big business, or that they're just aligned and view it as an extremely important constituency that they're prioritizing that there does seem to be a much closer alignment there. And Seattle voters have explicitly rejected that before. They are uncomfortable when it comes to corporate control. Seattle residents are taxing themselves to institute a small property tax for the Democracy Voucher program. And I really do agree with Robert's point about Seattle voters being uncomfortable with austerity - cutting services is just not what Seattle residents are necessarily comfortable with. And Seattle, to a greater degree than just about any other city in this state, prioritizes services for its residents - those that cost - and they want library services, they want housing provided, they want these different things. Now they want action and they want to see improvement on the ground on these issues, but they don't expect an absence of these services or - Okay, we're just wholesale slashing programs and services that you've been used to and that Seattle is known for providing. So I do think that a number of these issues would be easier for them to run on, for them to implement had they mentioned that while they were running for election. But I think the other complication is while they were campaigning, they bent over backwards - these candidates that won, for the most part - to not talk about - Okay, there's a big budget deficit. What would you cut if you're not going to raise revenue? Where do you find revenue to provide more money for more police? And that's a conversation that many of them didn't want to have. I think Bob Kettle was probably the one who most explicitly talked about that. A few just didn't. A few threw out ideas like - Well, we need to find out what's happening with the City. But there wasn't anyone who said - You know what, we are going to be cutting programs. We are going to be cutting services. We are going to be providing business tax breaks. Not one said that one. So that's going to be interesting to see - in a deficit, when they're cutting services for residents and then seeing tax breaks for businesses, how that's going to fly. [00:13:02] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think that it's not surprising or out of bounds for the new councilmembers and the new council president to feel like they have a kind of mandate. And I think voters can feel to some extent like they were installed in office being business-friendly candidates, and the voters knew that - that's not a total surprise. And I think it's understandable that they would say - OK, well, we got put here, this is who we are, and we're going to try to do what we want to do. We'll have to see how the budget actually plays out and the deficit, because there can be updated forecasts and new money comes in - and it's hard to know what that will look like. But I do think what you mentioned about - if there start being cuts to libraries, that might not be a politically savvy thing in Seattle - hands off our library. So I think to that extent, that's where the rubber could meet the road to see how much political juice folks have, if that's the direction it goes. I can see both angles here. [00:14:05] Crystal Fincher: A lot is still up the air. Interestingly, it wasn't a unanimous vote by the council. One or two votes for this appointment - Joy Hollingsworth, Tammy Morales, and one other councilmember - [00:14:18] Daniel Beekman: Dan Strauss. [00:14:19] Crystal Fincher: Dan Strauss, that's right - did not have Tanya Woo as their choice. So there was some difference. So we'll see how these alliances play out. Even though there are ideological differences, councilmembers may still find things that they share, issues that they want to pursue - maybe on not the big headline issues, but other ones. And how those relationships build and progress - maybe that can provide some hope for how things play out with the City. Also, speaking of the budget, Mayor Bruce Harrell just announced a hiring freeze. As the new council sets out on their quest to audit the budget, Harrell instituted a hiring freeze across all City departments except police, fire and the 911 response division known as the CARE Department. PubliCola covered this - everybody covered this - but this is going to be a significant freeze. Certainly not the first freeze. Hiring freezes are not unprecedented - in fact, with big budget deficits, we have seen this before. It'll be interesting to see how this results and how much money this could potentially save. What do you see? Do you think a hiring freeze makes sense at this point in time? [00:15:30] Daniel Beekman: I wouldn't weigh in on whether it makes sense or not. It's interesting to see. And obviously, the idea is that we'll save some money leading into the budget season and maybe make some decisions easier, or get rid of some of the hard decisions that might otherwise be there. But also, it's a political signal - I would assume - to say, this is the situation we're in. This is really serious, and we're going to have to make some tough calls coming down the line. And the idea of exempting these public safety positions from that also sends a signal. Again - hiring freeze is one thing, cutting services is another thing - and if it starts to blur into cutting as the year goes on, then that's where you could imagine the average voter starting to get concerned. So it'll be interesting to see how it evolves and also how the relationship between the mayor and this new city council evolves too on something like this, as councilmembers get pressure from various advocacy groups or stakeholders with the budget - and employees - and as the mayor does too. Do they work in lockstep together - the mayor and the council, or the council majority to the extent that there is a clear one - or do they start playing off each other. I'm really curious to see how Mayor Harrell handles the new council - does he see himself as the leader, or is he going to play off what they're doing and position himself as different from whatever tack they're taking. And this hiring freeze and how it continues to play out could start to show what that relationship might be, I think. [00:17:09] Crystal Fincher: That is going to be interesting to watch. This hiring freeze was not a surprise to me. Again, it's not unprecedented. The City is facing a very serious budget deficit with some major structural issues. Over the years, there have been several short-term, or shorter-term, sources of funds that have been used to plug holes, get us through some challenging times - and that's all coming to roost now. There are several needs for permanent funding that don't currently have permanent funding sources attached. Also, it's going to be interesting to see what they end up doing with the JumpStart Tax and the revenues from that. That certainly has been dedicated to a number of issues that have provided some very important services to people who need housing assistance, small business assistance, eviction assistance - just really plugging some of the real critical gaps for folks and businesses in the city. But this is being eyed as a source of revenue for some of the other priorities or things that they're looking to shift to. And they have signaled that that may be a source of revenue that they look to divert or repurpose. And you're right - how the relationship develops between the mayor and council is going to be interesting to watch, especially since Bruce Harrell played a big role in recruiting and helping to elect these councilmembers - the majority who were elected, the new ones. He had talked about for a while, other people had talked about - Well, there needs to be more... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29664538

The Raise the Wage Renton Campaign with Maria Abando and Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera 01/23/2024

The Raise the Wage Renton Campaign with Maria Abando and Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera On this topical show, Crystal welcomes Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera and Raise the Wage Renton Steering Committee member Maria Abando to learn more about the upcoming citizen initiative on the February 13th special election ballot. Modeled after the successful Raise the Wage Tukwila initiative that passed with over 80% of the vote in 2022, community organizers in Renton are campaigning to raise their city’s minimum wage to keep up with surrounding cities like SeaTac, Tukwila, and Seattle. Maria and Carmen discuss how the ability to earn a living wage uplifts everyone, the signature gathering learning curve their coalition experienced, and the reaction - both positive and negative - to the effort. With ballots arriving in mailboxes this week and a well-funded opposition materializing, Maria and Carmen share how folks can get involved and help their campaign across the finish line. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at , find Maria Abando at , Councilmember Carmen Rivera at , and the Raise the Wage Renton campaign at . Resources | King County Elections “” by Christopher Randels from The Urbanist “” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “” by Bailey Josie from The Renton Reporter “” by KIRO 7 News Staff Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I'm really excited about today's conversation with folks from the Raise the Wage Renton campaign. Today, I'm being joined by Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera. Hey, Carmen. [00:01:05] Councilmember Carmen Rivera: Hey, how you doing? [00:01:07] Crystal Fincher: Doing well. And also Maria Abando on the Raise the Wage Renton Steering Committee. Hey. [00:01:14] Maria Abando: What's up? What's up? [00:01:16] Crystal Fincher: So I am so thrilled to have this conversation. We have previously talked about other minimum wage increase campaigns. We eagerly spoke with, and then followed, and then celebrated the success of the Raise the Wage Tukwila campaign from last year. Last year, 2022? One of those years - time is weird for me these days. But now Renton is up to the plate. And so starting off, I just want to start with why this issue is so important - how did this even become an issue in Renton in the first place? - starting with Carmen. [00:01:52] Councilmember Carmen Rivera: Thank you so much for having us on and sharing the space with us. This was born actually from a coalition of organizers and labor union workers that really found that there was a need in Renton. When you think about Renton, you may not fully understand or know that she is 60% non-white, she is the fourth largest city in King County, the eighth largest city in Washington state. We have about 21% of our population at or below two times the poverty level, 8% at or below the poverty level. And almost half of our city are renters, with the median rent for a two-bedroom apartment at about $2,195. And so - yeah, yeah. We're right there on par with Seattle, so invite me back when you want to talk about tenant rights and tenant protections in Renton - because we do not have any more than what the state allows. We do not have any increases, and so that's another aspect of this that - happy to talk more on. But all that intertwines with having a livable wage - something that makes it just a little bit easier for people to not only just survive in Renton, but thrive. And so when organizers came to me in January of 2023, they presented this initiative that was pretty much a copy-and-paste from Tukwila. And we met and we spoke about it, and I didn't agree initially with all aspects of the initiative. However, organizers felt very passionate about it - they did some outreach. They stuck with what they had and they started gathering signatures. And I felt that it was important for me to use my position and my platform to endorse and support their campaign and help get the message out there. Because this represents not only over 6,000 workers who live and work in Renton, but 50,000 who also commute into Renton, the 45,000 who commute out of Renton - possibly to chase higher wages. So there is a lot going on here and a lot of people who can be directly and indirectly impacted by just increasing the minimum wage by a few dollars, so people can have a little bit more of a cushion. And I think Maria can really speak more to the coalition and the grassroots organizers who are really leading this initiative across King County where it's most needed - because we saw in a report from The Seattle Times in June of 2023, that you need to be making close to $30 an hour to afford to live in King County. And that isn't exempt in South King County, where we're a very diverse city and some people are just surviving barely. [00:04:16] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, Maria, what brought you to this work, and why was this so important to address right now? [00:04:24] Maria Abando: Yeah, yeah. So I was one of those organizers that came to Carmen asking for her to endorse and join us as well. But really, I feel like the origins of this campaign are really community, you know, that there's no other way to put it. And I think it really was community that was continuing to do the work post the Tukwila campaign with Transit Riders Union and also with the Stephanie Gallardo campaign - the Gallardo campaign for Congress in 2022 in Washington's 9th Congressional District, where we did end up doing work in Renton and across South King County. And so genuinely, a lot of those same folks from TRU, from the Gallardo campaign, recognized that we - regardless, temporary campaigns, they end. But when you do have true community-based organizing, this ensures that once those temporary campaigns are over, the movements continue, right? And in those campaigns - these were movements where we're talking about uplifting the oppressed, uplifting the poor, the working class people. And in general, I think, reminding our communities how powerful we are when we come together and fight together for a more just world - whatever that looks like, and particularly here in Renton - raising the wages. So it's a lot of those same organizers - myself, Guillermo Zazueta, who's chairing the campaign, Bailey Medilo, Aram Balsafi, Michael Westgaard, even some of our same volunteers and our canvass hosts - Christina Mann and Ben Warden - and so on and so on. I wish I could name more. But I do think that it's important to uplift those names because we are a community, right? It's not just Carmen, it's not just myself - there's so many of us working behind the scenes. And there are a lot of folks from those previous campaigns that happened to call Renton their home. And so after those campaigns were over, we knew we wanted to pivot, attempt to do this type of work in Renton, and started to begin really filling out our leadership and filling out our volunteers from Renton residents - because we knew we had to make a really intentional effort to make sure that Renton residents were the ones that were the leading voices, and everyone else just comes in and supports. But we all also, I think, have felt really inspired. We know that we are walking in the path that has been paved before us with the - of course, 2015 historic victories in SeaTac becoming the first city in the U.S. to adopt a $15 minimum wage. And of course, Seattle following suit after that. And it was 2022 - of course, Tukwila passing their ordinance mandating a $19 minimum wage after that as well. And, oh my gosh, being able to receive over 80% of the vote, which, again, incredible. And then there's more happening, right? There have been efforts in Burien. I know that last year, King County councilmembers were proposing a near identical $19 minimum wage for unincorporated King County. So all of this is, I think, coming to a point in terms of why is this important, right? Again, it's about uplifting the poor and uplifting the working class - and everyone else who benefits from that. But also, I think if we're zooming out and looking at this regionally - thinking about what happens to the neighboring cities, to the neighboring towns, to those neighboring suburbs when one major city raises their wages significantly, right? And the answer to that, I think, is that the region must follow. So Carmen speaking to the ways that there are thousands of folks that commute out in order to chase those higher wages. So your highways, your transit systems - they're flooded with people flocking to chase those higher wages. We know that what ends up happening when you end up commuting to work in a different city with higher wages - you also end up spending your money in that other city as well, instead of the city where you live. Because you're maybe getting your coffee, maybe getting some food, maybe hanging out afterwards in that city. Or you're just losing a lot of time - people commuting an hour to work and commuting an hour back, which could be time spent with family or doing things that you care about. And we also know, and I can say personally from my perspective as a Black and Filipino woman, that Black and brown folks are often the ones that are in these surrounding cities and towns because of gentrification. And Carmen has uplifted that Renton is very diverse - it is a majority-minority place. And so we know, keeping all of those things in mind, that this is something that uplifts everybody. When Renton workers are able to earn a living wage, everyone benefits - and especially folks that are having to commute, especially folks that are really struggling to make those ends meet. And putting more money in folks' pockets to be able to spend that money on basic necessities like childcare, healthcare - and are in general less likely to miss rental payments and less likely to be able to lose stable housing. So I think all this is really, really important. [00:09:55] Crystal Fincher: It's super important, and especially as wages haven't kept up with just about anything over time. But my goodness, the cost of housing is just out of control and has been out of reach for someone making minimum wage. And that is just fundamentally not the kind of community that we want to build. It's not what we think of when we think of "the American dream." It's not what we think of when we think of - Hey, get a job, work hard, and you'll be able to support yourself. You should be able to do that - that's what giving up your time and labor should be able to provide. And it used to, and it doesn't now. We've got to get that back to the right place. Now, I want to talk about what this initiative does. Reading from the ballot text - this proposed ordinance requires employers to pay a minimum wage based on that established by the City of Tukwila - which we just talked about raised their minimum wage. Offer additional hours to existing part-time employees before hiring new employees or subcontracted services - which is something that many cities and states have moved to, something that just makes a lot of sense and is more fair for workers. To not retaliate against employees exercising rights created by the ordinance and comply with administrative requirements. If enacted, the ordinance cannot be repealed without voter approval. And so this is for the February 13th election, a special election date. So make sure people are ready for that February 13th election. You will get a clue when you get your ballots in the mail, which will be mailed on January 24th. You can register to vote online. You can register online up until February 5th. You can register up until Election Day - even on Election Day - at the County Elections Office in Renton, up until February 13th, the date of the election. So you said this was largely based off of Tukwila's initiative - it refers to that in the ballot text. When putting this together, was it looking at - Tukwila and Renton seem to be pretty similar, this meets the needs. Were there any conversations about things specifically for Renton? How was this initiative put together, and how is it decided what was needed for Renton? [00:12:13] Maria Abando: So we definitely ended up working hand-in-hand with Katie and Artie from Transit Riders Union to see what was successful and to see what wasn't successful - for the most part, though, they were just successful with their campaign. And we did think about Renton and we were really recognizing that it's a very different place. Tukwila was fairly small. Renton has, I believe, over 60,000 just workers themselves that would be impacted by this - it's a lot bigger. It has some waterfront property kind of neighborhoods within the Kennydale area. It has The Landing, of course, which is a major shopping center where many, many folks come - not just from Renton, but from outside Renton as well - to be able to shop and spend money. And so we were really trying, I think, to do our best to recognize that because it was so much bigger and because the communities, I think, are - I wouldn't say more diverse than Tukwila, but just fairly expansive, there's just a lot there in Renton - that we wanted to talk to as many people as possible and grow a coalition with as many people as we possibly could. And so we really started with really working with our councilmember, Carmen Rivera, as much as we could. But also reaching out to as many labor unions as we could. We were really proud to get the very early endorsement from the Renton Education Association, which is our teacher's union. And then many unions followed suit - UAW 4121, UFCW 3000, the Teamsters, the MLK Labor Council, to name a few, and just so on and so on - and to ask their Renton members as well, what types of things are they looking for? What types of things that they foresee? What types of challenges might they foresee? And everyone was really communicative with us, which - we really appreciate it. And I think we really started to try and figure out our strategy based off of what our community was saying and really trying to let those Rentonites lead. But I also will say we had to learn some of this stuff along the way, Crystal. We had to learn - I think we had a little bit more of learning what didn't work that hopefully can be used with other campaigns in the future, because we know this movement is going to keep on and keep on. One of the things that we learned, for example - this journey was a long one in terms of gathering signatures to be able to qualify for the ballot at all. And of course, we launched in January of 2023. And so here we are on the special election in February 2024. So we obviously shot our shot for November and we weren't able to qualify there, despite the fact that we did, in total, gather over 17,000 signatures, made over 50,000 door knock attempts, engaged over 150 volunteers, distributed nearly 12,000 campaign flyers, and even employed part-time canvassers and signature gatherers to be able to make all of this happen. What we learned was signature gathering in places like Renton that has a huge also community of unincorporated King County, that we were going to have to be a little bit more strategic about that because folks might have a Renton address, but that actually be in unincorporated King County. And so they actually can't sign those petition forms to be able to qualify for the ballot. And so we didn't know that. We were out there tabling in The Landing, doing what we need to do, trying to chat up all the people that were coming through and educate them on what we were trying to do. And the reception was really, really lovely. And people were signing. And we didn't realize that some of those Renton addresses were in unincorporated King County. So that was a hard lesson that we had to learn and recognize that our efforts are best spent at the doors, despite the fact that we would be able to get a lot more signatures doing tabling. We had to recognize that it's not about quantity, right? It's a quality thing. I think we felt a lot of urgency and had to check ourselves on our values - that it's not about the urgency of this so much as it's about really improving the conditions of workers in Renton. And so we had to hit those doors in the areas that we knew would be able to vote for this. We had to have those conversations with those folks - genuinely get their feedback - and also work with businesses as well. So we've had multiple business walks - walking to chat with the small businesses downtown - to also get their feedback and get what their thoughts and their support in this as well. So I think, in general - trying some things, realizing some things that didn't work, and just continuing to be flexible and stay really grounded in what we're trying to do here. [00:17:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, what has the reception been like, Carmen, from your colleagues on the council? [00:17:16] Councilmember Carmen Rivera: I'm so glad you asked me that, Crystal. It has been mixed, and I think that's very reflective of the Renton community. Our council is very reflective of Renton, and something that Maria lightly touched on was - and I'm going to say it a little bit more candidly - this is probably the most conservative city that these organizers have attempted to pass such an initiative. I could arguably say that Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila - at the time that these initiatives were passed - were less conservative. And that being said, we have an interesting mix in Renton. We have a very changing tide of new Rentonites, young families starting out here, diverse majority, people of color. And we also have a lot of people who have been here for generations. And we have a lot of history with Boeing - being the home of Boeing - and union workers and labor workers. And so, some of my councilmembers did not agree with more aspects of the ordinance than I, but I think that they had differing opinions and they felt it was more important to leave it to the voters to decide if we should be raising the minimum wage in a place like Renton, or if it's going to be something that we decide. And they felt it was more important for the voters to decide. [00:18:37] Crystal Fincher: Right, because there was an opportunity for the council to choose to enact this without this having to go to the voters. The council could have made this happen - certainly a number of residents were asking the council to do just that. Residents, organizations, some small businesses that we saw in the area saying - We don't need to go through the time and expense of an election, we can just make this happen when we know it's the right thing to do. The majority of the council opted not to do that, so it is going to residents. Maria, what has been the feedback that you've been receiving from residents and businesses in Renton? [00:19:12] Maria Abando: So we've had a lot of feedback, a lot of concerns - of course. As we've kind of touched on, things are really, really expensive. And whether that's rent, whether that's cost of your groceries, cost of... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29614688

Week in Review: January 19, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank 01/19/2024

Week in Review: January 19, 2024 - with Robert Cruickshank On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Crystal and Robert dive into the open machinations of the big corporate donors to appoint their preferred candidate to a Seattle City Council vacancy and how the messy process has leached its way into Seattle School Board politics. They then discuss the qualification of a right-wing initiative to dismantle the state’s plan to take on the climate crisis. Robert gives a rare kudos to The Seattle Times for their presentation of a debate over homeless encampments, they both are dismayed at the depressing and infuriating news that the Tacoma officers in the Manuel Ellis case are getting paid $500k each to voluntarily leave the police department, and the show rounds out with analysis of some media’s treatment of AG Ferguson’s lawsuit to block a merger between Kroger and Albertsons. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times “” by Claire Bryan from The Seattle Times “” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate “” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times “” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune “” by Helen Smith from KING 5 “” by Paul Roberts from The Seattle Times Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy walks 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 full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, one of our audience favorites, and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:12] Robert Cruickshank: Hey - thanks for having me on again, Crystal. [00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Hey, excited to have you on again - here in 2024. Well, we've got a lot to talk about - things are getting spicy in the City of Seattle, with regards to this upcoming Seattle City Council appointment to replace Teresa Mosqueda's seat. Because Teresa was elected to the King County Council, which created a vacancy - so now it needs to be filled. So what happened this week? [00:01:38] Robert Cruickshank: Well, I think a lot has happened with the machinations around this appointment process - and in fact, things we're learning about how the new regime at City Hall is conducting itself - and they come together. I think this is basically Tim Ceis - who is former deputy mayor to Greg Nickels back in the 2000s, corporate lobbyist, close to established power in Seattle - and Council President Sara Nelson, who, of course, just became council president after the new council with a bunch of her allies got sworn in at the beginning of the month. They seem to be conducting a purge of anyone progressive in the City Hall, in City staff, and are determined to consolidate power around what is actually, I think, a fairly radical agenda for the city that most voters didn't really actually select, especially when it comes to cutting taxes for big businesses and slashing public services. But in order to try to achieve that, they know that they need to try to push out and keep out anyone who might disagree, anyone who might even be remotely progressive on anything. I think it's a pretty significant misreading of the results of recent elections in Seattle - their candidates won often narrowly on questions of public safety, not on cutting taxes for big businesses. In fact, most of their candidates hedged on the questions of taxes when they were asked during the campaigns. But I think you see a real desire to consolidate power around a small group of loyalists, no dissent allowed. And this is a approach to governance that I don't think Seattleites expect or want. I mean, most people in Seattle assume and want a fairly technocratic, go-along-to-get-along government where everyone is sort of driven by data, gets along with each other, and try to do things in the public interest. Now, you and I, a lot of our listeners, know that's not really how the city operates. But what we're seeing now is, I think, a much more aggressive and - in some ways, unprecedented for Seattle - attempt to impose a radical agenda on the city from the right. [00:03:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this isn't what voters thought they were signing up for. This isn't what anyone campaigned on. Voters are looking at what the candidates are saying, they're looking at the mail, the commercials - again, definitely talked about public safety, talked about homelessness. But what we saw in Sara Nelson's first statement was austerity - we're cutting taxes for business. But voters didn't weigh in on this at all. And I don't think people are going to have a great reaction to this. [00:03:55] Robert Cruickshank: When Seattle voters weigh in on questions of taxes, Seattleites pass almost every tax put in front of them. When it comes to state ballot initiatives to tax the rich - they might fail statewide as they did in 2010, but they pass with wide support in Seattle. When it comes to money in politics, Seattleites approved taxing themselves - raising their property taxes slightly - to create the Democracy Voucher program. This is a city that does not want corporate money in politics and yet, that is exactly what's happened here. The reason we're talking about all this right now is not just because there's a council appointment, but because Tim Ceis, this aforementioned corporate lobbyist, sent out an email at the beginning of the week urging all of the people - whether they're wealthy individuals or from big corporations - who donated to the independent expenditure campaigns to help get a lot of these councilmembers elected last year, telling them - Hey, we need you to mobilize right now to stop Vivian Song, who is currently on the Seattle School Board, who's seeking the appointment - Ceis says, We got to stop her. She held a fundraiser for Teresa Mosqueda. She endorsed Ron Davis. She's friendly to unions. And gosh, we can't have that on our council. And the way Ceis put it was to basically act as if these wealthy interests had bought the council. They now own the council - it is theirs, not ours. Not ours in the sense of "we the people." And they can do whatever they want with it. So Ceis' attitude - and I think Sara Nelson shares this - is that it's theirs now, nobody else can tell them what to do with the city council. They have the absolute right to pick whoever they want to and impose this agenda on the city. I think both that attitude and a policy agenda they want are not what the city wants at all, and they are going to run into a big backlash real fast. [00:05:30] Crystal Fincher: Real fast. And the brazenness with which he stated this was wild. This is from the email that Tim Ceis sent - "While it's been a great two weeks watching the outcome of our effort as the new City Council has taken office, the independent expenditure success earned you the right to let the Council know not to offer the left the consolation prize of this Council seat." Okay, they're just admitting that they bought this seat. They're just admitting that - Hey, yeah, it was our effort that got these people onto the council. And we spent a million dollars plus in this independent expenditure effort and that gives us the right - he said the "right" - to tell the council what to do, which I don't recall seeing something this overtly stated before. [00:06:17] Robert Cruickshank: There's an important contrast we can draw - both Bruce Harrell and Eric Adams, mayor of New York, were elected in 2021. And at the time, Eric Adams was hailed as some sort of future of the Democratic Party - center right, tough on crime, pushing back against progressives. Well, here we are at the beginning of 2024 - Eric Adams has a 28% approval rating in New York - highly unlikely to win a re-election at this point. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one of the primary reasons is cuts to public services - libraries, schools, parks, all sorts of things. And the public is just clearly rejecting that. Bruce Harrell is up for re-election next year. And I think Harrell's going to have to decide for himself - does he want to be the one to get all the blame for this? Or maybe he just thinks Sara Nelson takes all the blame. Who knows? Maybe there's a good cop, bad cop approach being planned here - with Sara Nelson being the bad cop pushing austerity and Harrell's try to be the good cop, try to bring everybody together. Who knows? But I think what you see in New York is what you're going to see in Seattle - a significant backlash. I also want to mention - you quoted Ceis' letter talking about giving a prize to the left. Vivian Song is not a leftist. This is the part that just blows my mind about all this. She's as mainstream a Seattle Democrat as it gets. If you read her application letter for the council appointment, she talks about hiring more cops, being careful with city spending. She's honestly probably a little bit to the right of most of the previous city council that just got voted out. But to Ceis and Nelson, she's unacceptable because she's friendly with unions, was friendly with some progressives - what that shows me is that they only want extremists like themselves or who will just do their own bidding. And I think they're setting themselves up for a significant backlash. [00:07:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the final point - in looking at this, there were so many applicants to this - all across the spectrum, right? There weren't just progressive applicants for the seat. There were dozens and dozens of people from across the spectrum - and good choices - people who had experience, who have the right intentions from across the spectrum. This isn't about - Well, we just don't want an extreme leftist from these corporate interests. This is about - You're going to pick our person. Because there are several other choices on there - they're talking about Tanya Woo. Why aren't they talking about Phil Tavel, right? Why aren't they talking about anyone else that seems to align with their interests? They want loyalists - that's the bottom line. It goes beyond what the ideology is. It's - are you going to be loyal to me? Are you going to back me on what I'm doing? And without that assurance - We're not backing you. With that assurance, you're in and we're going to fight. And hey, we spent a million plus to get these other folks in. Now we're using our muscle to get you in too. And we're telling people - Hey, this was our show. We elected these people. It was our effort and that gives us the right to dictate what's going to happen. When you have the primary concern, the primary litmus test being loyalty and not is this going to help the residents of the city? Do they have experience? Can they credibly lead and do this? Wow, we get into a lot of trouble if it's just - Are you going to back me? Are you not going to question anything I'm doing? Are you going to rubber stamp this? So this appointment process is really going to be an opportunity to see where the loyalties lie. Are they serving their constituents or are they serving the business community? Because again, there are lots of picks if they wanted to go with a conservative person, right? I think they probably will. But the point is, it's got to be the one handpicked by business. This is going to tell us a lot about where the heads of these new councilmembers are at. Yeah, it [00:09:49] Robert Cruickshank: will. And I think it's also setting up 2024 - not just in terms of the policy discussions we'll see in City Hall, but the campaigns. This seat that gets filled in this appointment process later this month will be on the November 2024 ballot citywide. And I think Tanya Woo would likely run for that seat if she's appointed to it. If so, then she's going to have to go to voters - not as someone picked for her qualifications, at least in the way the public will see it. The public will see it as - she was picked by business because she's loyal to business. Vivian Song may want to run for that seat too - last night got endorsed by the King County Labor Council to hold that appointment. It sets up a very interesting - not just 10 days between now and when this appointment gets made, but 10 months between now and the November election, where I think you're going to see real contests over the future of the city. [00:10:35] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another interesting dimension with this about Vivian Song is about her residency and her existing Seattle School Board position. What's going on here? [00:10:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so we'll go back to 2021 - where there was an article that appeared in The Stranger when Vivian was running for the school board, questioning her residency - that she had changed residencies and changed voter registration - and questioning whether she was eligible to run for the District 4 seat for the school board. Now, the school board districts don't line up exactly with the city council districts, so listeners should keep that in mind - but Vivian won, won citywide. Because in school board, you are first elected out of the primary in just the district. Then the top two from that district go on to a citywide election in the school board. So Vivian won citywide in 2021. Last summer, it emerges that some of her critics and opponents on school board were questioning where she lives now - that she might not actually live in the district she technically represents. This is brought to the school board legal department, which looked at it and did not see a need to kick her off the school board, or declare her seat vacant and force an election. People move around for personal reasons, and they don't have to be told to tell those personal reasons in public. But Vivian is not someone who is manipulating the system for political gain - there are legitimate reasons she was moving. And yet this comes out in a Seattle Times article this week and gets mentioned at a board meeting last night - the only board meeting during this entire council appointment process. This has been under discussion behind the scenes at the school district for months. But why does it emerge now? I think it's the obvious reason why it emerges now - because some of Vivian's critics on the school board, whether they're working directly with Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson or not, are certainly helping Tim Ceis and Sara Nelson try to torpedo Vivian Song's candidacy. Now, from a progressive perspective, this doesn't necessarily mean that Vivian's the right pick for the appointment process. We should take a look at everybody. But I think the relentless efforts to destroy her, both in her position on the school board and to keep her out of the city council, suggest to me some real problems with the way both the city council and the school board are now being governed by small little cliques determined to hold on to their own power, to push austerity, unfriendly to labor, and hostile to public input. I think it's a really shocking and disturbing development that we're seeing in our city. Away from small-d democratic governance. I think everyone in the city should be really concerned about these developments. [00:13:05] Crystal Fincher: Completely agree. And statewide news - big news - it's going to impact our November 2024 ballot. The second right-wing initiative qualified for the 2024 ballot. What does this do and what does this mean? [00:13:21] Robert Cruickshank: So background here is that the far right chair of the state Republican Party, State Representative Jim Walsh - hardcore MAGA Trump guy - became State Party Chair last year and is working with a wealthy mega-donor, a guy named Brian Heywood, to try to repeal the main accomplishments of the Democratic majority in the legislature of the last few years. So we've got six initiatives so far that they've submitted to the state to qualify - two of them have made it to the ballot. One of them you just mentioned, which will be Initiative 2117 to try to destroy our state's climate action plan. They want to repeal the carbon pricing piece of it - sometimes known as cap and trade, cap and invest, whatever you want to call it. Their argument is - Oh, it's why gas prices are so high in Washington state. Well, no. One, we on the West Coast have always had higher gas prices than the rest of the country. And in fact, the reason Washington has high gas prices is because of King County. I did an analysis a few weeks ago that shows - if you cross the river from Portland to Vancouver, Washington, the average cost of gas is the same. If you are in Tacoma, you're paying less than you pay in Portland, Oregon. So if carbon pricing was causing gas prices to soar across Washington state, you'd see it everywhere - but you don't. What that suggests to me is you might actually be seeing oil companies gouging King County - that's worth investigation, which the oil companies don't want. But point being - Jim Walsh, who's a Trump guy, Brian Heywood, who's the wealthy funder, want to destroy our ability to tackle the climate crisis. They want to destroy our ability to fund the things that are needed to help people get off of fossil fuel. And so they're putting this on the ballot. They're going to put some other initiatives on the ballot to try to repeal our capital gains tax on the rich, that funds schools and early learning. And this is going to be one of the big battles that we're seeing this year - an effort to impose, again, a far-right agenda on the state of Washington. And I think that progressive organizations, the State Democratic Party are maybe a little slow to respond to this - I think they will engage, but now's the time to start letting people know what's happening here, what this attack is, how dangerous it could be, and the importance of stopping all six of these initiatives. [00:15:30] Crystal Fincher: We've seen Republicans have an increasingly hard time winning statewide and legislatively over the past few years - they've lost power, they tried the courts. The Supreme Court actually just rejected a case trying to come to the Supreme Court about the capital gains tax. So this is their only recourse now. And unfortunately, because of the way our political system is, money gets you really far. And so if you have these multi-hundred millionaires, these billionaires who come in and say - You know what, this is what I want - they're able to basically make us go through this whole charade. And so we have to fight against it. It's here. We have to do this. But it really is important to talk to people about - not to fall for these cheap lines that, Oh, this is another gas tax. It's the hidden gas tax, as they say. But we've had this price gouging conversation before - I think more people are seeing it, which is encouraging. But we're going to have to go through this whole campaign. [00:16:29] Robert... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29563333

RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank 01/16/2024

RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank Please enjoy this re-air of our listeners’ favorite topical show of 2023! On this topical show re-air, Crystal chats with former Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and his former Senior Communications Advisor Robert Cruickshank about the missed opportunity for generational impact through how decisions were made about Seattle’s waterfront and the SR99 tunnel. Mike and Robert review how the vision of the scrappy People’s Waterfront Coalition, centered around making a prized public space accessible for all while taking the climate crisis on by transforming our transportation system, nearly won the fight against those who prioritized maintaining highway capacity and those who prioritized increasing Downtown property values. The conversation then highlights how those with power and money used their outsized influence to make backroom decisions - despite flawed arguments and little public enthusiasm for their proposal - leaving Seattle with an underutilized deep bore tunnel and a car-centric waterfront. Some of the decision makers are still active in local politics - including current Mayor Bruce Harrell and his current advisor Tim Burgess. With important elections ahead, Crystal, Mike and Robert discuss how political decisions tend to conflict with campaign promises rather than donor rolls, how proven action is a better indicator than value statements, and how today’s dense ecosystem of progressive leaders and organizations can take inspiration and win the next fight. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at , Mike McGinn at , and Robert Cruickshank at . Mike McGinn Mike is the Executive Director of national nonprofit America Walks. He got his start in local politics as a neighborhood activist pushing for walkability. From there he founded a non-profit focused on sustainable and equitable growth, and then became mayor of Seattle. Just before joining America Walks, Mike worked to help Feet First, Washington State’s walking advocacy organization, expand their sphere of influence across Washington state. He has worked on numerous public education, legislative, ballot measure and election campaigns – which has given him an abiding faith in the power of organizing and volunteers to create change. Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013. Resources “” by Dominic Black from HistoryLink “ from Wikipedia “” by Josh Cohen from Curbed Seattle “” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times “” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am very excited to be welcoming Robert Cruickshank and former Mayor Mike McGinn to the show to talk about something that a lot of people have been thinking about, talking about recently - and that is Seattle's new waterfront. We feel like we've spent a decade under construction - from a deep bore tunnel to the tunnel machine getting stuck - that's not even covering all the debate before that, but all of the kind of follies and foibles and challenges that have beset the process of arriving at the waterfront that we have now. And now that we are getting the big reveal, a lot of people have feelings about it. So I thought we would talk about it with one of the people who was at the forefront of criticisms of the tunnel and calling out some red flags that turned out to be a very wise warning - several wise warnings that have come to pass, unfortunately - for not listening to them. But I want to start early on in the beginning, both of you - and I had a short stint in the mayor's office - worked on this, talked about this on the campaign, really got it. But when did you first hear that we needed to replace the viaduct and there were some different opinions about how to make that happen? [00:02:06] Mike McGinn: Okay, so I'm sure I can't pin down a date, but the really important date was, of course, the Nisqually earthquake in 2001. And so it gave the Alaska Way Viaduct a good shake - the decks weren't tied into the columns, the columns were on fill, which could liquefy - and everybody understood that if that quake had been a little stronger and harder, the elevated would come down. Now you might think that that would call for immediately closing the roadway for safety reasons, but what it did call for was for reconstructing it. And you have to remember that highway was really one of the very first limited access highways - it was built long ago and it was just at the end of its useful life anyway. Certainly not built to modern seismic standards or modern engineering standards. So the conversation immediately started and I don't know when everything started to settle into different roles, but the Mayor of Seattle Greg Nickels, was immediately a proponent for a tunnel - and a much larger and more expensive tunnel than what was ultimately built. And it would have been a cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront that included a new seawall. So they thought they were solving two things at one time - because the seawall too was rotting away, very old, very unstable. But it would have gone all the way under South Lake Union and emerged onto Aurora Avenue further north, it would have had entrances and exits to Western and Elliott. And I seem to remember the quoted price was like $11 billion. And the state - governor at the time was Christine Gregoire - they were - No, we're replacing the highway. We don't have $11 billion for Seattle. And of course had the support of a lot of lawmakers for obvious reasons - we're not going to give Seattle all that money, we want all that highway money for our districts. And those were immediately presented as the alternatives. And so much of the credit has to go to Cary Moon, who lived on the waterfront and started something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. I think Grant Cogswell, a former City Council candidate - now runs a bookstore down in Mexico City, but wrote a book about the Monorail, worked on the different Monorail campaigns before that - they launched something called the People's Waterfront Coalition. And the basic proposition was - We don't need a highway. This is a great opportunity to get rid of the highway and have a surface street, but if you amp up the transit service - if we invest in transit instead - we can accommodate everyone. And so that was really - as it started - and actually I remember being outside City Hall one day, going to some stakeholder meeting - I went to so many different stakeholder meetings. And I remember Tim Ceis saying to me - he was the Deputy Mayor at the time - You're not supporting that Cary Moon idea - I mean, that's just crazy. I was - Well, actually, Tim. So the Sierra Club was - I was a volunteer leader in the Sierra Club - and the Sierra Club was one of the first organizations - I'm sure there were others, I shouldn't overstate it - but the Sierra Club was persuaded by the wisdom of Cary's idea and supported it in that day. And so that was really how the three different options got launched - no public process, no analysis, no description of what our needs were. The mayor went to a solution, the governor went to a solution - and it was up to members of the public to try to ask them to slow down, stop, and look at something different. [00:05:42] Crystal Fincher: And Robert, how did you first engage with this issue? [00:05:47] Robert Cruickshank: For me, I had just moved to Seattle the first time in the fall of 2001 - so it was about six months after the Nisqually quake - and I came from the Bay Area. And that was where another earthquake had damaged another waterfront highway, the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. And that was where San Francisco had voted - after that quake had damaged their viaduct beyond repair - they voted to tear it down and replace it with the Embarcadero Waterfront, which is a six-lane arterial but they built a lot more transit there. So they did the - what we might call the surface transit option - and it worked really well. It was beautiful. It still is. And so when I came up here and started to learn a little bit about the place I was living and the legacy of the Nisqually quake, I thought - Oh, why don't you just do the same thing here? It worked so well in San Francisco. Let's just tear down this unsightly monstrosity on the waterfront and replace it with a surface boulevard and put in a bunch of transit - San Francisco's made it work successfully. And the more I learned about Seattle, I realized there's a legacy of that here, too. This is a city where we had a freeway revolt, where activists came together and killed the RH Thomson freeway, which would have destroyed the Arboretum. They killed the Bay Freeway, which would have destroyed Pike Place Market. And so I naturally assumed - as being a relatively new resident - that Seattle would stay in that tradition and welcome the opportunity to tear this down and build a great waterfront for people, not cars. But as we'll talk about in a moment, we have a lot of business interests and freight interests and others who had a different vision - who didn't share that community-rooted vision. And I think at numerous points along the way, though, you see people of Seattle saying - No, this is not what we want for our waterfront. We have an opportunity now with the fact that this viaduct nearly collapsed, as Mike mentioned, in the Nisqually quake - we have an opportunity for something really wonderful here. And so I think Cary Moon and then Mike McGinn and others tapped into that - tapped into a really strong community desire to have a better waterfront. I wasn't that politically engaged at the time in the 2000s - I was just a grad student at UW - but just talking to folks who I knew, anytime this came up - God, wouldn't it be wonderful down there if this was oriented towards people and not cars, and we took that thing down? So I think one of the things you're going to see is this contest between the vision that many of us in Seattle had and still have - this beautiful location, beautiful vista on Elliott Bay, that should be for the people of the city - and those in power who have a very different vision and don't really want to share power or ultimately the right-of-way with We the People. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And I was involved in some things at the time - some curious coalitions - but definitely I was around a lot of people who favored either rebuilding the viaduct or the tunnel. Definitely not this roads and transit option - there's no way that's workable. That's pie-in-the-sky talk from those loony greenies over there. What are you talking about? But as this went on - I think no matter what camp people were in - there was always a clear vision articulated and people really focused on the opportunity that this represented, and I think correctly characterized it as - this is one of these generational decisions that we get to make that is going to impact the next generation or two and beyond. And there's an opportunity - the waterfront felt very disconnected with the way things were constructed - it was not easy just to go from downtown to the waterfront. It wasn't friendly for pedestrians. It wasn't friendly for tourists. It just did not feel like a world-class waterfront in a world-class city, and how we see that in so many other cities. You talk about the decision with the Embarcadero, Robert, and looking at - that definitely seemed like a definitive step forward. This was sold as - yeah, we can absolutely take a step forward and finally fix this waterfront and make it what it should have been the whole time. As you thought about the opportunity that this represented, what was the opportunity to you and what did you hear other people saying that they wanted this to be? [00:09:38] Mike McGinn: Yeah, so I think there are - I think that's really important, because I don't think there was a real discussion of what the vision was. People will say there was, but there really wasn't. Because what was baked in and what you're referring to is - well, of course you have to build automobile capacity to replace the existing automobile capacity, right? In fact, this state is still building more highways across the state in the misguided belief that more highway capacity will somehow or another do some good. So this idea that you have to replace and expand highway capacity is extremely powerful in Washington state and across the country. And there were very few examples of highway removal, so that was just a real challenge in the first place - that somehow or other the first priority has to be moving automobiles. For me, at that time I had become - the issue of climate had really penetrated me at that point. And in fact, when Greg Nickels took office and the Sierra Club endorsed him over Paul Schell - I was a local leader in the Sierra Club and a state leader in the Sierra Club - and my goal was that Mayor Nickels would do more than Paul Schell. And Paul Schell, the prior mayor, had done some good things. He had made Seattle City Light climate neutral - we'd gotten out of coal plants and we didn't purchase power from coal plants. He was really progressive on a number of environmental issues and we wanted Mayor Nickels to do more - and Mayor Nickels had stepped up. So we put on a campaign to urge him to do more. And he had stepped up to start something called the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative - which was the City of Seattle was going to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol, which was like the Paris Agreement of its day. And that was - it set an emissions reduction target by a date in the future. And that was really great - in fact, over a thousand cities around the country signed up to the Mayors' Climate Protection Initiative. And I was appointed to a stakeholder group with other leaders - Denis Hayes from the Bullitt Foundation and others - to develop the first climate action plan for a city. Al Gore showed up at the press conference for it - it was a big - it was a BFD and a lot of excitement. And one of the things that was abundantly clear through that process of cataloging the emissions in the City of Seattle and coming up with a plan to reduce them was that our single largest source of emissions at that time was the transportation sector. We'd already gotten off of coal power under Mayor Schell - we received almost all of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. We had good conservation programs. Unlike other parts of the country, transportation was the biggest. Now what's fascinating is now - I don't know if I want to do the math - almost 20 years later, now what we see is that the whole country is in the same place. We're replacing coal and natural gas power plants. And now nationally, the single largest source of emissions is transportation. So how do you fix that? If we're serious about climate - and I thought we should be - because the scientists were telling us about heat waves. They were telling us about forest fires that would blanket the region in smoke. They were telling us about storms that would be bigger than we'd ever seen before. And flooding like we'd never seen and declining snowpack. And it was all going to happen in our futures. Honestly, I remember those predictions from the scientists because they're in the headlines today, every day. So what do we do to stop that? So I was - I had little kids, man - I had little kids, I had three kids. How are we going to stop this? Well, it's Seattle needs to lead - that's what has to happen. We're the progressive city. We're the first one out with a plan. We're going to show how we're going to do it. And if our biggest source is transportation, we should fix that. Well, it should seem obvious that the first thing you should do is stop building and expanding highways, and maybe even change some of the real estate used for cars and make it real estate for walking, biking, and transit. That's pretty straightforward. You also have to work on more housing. And this all led me to starting a nonprofit around all of these things and led to the Sierra Club - I think at a national level - our chapter was much further forward than any other chapter on upzones and backyard cottages and making the transition. So to me, this was the big - that was the vision. That was the opportunity. We're going to tear this down. We're going to make a massive investment in changing the system, and this in fact could be a really transformative piece. That's what motivated me. That climate argument wasn't landing with a whole bunch of other interests. There was certainly a vision from the Downtown and Downtown property owners and residents that - boy, wouldn't it be great to get rid of that elevated highway because that's terrible. There was also a vision from the people who still believed in highway capacity and that includes some of our major employers at the time and today - Boeing and Microsoft, they have facilities in the suburbs around Seattle - they think we need highway capacity. As well as all of the Port businesses, as well as all the maritime unions - thought that this highway connection here was somehow critical to their survival, the industrial areas. And then they wanted the capacity. So there were very strong competing visions. And I think it's fair to say that highway capacity is a vision - we've seen that one is now fulfilled. The second priority was an enhanced physical environment to enhance the property values of Downtown property owners. And they cut the deal with the highway capacity people - okay, we're here for your highway capacity, but we have to get some amenities. And the climate folks, I'm not seeing it - never a priority of any of the leaders - just wasn't a priority. [00:15:44] Crystal Fincher: How did you see those factions come into play and break down, Robert? [00:15:48] Robert Cruickshank: It was interesting. This all comes to a head in the late 2000s. And remembering back to that time, this is where Seattle is leading the fight to take on the climate and the fight against George W. Bush, who was seen as this avatar of and deeply connected to the oil industry. Someone who - one of his first things when he took office - he did was withdraw the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol, which is the earlier version of what's now known as the Paris Agreement - global agreement to try to lower emissions. And so Seattle, in resisting Bush - that's where Greg Nickels became a national figure by leading the Mayors' Climate Action Group - not just say we're going to take on climate, we're going to do something about really de facto fighting back against Bush. And then Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore comes out with An Inconvenient Truth. And by 2007, people in Seattle are talking a lot about climate and how we need to do something about climate. But then what you see... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29510073

Week in Review: January 12, 2024 - with Shauna Sowersby 01/12/2024

Week in Review: January 12, 2024 - with Shauna Sowersby On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Washington State government reporter for McClatchy, Shauna Sowersby! Crystal and Shauna recount the terrifying details of a hole blowing out the side of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 midflight, the response by Alaska Airlines, and what steps the National Transportation Safety Board is taking to get to the bottom of the incident. They then shift gears and discuss Inslee’s final State of the State address, the start of the Washington state legislative session, and how $700k has been spent by the State Transportation Department on boulders to discourage homeless from returning to encampments. Finally, Crystal wraps up with a rundown of a Seattle City Council staff shakeup less than a week into new Council President Sara Nelson’s term. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Shauna Sowersby at . Shauna Sowersby Shauna Sowersby was a freelancer for several local and national publications before joining McClatchy’s northwest newspapers covering the Legislature. Before that, Shauna worked for the US Navy as a photographer and journalist. Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Dominic Gates from The Seattle Times “” by Dominic Gates from The Seattle Times “” by Dominic Gates from The Seattle Times “” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune “” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune “” by Shauna Sowersby from The Olympian “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and 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 my robust conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich about the ineffectiveness of incarceration. We hope everyone listens as the pressure to double down on the punitive status quo intensifies. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Washington State government reporter for McClatchy, Shauna Sowersby. Hello. [00:01:24] Shauna Sowersby: Hi, Crystal - thanks for having me on again. [00:01:27] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - thanks for coming on. We have a lot to discuss. I think this week we will start with what has been dominating the news and is quite concerning to many. And that is what has followed from the Alaska Airlines flight that had a door plug basically fall off during a flight and cause a rapid depressurization, forced the plane to return back to Portland - it was on its way to Ontario, California. And my goodness, so much has happened in the aftermath. What happened in this incident? [00:02:06] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, so what it appears like - kind of after the fact, after they've been given a few days to kind of look this over - was that, I believe, one of the theories is that the plug was not properly, the door plug was not properly put into place. They're not aware if it was even screwed down completely to begin with, if those screws were even there at all, or what's going on. But it sounds like a lot of those - if not most of those - flights have now been grounded so that they can kind of inspect that issue a little bit more. [00:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so all of the 737 MAX 9 aircraft have been grounded by the FAA. Initially, Alaska announced that they were going to ground them pending a maintenance inspection, which they had started and had already said - Hey, a couple of the inspections had already been complete, we're ready to fly again. The FAA actually stepped in and said - No, we're actually going to ground these - or the NTSB stepped in and said - We're going to ground them, we want a robust inspection. And they have decided to do that. And they actually don't have a time for return yet from that grounding - and they've learned more. The nature of airplanes, airlines, as they're constructed, is it's not just Boeing. Boeing has subcontractors and suppliers that are also responsible for part of the assembly. And in this situation, Spirit AeroSystems, based out of Wichita, Kansas, is the subcontractor that is responsible for installing this door plug. And then Boeing in Renton is responsible for the final inspection of the component before sealing it behind installation and the sidewall. Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times is their aerospace reporter and has done a number of articles on this - useful to follow him and his reporting if you want to stay on top of this. But it just really seems, just like you said, that it seems pretty obvious that this was not installed correctly. Both United and Alaska in their inspections have found multiple problems associated with this door plug installment - whether it's loose bolts, some bolts or some hardware that may not be in the right place or missing - they just don't know what's happening. And this causes a lot of questions about the quality control of both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems. [00:04:27] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, all of this, too, is just so harrowing. I know you and I, before the show started, were kind of talking about the folks who didn't show up for that flight. I believe Dominic also wrote the article about - from the mother's perspective, who had to hold on to her child as the flight was trying to land an emergency landing. So yeah, I mean, this stuff - I'm glad that they grounded everything when they did. My own daughter actually had a flight out Saturday by herself, after Friday night had happened, on an Alaska flight. So we were kind of holding our breath for that and really glad to see the news Saturday morning that they had grounded all of those flights, but still - not something people want to be thinking about before they're boarding their flights. [00:05:15] Crystal Fincher: Not something people want to be thinking about and also just another unpleasant incident for Boeing after their previous quite lengthy grounding of MAX airliners - following that software error that led to fatal crashes that took quite some time to fix. And kind of ironically, Boeing was also seeking a safety exemption for that other plane - had just requested it within hours of this incident happening on this type of plane. So there's still - looks like quite a lot to be determined, looks like the NTSB in its preliminary findings are really focusing on Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems. There was a question about an indicator light saying, you know, there may be something going on with the depressurization system that Alaska Airlines chose to - they followed up on, they saw it, they didn't seem like they quite got to the root cause of what it was, but they said - Okay, so we won't send these planes on long haul flights, we won't send them over water so that if anything happens, they'll be able to get to an airport quickly. Which on one hand, some people said, Why are they flying it at all? And on the other hand, people said, Well, that may have actually saved some lives, depending. One thing that is absolutely clear is it's fortunate this depressurization happened at the relatively low altitude that it did - at 16,000 feet, instead of much higher up, which could have had this wind up being a very, very different and much more tragic story - if it would have depressurized at a much higher altitude or typical cruising altitude. And just more questions surrounding even Boeing and their training and preparation for this aircraft. One of the findings was, occurrences that happened was that when the depressurization happened, the cockpit door flew open, which Boeing says - Well, it's designed to do that, that's supposed to happen. The pilots didn't know that. No one on the plane knew that. And that also caused a checklist - this is important information that the pilots are dealing with - to just fly out of the cabin. So they're down information, trying to manage an emergency, one of the pilots' headset fell off or was sucked off as that happened. Yeah, so I mean, this was a harrowing thing. Very, very happy that the injuries that did occur were relatively minor. But it does seem like it was a really traumatic experience. As you said, that article detailing the mother having to basically hold on to her son whose shirt and headphones had been sucked off. And then basically her seatmate holding on to her, as she's holding on to her son. The flight attendants - because of how they were positioned and the noise and everything - they knew that there was a depressurization, but they didn't actually really know that there was a gaping hole in the plane, which also delayed them getting to help this mom and her son. And she's staring out at the ground 16,000 feet below, trying to hold on to her kid - just, I can't even imagine. But this has certainly caused me to feel uncomfortable about flying on these MAX planes and just wondering - Okay, so they're inspecting all of this. Well, are they inspecting everything on the planes? Because I think there's a lot of people questioning - this is a quality control issue. What else may be escaping their attention? So I do hope that we do get to the bottom of this. It does seem like the NTSB generally does very thorough investigations and inspections. They seem like they're being cautious and just their plan to deal with this - making Boeing revise their safety materials and warnings for pilots and airlines to reflect the reality of the situation that we know now. So this is quite challenging, but also - looking at having potential regional economic effects again. What does this mean for Boeing, who's one of our region's largest employers? What does this mean for Alaska Airlines, and potentially United, having to cancel a lot of flights? Just a lot of questions. But there has to be absolute confidence in the safety of air travel or else everything unravels from there. So we'll see how this continues to unfold. [00:09:27] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, I'm really curious to know what's going on internally at Boeing right now. And, you know, if we're actually going to see any action on that front in the coming weeks as well. [00:09:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And it does seem like Boeing initially is taking a little bit different of, is operating a little bit differently in the beginning of this challenge that it did initially in the beginning of the last MAX issue challenge. They seem to be stressing that they plan to be transparent, that they plan to be accessible, that they're trying to support their partner airlines, saying that they know they need to get this right and rebuild trust. So it is a different stance that hopefully, I mean, after learning how seemingly trying to cover things up or discount things before did not turn out that well. And that this is a real crisis. So yeah, we'll see how everyone approaches this and what the findings continue to uncover. [00:10:28] Shauna Sowersby: I will be looking forward to it. [00:10:30] Crystal Fincher: As will I. Well, here in the state of Washington - as we start a new year, not only is there a new start of the legislative session, which just convened, but also we get our annual State of the State from Jay Inslee, who has announced that he's in his final term. He will not be running, he is not running for reelection. What did he have to say in his State of the State address? [00:10:55] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, it seemed to me like Inslee really wanted to highlight his last - he mentioned that this was his 11th State of the State that he's given, this will be his last one as governor. And so I - this one seemed to be highlighting a lot of the things that he believes are wins for Washington state. The one that comes to the top of my head is the regional training centers for law enforcement officials that they had opened out in Pasco - so to him, that's a really big issue. He mentioned climate issues, of course - talking about the CCA [Climate Commitment Act] and being proud of that work. Also brought up housing from last year and all the bills that were passed to increase the supply of housing. So he just kind of went through all the things over the last three terms that he's been in that he believes the state has done really well. [00:11:49] Crystal Fincher: What was the reaction to his State of the State address, both by lawmakers in his party who are Democrats and by Republicans? [00:11:58] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, I would say the Democrats are cautiously optimistic, it seems like. I would say - well, Laurie Jinkins did say that she is very optimistic. But, you know, it seems like some of the other ones are a little bit more cautiously optimistic about the things that Inslee is saying. Republicans - Jerry Cornfield asked them a question the other day, because he felt like they were kind of focusing too negatively on on issues. So he's like - Is there anything nice that you do have to say? And it seemed like there was kind of a struggle to come up with that, as they were listing out all these kind of other issues that they were bringing up - public safety and things of that nature. [00:12:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it'll be interesting. There are going to be a number of ballot initiatives that they're gearing up for that are going to be on the ballot. So they are certainly in a critical mood and are trying to ride that all the way through to November. But there are - agree with them or disagree with them - there have been some major landmark achievements under Jay Inslee. One of the biggest and most recent is the Climate Commitment Act, the CCA, which is raising quite a bit of money from pricing carbon, basically - trading credits that are trying to cap emissions and have that money be reinvested in policies and infrastructure that helps to do the same. We'll see how that turns out to be, what the results and progress of that are as we get more reporting and tracking of what's going on - but certainly a lot of cause for optimism, a lot of opportunity to make some significant investments and movements towards decarbonization, reducing pollution, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Talking about public safety - that center that had been opened - as many municipalities talk about wanting to accelerate hiring and recruitment of police and sheriffs. This adds to the capacity to do that. We've talked about it before, but some people don't know there's quite a bit of lead time - once you hire an officer, it's not like you hire them today, they're on the street tomorrow. They do have to go through a training, quite extensive training, policies and procedures. And so it can be and often is a year plus from the time that they're hired to the time that they are actively on - working for a police or sheriff's department - so that expanding capacity. Talked about mental health treatment and support there, expanding capacity. There have also been some challenges in those areas, which I definitely saw Republicans point out. But kind of as you saw him wrapping up his final State of the State, did you see him trying to - was he contending with what he might view as his legacy or what he wanted to leave people with? How did you read this final State of the State address from Inslee? [00:15:02] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, I would say it was kind of exactly that. Like, hey, here's this reminder. Look at all of these things that I've done over the course of the last 11 years, 12 years. I feel like it definitely was written in such a way, or given in such a way, that it was to check all the boxes, show off all the things that he's done - understandably. There were a lot of good things that have been done, so why not show them off, I guess? [00:15:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. He also did say that he saw two grave threats in the US and the state - one to just the basic tenets of democracy, part of the larger conversation. The other is about reproductive rights and women having reproductive choice - and called on the legislature to enshrine reproductive protections in the State Constitution this session, something that did not get passed last year. So we will see if they decide to heed that call this session or not. What do you see as the prospects for that? [00:16:07] Shauna Sowersby: Well, Republicans have already stated that they are not on board with this idea at all. I think that's - it seems pretty unanimous across both Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House that it's just not going to happen. They believe that there's other issues that need to be taken care of. They - one of the things they always go to is - There's no threat to it here in Washington, it's already protected. Why would we need this additional measure? So they have very clearly stated that there is no appetite in their parties to pass this. And since this would be a constitutional amendment, it would require some Republican votes there as well. [00:16:49] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we talk about there being no threat, but we continue to see a number of Supreme Court cases that do have the potential to impact what we're doing here in the state and what's happening in other states - increasing demand, restricting capacity for what we're doing here in Washington state and what women have access to. So we will continue to follow along with that and see. But as you've been covering and have been talking about, our legislative session did start. There have been a couple of availabilities talking about priorities in this session. What are Democrats and Republicans saying are their priorities for this legislative session? [00:17:29] Shauna Sowersby: Yeah, it seems like everybody is on board with behavioral health and continuing that progress from last year. Of course, housing is on the docket for both parties. And what was it - even just on Monday, they already passed Rep. Barkis' lot-splitting bill off the House floor. So, you know, huge appetite to continue that work, it looks like. Public safety is another thing that I keep hearing from both parties, although I will say it seems like it's coming more from the Republicans than it is the Democrats. And those are some of the major issues I can think of kind of off of the top of my head. I know that the ballot initiatives from Let's Go Washington will also have, could have a major impact this year, too, on what the legislature decides to do once those are certified. They've talked about how they'll deal with them as they come to them. But that's also something - they need to need to watch out for as well. [00:18:31] Crystal Fincher: So when we talk about housing - obviously, there was some pretty significant action and movement on housing last session. What specifically are they talking about trying to accomplish this session? [00:18:44] Shauna Sowersby: Well, I will tell you that it doesn't seem like - this more pertains to rental housing - rent stabilization has come up and they've been asked about this many times. And so I know that that's been a really big issue for a lot of folks. And a lot of folks are really curious in this - and it doesn't seem like that one is... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29462703

RE-AIR: Evaluating the Role of Incarceration in Public Safety with Criminologist Damon Petrich 01/09/2024

RE-AIR: Evaluating the Role of Incarceration in Public Safety with Criminologist Damon Petrich As the public and policy makers at various levels of government are pressured to double down on punitive status quo approaches, we hope everyone listens to this re-air of Crystal’s robust conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich about the ineffectiveness of incarceration. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review’s finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at and reach Damon for more information about his research at Dr. Damon Petrich Dr. Damon M. Petrich is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati, and his Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and Master of Arts degrees in Criminology from Simon Fraser University. His research focuses on two interrelated areas. The first is the development of antisocial behavior across the life-course, specifically focusing on desistance from crime and the mechanisms by which exposure to community violence impacts self-regulation and behavior. Dr. Petrich’s second area of research surrounds the effectiveness of sanctions and programs in the criminal justice system. Throughout these projects, Dr. Petrich uses a wide range of methodological approaches, including qualitative techniques, meta-analysis, machine learning, and marginal structural modeling. Resources “” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice “” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative “” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada “” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog Book - “” by Robert J. Sampson Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “” “” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News 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. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29407743

Week in Review: January 5, 2024 - with Lex Vaughn 01/05/2024

Week in Review: January 5, 2024 - with Lex Vaughn On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn! Crystal and Lex dive into the new year’s headlines with a debate over Space Needle NYE drone shows vs fireworks, a rundown of new Washington state laws taking effect, and a discussion of why it’s important to look past a poll’s summary headline. They then chat about the new Seattle City Council taking office, a lawsuit against the City of Burien over its homeless camping law, and a new entrant into the Attorney General’s race. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Lex Vaughn at . Resources from Hacks & Wonks “” by Laurel Demkovich from Washington State Standard “” by Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut “” by Ryan Packer and Doug Trumm from The Urbanist “” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times “” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger | Office of the City Clerk “” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times “” by Eric Rosane from Tri-City Herald 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 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 important conversation I had with Dr. Ben Danielson, director of AHSHAY Center about ending youth incarceration. 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: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. [00:01:20] Lex Vaughn: Hey, nice to be back. [00:01:21] Crystal Fincher: Hey, great to have you back - excited to have you back. I don't know that I'm excited to talk about everything on our list today, but we've got to get through it. But I do- [00:01:33] Lex Vaughn: There's a lot. [00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: There's a lot. And so - first show of the new year - we just had New Year's Eve, New Year's Day happen and we welcome that in in the greater Seattle area with a big Space Needle fireworks show. This year, it was a drone show pre-show and then a fireworks main show. And this year, there was a bit of a challenge with it - it was a smoky, hazy, kind of unintelligible soupy mess. What did you think about it? [00:02:09] Lex Vaughn: I was like, what is this? It's 2024 - did someone read like the last part of the year backwards, like 420, and go - This is a 420-themed New Year's Eve celebration? I don't know - it was funny. I mean, I was celebrating out-of-state with family, but I immediately was getting messages from people like - Did you see this? Did you see this? I mean, honestly, I think that - I know that a lot of people are flipping out and going like, Something needs to be done - but this is Seattle. Come on - you know that the Space Needle thing doesn't always work as planned and that's part of the fun. And the look of it was definitely fun this last year. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: You know, it was interesting - weather is always, always a factor in anything that happens in this region, whether it's 4th of July celebrations or New Year's Eve. I think for me, I have just been, I mean, I'm someone who has traditionally loved fireworks for most of my life and has enjoyed them. Yes, 100%. But I also, especially over the past couple of years, contending with the smoke generated by fireworks - not on New Year's Eve, but you know, July 4th, mostly, but I guess the neighborhoods on New Year's Eve - the fire hazard associated with it, which is definitely worse in the summer than it is in the winter. It just seems like now we have the option for drone shows and those seem like they're a bit more resilient - they don't create smoke. And part of the challenge of this current show was the way that the fireworks and the smoke interacted with the atmosphere, kind of making each other worse, making visibility worse. And it just seems like, okay - I am ready to move on from fireworks and to move on to drone shows. They seem like they can do everything the fireworks shows do and more. And it just seems like given where we are at with our climate, given where we are at with the volatility of just Seattle weather period, that it seems like it makes more sense to me to do that. But you know, I don't know if that's an option moving forward. You know, I don't know what's gonna happen with that. I'm not in any way affiliated with that. So it'll be interesting to see, but I wish we could move beyond fireworks personally. [00:04:38] Lex Vaughn: I'll never be over fireworks. I want that - well, I don't know - it's like, I know there's a lot of debate over it. But I also think any attempt to lessen fireworks only increases fireworks. So honestly, the best plan for reducing fireworks all over a region is always like a big, you know, show that people can watch. And when I, you know, go back to my hometown in California for New Year's or July 4th - that city stopped doing a central fireworks show. And what happened is just a proliferation of fireworks all over the city. There's just like a fireworks show going on everywhere all night. So I always think it's worth it to have one big show or you're gonna get that. [00:05:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I do think that a big show that the community can come to is important. In the absence of that, people are definitely going to celebrate on their own. I'm just thinking the big show can be a drone show. We saw a pretty successful pre-show - I thought - [00:05:45] Lex Vaughn: The drone show is a good backup. I mean, especially in Seattle, 'cause it's like, you know, you might be excited about a show and then, something about the weather happens and it's - Oh, you're not gonna see anything. So it's like the drone show is the only thing that can be guaranteed if it can move to a little space where it's free from smoke or clouds or whatever. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, also wanna talk about a few more things this new year is ushering in, and that's a number of new state laws taking effect as of January 1st. One of them includes marijuana testing and changing in how that can be used by employers. Under the new law, employers are blocked from conducting drug tests for cannabis when making hiring decisions. They can still test for other drugs before hiring and they can still test employees for cannabis in certain situations, like after accidents or if they suspect someone's impaired. There are also some exemptions for companies that need to test for federal requirements and other workers potentially - including police, airline crews, corrections officers - may still have to test. But it's a pretty significant change in just kind of pre-employment testing overall - that's done with a lot of lower wage jobs, certainly not so much predominant and higher wage jobs. But it does, there has been a tension for quite some time in going - Okay, well, if it's legal, then why are you testing for it? And so this seems to bring things more in line. Do you think that makes sense? [00:07:21] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, and I hope the message of a law like this is it's not worth it because you could be breaking the law and you can get sued. Like it's a liability for you now to try to judge people this way - If you haven't like sped up with the times here and realize that it's generally not that big of a deal to use cannabis. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Another law that took place is a - that is taking effect - is a 10-day gun waiting period. So as of now, those wishing to buy a firearm in Washington need to complete a background check and then wait 10 business days before they can complete that purchase. We've seen this referred to as kind of a cooling off period before wanting to purchase a gun and actually owning one. We have certainly seen a number of examples from mass shootings to domestic violence situations where people use guns to murder people immediately after purchasing them. And so while no gun reform is going to solve everything - usually no anything solves anything for everything - and it really is gonna take a patchwork of policies and laws to move forward. And this seems like a positive one to me that has some evidence behind it. [00:08:39] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, honestly, this is like, I think the most positive new law of this next year that I'm really looking forward to seeing put in place and I hope becomes more commonplace because like you said - yeah, there's a lot of reform that needs to happen to make this country safer from gun violence. But this cooling off period is a major one. When I was a reporter at The Seattle Times, I definitely covered some very tragic situations where it was very clear that a young man or something was distraught over somebody breaking up with them and made a horrible decision really quickly. And it's like in a lot of these cases, it's - what could have happened if this person had just been held to a few more days of thought before pulling that off. [00:09:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another law taking effect impacts hospital staffing. Hospitals in Washington need to establish staffing committees made up of nursing staff and administrators. This is in response to years of advocacy really by healthcare workers saying that - Hey, these staffing ratios have gotten way out of whack. We're not able to provide adequate care to patients, patient care quality is suffering and we need to get back to staffing ratios - happening during a time where we're losing healthcare workers. There's been a lot of attrition. The pandemic only has made that worse. And so this is trying to still allow hospitals to have their say, but to do it with the input of nurses and hospital staff to say - Let's put patient safety first. Let's really work on these ratios and make sure that we're moving in the right direction and really putting patients at the center of this year. And I think this is a step forward in this direction that will bring a little bit more transparency and accountability to the process. [00:10:43] Lex Vaughn: And it's awesome that hospital staff is getting this extra leverage to make that happen. Because I mean, obviously they've been pressing for stuff like that as unions and all. But it's crazy the way they have to fight to give us quality care. Increasingly, unfortunately, in our health systems here in the US, it's like a lot of hospital administrators are more focused on turning hospitals into these profit machines without as much thought about what's happening to staff and their patients. And those staff - those are the ones rooting for us and protecting quality of care. [00:11:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So there's a new voting rights law. It's intended to address situations where there are signs of polarized voting among different groups in a community, and where there are risks to some groups having their votes diluted so they don't have a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. It makes it easier to try and address this with a couple different mechanisms - it allows organizations to sue on behalf of their members, it allows local governments to voluntarily reform their election systems to be more representative of their populations, and for lawsuits to be filed if the locality refused to take such steps. So it hopefully can bring the cost down. I mean, sometimes there are clear violations, but it has been very costly - prohibitively costly - for someone to pursue it if they feel they have been wrong and want to bring that in court. So this seeks to try and address that and provide a pathway for people to be able to sue without that cost prohibitive element involved and to recover costs they incur when researching those possible legal challenges. What are your thoughts on this one? [00:12:42] Lex Vaughn: I have to admit, I was like, when I, you know, just kind of heard about this one and got a general sense of it, I was like - wait, what? This sounds a little bit confusing to me. The motivation of it is just that like, if someone is feeling outnumbered in a community, that they have strength and power to - I have to admit like this one, I didn't totally get, 'cause I don't know if I've seen a law like that before. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is in line with previous voting rights act laws. And we have passed legislation in the same vein - I think five years ago, we passed a voting rights act in the same vein. But it's really an issue of like - we see a challenge when it comes to districting that's happening right now in Yakima, or issues where it looks like - Okay, a community's overwhelmingly voting in the same way if you look at it geographically, but things are sliced up and that's not turning out the way it is in government. I mean, there's a case to be made in a city I'm pretty familiar with - the city of Kent, the largest city in the state that doesn't have any council districts, no form of districted government, which makes the government certainly less representative than it is in other areas. But to try and bring a case or bring a suit and rectify this has been prohibitively expensive. You can see something being wrong, but whether you can pursue any remedy or whether there's any recourse is a whole different subject. And so it's like - okay, we see that there are problems happening, but we don't have the tools and power to make it realistic to expect something to be done about it. And if someone doesn't expect something to be done about a violation, if they see that there's no consequence for bad actions, it makes it more likely that that's going to happen. So this makes it more likely that - hey, if you are violating the law, if there are violations happening here, you can expect more of a consequence for that than you did before. So hopefully one that prevents further violations from happening, but for those that currently are, it makes them easier to remedy and rectify. So I think that's a positive step. Will it solve anything? Will it immediately change anything? I don't think this is like an immediately transformative piece of policy - we're going to see something that flips from night to day in this. But I do think that it's part of, again, patchwork of legislation like most things that makes it easier to hold people and entities that are violating voting rights laws accountable and to give people more tools to fix it. [00:15:25] Lex Vaughn: And maybe like slow the role of people who were planning on exploiting people in new ways or something like that. [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: Yes. Because there's a lot of that happening right now. Okay. Absolutely. Another law that a lot of cities have been dealing with is one that addresses street racing. So this law imposes tougher penalties for street racing. If you're caught, you can have your car impounded for three days on the first offense and forfeited on the second one. It also increases penalties for those who are found to be aiding and abetting street racers. I don't know if this is going to get there. I mean, that seems like a really tough penalty. I am not personally familiar with how these laws have resulted in any changes, or whether they've resulted in any changes. But it seems like they're trying to do more. That people are seeing that this is a problem - and it is a problem - it's a problem for a variety of reasons. And they're trying to do something to address it - and hopefully it does help. We will see. [00:16:28] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, I think it's - of course this is dangerous. I mean, whenever I hear something like this happened - I can't believe sometimes I hear this happened in Seattle sometimes. I'm like - What street are you on? Oh my God. This is horrible. This is not the place. But I think the thing is - there is a culture for this that will always be there. And no matter what law you put in place, I mean, you're just going to make it sexier. So, I mean, honestly, I wish that there was some way to - I don't know - give people a space to do this more safely or something. That's the real solution, 'cause it is going to keep happening. [00:17:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're onto something there. I mean, clearly you're right - there's a culture around that - and I mean, it's so interesting. And it's kind of an offshoot of car culture. There are car enthusiasts and this is a subset of that. And it's kind of tangential, but we, as a community, as a society have been reducing the number of just alternative, recreational opportunities in spaces, particularly for younger people. And then criminalizing a lot of activity there. Some of that, you know, may be warranted. Not all activity is positive. Like we said, there's a lot of danger associated with street racing, but what are we doing to give people options to do safer activities? Whether it's racing activities or others, if we aren't providing positive, affirmative options, particularly for younger people - places for people to congregate and share that don't require an entry fee, that don't require purchase necessarily, that are places where people can congregate and recreate and do things that are meaningful to them together - that we're moving in the wrong direction overall. I think that's a valid concern and one we need to do better with as a community and society. [00:18:28] Lex Vaughn: But it's not going away. So it's - we just need a more proactive approach. [00:18:35] Crystal Fincher: Yep, and so we will keep our eye on how these laws pan out, on new laws as they pass. We have a new legislative session starting on Monday, and we'll be following along with what happens there. But we're seeing these results now and we'll keep paying attention. Also wanna talk this week about a new Crosscut poll that was just released - part of the poll at least. And the headline of this poll is - Washington voters want to spend more - while cutting taxes. Also another headline saying that 57% of people are in favor of repealing the state's new capital gains tax. Now this is interesting. We've talked about this before in the podcast, but polls are very interesting things. And it's very important to pay attention to the questions asked, who they're being asked of, and what the particulars are in this. And this one - I think there are some interesting findings in this poll, I think that you have to dig a lot deeper than these headlines. And I think that this doesn't actually tell us much about what voters' likelihood of voting for or against some of these questions asked in here. And one of the reasons why this is being asked is because there is likely to be an initiative, a statewide initiative, to repeal this tax. But it's very important to actually read the poll, to go beyond the synopsis in the article and to take a look at the actual poll. And when we do that, we see that these questions were asked in a way that they aren't asked when people are invested in, where like people working, right - if you're actually working on this thing, you would not trust this. You're not asking questions... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29358533

RE-AIR: Ending Youth Incarceration with Dr. Ben Danielson of AHSHAY Center 01/02/2024

RE-AIR: Ending Youth Incarceration with Dr. Ben Danielson of AHSHAY Center As a new year starts with hope and possibility, please enjoy this Sept 2023 re-air where @finchfrii welcomes Dr. Ben Danielson, director of AHSHAY (Allies in Healthier Systems for Health & Abundance in Youth) Center, for an important conversation about ending youth incarceration. With King County’s commitment to end youth detention by 2025 looming and AHSHAY’s goal to end youth incarceration in Washington state by 2030, they discuss how punishment does not equate to community safety and is in fact harmful. Dr. Danielson describes how their work includes both the building and unbuilding of systems - building through support of proven community-based programs and unbuilding through recognition and tearing down of ingrained systems that only add trauma to young people’s lives. By amplifying the brilliance he sees in community, working to break down silos and barriers, and loving those who are loving our communities, Dr. Danielson hopes we all can take collective action to promote the ability to thrive for young people everywhere. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find out more about Dr. Ben Danielson’s work at the AHSHAY Center . Dr. Ben Danielson Dr. Ben Danielson is a clinical professor of pediatrics at UW Medicine, community leader in health equity, and the director of Allies in Healthier Systems for Health & Abundance in Youth (AHSHAY) Center. Ben believes in young people. He believes in both collective liberation and in being pro-Black. He asserts that the right-thing-to-do is known and we must not talk ourselves out of doing it. He believes there is an abundance of brilliance all around us and that we do not lack ideas or effective approaches to even our greatest challenges. Ben understands that the best solutions most often come from the wisdom of those most impacted by injustice. He holds bold certainty that cultivating relationships makes for a better world. Ben has benefitted from co-conspiring with brilliant youth and a wide array of compassionate people. He realizes he is often the least useful member of the circles he joins and he is inspired – every day – by the young people, families, communities, and organizations with whom he interacts. There is a profound joy that each of us is due. It comes from a deep regard for our ancestral paths, the powerful love of those who know us, a reflective understanding of our worth and purpose, a sense of dignity that is expressly offered and received, a flywheel of discovery based on the unfading spark of curiosity, and the honor of sharing the long collective journey together. Resources “” from UW Medicine Newsroom “” by Marcus Harrison Green from The Seattle Times “” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times | King County - a plan for youth healing, accountability, and community safety “” by Kim Malcolm & Andy Hurst from KUOW “” by Naomi Ishisaka from The Seattle Times “” by Ben Danielson and Victoria Peattie Helm for The Seattle Times - prevention based, restorative program empowering youth of color to become proactive leaders in society - transforms systems of injustice & supports the young people who are too often impacted by those systems - create alternatives to incarceration for youth and young adults by rebuilding our communities through committed relationships centered on love, compassion, and consistency “” by Jake Ellison from UW News - works to end youth homelessness and to ensure that young people are valued for who they are and empowered to achieve their potential - elevates the power, autonomy, and leadership of the Black intersex & gender diverse community through intersectional legal and social services Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. I am thrilled to be having this guest and conversation today on the show. I want to welcome Dr. Ben Danielson, clinical professor of pediatrics at UW and director of AHSHAY Center. Welcome, Dr. Danielson. [00:01:08] Dr. Ben Danielson: Thanks so much - I'm really happy to be able to join you today. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: I'm really happy to have this conversation today - it's a very important conversation to have. And that is because King County has made a commitment to end youth incarceration by 2025, which is just around the corner - there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that we deliver on this commitment - and that is informing and underpinning the work at the AHSHAY Center. Can you tell me a little bit about what went into the formation of this and what brings you to this work? [00:01:42] Dr. Ben Danielson: Well, I'm a pediatrician - a primary care pediatrician - that worked in Seattle's Central District for a couple of decades and served an amazing community of mostly low-income, very diverse, incredible families and kids - such an honor to be part of that space. And as a Black man, I was also very aware of the great disproportionality of the youth that were being drawn into youth detention at the facility that was almost around the corner from the clinic I worked in in the Central District - and how the injustices that were stacked and piled all the way back, to maybe early childhood and before, that were leading to that vortex was really, really deeply concerning. Came to a point of deep reflection for myself and had to really ask - What can I be doing to actually be promoting the well-being, the wellness, the health, the ability to thrive for young people, especially Black and brown people, in this area? And I could not keep from seeing how youth detention was ruining lives, is ruining lives - especially Black lives - in this county and across this country. I'm surprised there aren't more physicians and pediatricians involved directly in this work, and I'm also hoping that the opportunity to contribute to helping end youth incarceration will be something that more and more people can get on board with. I wish there was more of a strong health presence in this space. I wish we had less silos and more collaborative work in this space, and I really started the AHSHAY Center to help support the brilliance that has already existed for a long time in communities and around us trying to end youth incarceration. [00:03:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, there may be some people listening who think - Well, isn't youth incarceration a public safety issue? Shouldn't police be dealing with this? Why is a doctor concerned with this? - What do you say to people thinking that? [00:03:56] Dr. Ben Danielson: Well, first, I back up - and one thing I've learned, as my hair grows a little grayer, is the importance of just being willing to engage in conversations with people who might start from a very different place than me and really trying to understand what their concerns are, where we might share common ground, what the relevant issues are. You asked that question from what sounded like a public safety perspective. If I'm being my usual nerdy self, I would look at the data - and I would know for myself that if you're trying to make communities safer, then the last thing you want to do is incarcerate young people. The data just proves that that does not work. In fact, it works in the opposite direction - it creates more likelihood that young people will be arrested again and again. And we have great solutions in communities, done by amazing people for a long time now, that actually reduce what they call recidivism - crime from happening more and more - and it makes the communities safer. So if someone's coming to me with - We need to be making our communities safe - then what I know in my heart, what my community tells me, and what the data says is that you should not be incarcerating young people. [00:05:13] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. Absolutely true that the evidence shows that youth incarceration is harmful, actually - not helpful. It doesn't make us safer, it actually makes us less safe. Just wondering about - when we talk about harm and we talk about recidivism rates, what does that look like on the ground and in our communities? [00:05:33] Dr. Ben Danielson: Well, I guess I think a little bit about a young person's journey through our communities and how, as a young, young child sometimes - if you're a low-income or Black or brown, sometimes the images of what society says you can be, what maybe privileged society and white society says you can be is constrained and limited. The images around you of possibilities are sometimes less than they should be for a young person whose mind and heart are full of possibilities and ideas. As I think about them entering the school system, I know that the very same behavior for a Black child, for instance, that is also seen in a white child will lead that Black child to greater disciplinary action across our school systems, across this country - despite those school systems having wonderfully good intentions, people in them, and lots of people who really care about things like social justice and anti-racism. I know that that means that for that child, their chance of suspension and being sort of seen as somehow troubling to a school system can be started and reinforced - I had that very same experience myself as a young child - and that can perpetuate and spiral throughout the educational experience. I know that we have had practices like putting what they call safety officers, which are basically police in schools - and how for especially Black and brown communities, the presence of police more often in your life does not increase your safety, it increases the chances that you will be arrested. This is a concept that is not often appreciated in circles outside of Black community and low-income community, unfortunately, but more contact means more likelihood of being stopped by police. I understand that every step of the way, if you're Black and if you're low-income - but especially if you're Black - everything tilts more towards society trying to herd you towards incarceration. The chance of being stopped by a police officer goes up. The chance of that police officer deciding to detain you goes up. The chance of that police officer deciding to take you in and have charges filed goes up. The chance of those charges being more severe goes up. The chances of those charges and the severity leading to detention goes up. All of those things - the racism that's built into every part of that amplifying spiral - is really tragic. It's a tragedy. And that process leads to what we see - incredibly disproportionate rates of incarceration for Black and brown youth, especially. And what we see within the detention process is maybe still really good-hearted people trying to do their best to help young people, but in a system that is racist and in a system that - above and beyond the racism - also does not work, does not help to change or reduce the chances of a young person being rearrested. What I also see on this hopeful side is incredible community-based programs that are often maybe staffed by people who look like the young people that are serving, might have people associated with them that have had lived experiences that are really relevant and important, maybe recognize and identify people also who represent different pathways, different opportunities, different possibilities - working together to instill in a young person that sense of belonging, a sense of connection to their community, and a sense of reinvigoration of their sense of personal purpose, their meaning, their voices mattering. When that starts to happen, you see everything change - in Black communities and brown communities and white communities across this country. What I've learned on the sad side is that systems like systems of incarceration seek out young people who've already faced trauma and then traumatize them more. That feels like the most elemental of injustices to me - to take people who have faced harm, young people, and then harm them more. That is something that we all as citizens of this country, as people living in this country in any state of citizenship or otherwise, we just need to - we need to reckon with that. We need to account for that. If there weren't great alternatives - man, it'd just be a hard conversation for you and me to have. If there weren't resources out there that were showing that they were working, it'd be a theoretic conversation. We are so far beyond that. And it's a shame for us as a country and as a county - is that rather than face truth and reality and data and hearts and minds and everything else that we've seen, we continue to practice something that is harming our young people. I don't know if that answered your question - there was a lot of ramble. [00:10:39] Crystal Fincher: No, it absolutely does. And I think it lays out just what is at stake here. And I do appreciate how you concluded that - with we do have models that are working. We do have programs that are setting people up for success instead of incarceration and failure. So with all of that in mind, what is the approach that AHSHAY is taking? What is the work that you have ahead of you? [00:11:09] Dr. Ben Danielson: One thing I notice, working as part of an amazing and brilliant Black community and being part of an academic system and our healthcare system, is just how super siloed a lot of our efforts really are. Really great people doing great work and yet, structurally and sometimes for lots of other reasons, a lot of that work remains kind of siloed. And this sounds strange, but I think over the course of time - one of the privileges I've attained from going from being a low-income child sleeping in a car kind of stuff to having a lot of privilege, resource-wise and otherwise, is that maybe that also is a position of connection, of interconnection, or of bridging. And so one of the deep tenets of AHSHAY work is maybe being able to sit in spaces that others don't always have an opportunity to, and maybe to help support the chances that people can move from silos to collaboration to collective action in different ways. All of this is a learning process for me - I'm the novice in the space of legal issues, clearly - I'm not one of those doctors that pretends that they're an expert in everything. And I've learned so much from incredible people in our communities - from the most active and incredible nonprofit leaders to just those grandmothers who are doing it every single day - with love, and with heart, and with sweat, and with hope, and pouring everything into our young people. There's so much we could be doing together. There's so much we are doing. It feels like perhaps AHSHAY just has a chance to channel brilliance, to catalyze connectedness, build on relationships, to maybe try to listen again to conversations that have historically gotten shut off, and then try to play some role in helping to amplify the good work and the good hearts and the good efforts that are out there. [00:13:15] Crystal Fincher: Definitely needed. So how does this work happen? [00:13:20] Dr. Ben Danielson: Ah, thank you. The way we think about it at the AHSHAY Center is sort of it's two armed, although they are related. You think about unbuilding the fortifications of youth incarceration and building up the fortifiers of health and striving for youth, often through work in community. It seems important to think both about unbuilding and building. I think a lot of our approaches, historically, have been about either running away from something - we gotta stop doing this, stop doing that, stop doing that - it's a very almost medical related thing about stopping harm. We also have to couple that with really building the institutional resources, the connectedness, the best elements of community that allow us to work through our issues together, to maintain sustaining and thriving relationships. And so you gotta build stuff too, even as you unbuild things - another thing community has taught me. So building both a sense of the acknowledgement of hope that we can create communities that can support youth even through problem and problematic moments - that maybe if we talked about justice, we really should be talking about the fullness of that, especially for young people - what it means to never feel like you got kicked out of your society, your community because of a transgression. But that that meant that the community held you even more strongly and closely, and held you accountable, and allowed you to be accountable, and allowed you to grow through a moment. And allowed you to be sort of healed and restored through that process, because a lot of what was happening in that moment was because of things that have been happening to you and to your generational line for a long time. The building also means a true reckoning, I think, for the racism that is so built into our systems, and requires that we actually build new systems rather than try to do little patches on the existing ones 'cause that just has proven itself not to work. The building means being able to build relationships and think about where we're going to - not just where we're running away from - and develop programs, policies and opportunities to feed into that building, that opportunity. The unbuilding is roll-up-your-sleeves work, right? Working with the county on its decommissioning plans for the detention center, working with community-based organizations on supporting their ability to get up into broader scale to amplify their work, helping to do things that might sound boring but are really important - like understanding what resources actually exist out there across our county, understanding how they interconnect, understanding how youth relate to them, and understanding how we sort of know the landscape that is around us in a way that pulls us out of our silos and helps us see each other - all kind of stuff like that. So we're working on the dreamscape and the landscape at the same time. [00:16:21] Crystal Fincher: I appreciate that approach so much. And obviously, you have been so well known for so long for the work that you have done - particularly in our Black local community - but this work of both building and unbuilding is absolutely necessary and I love that you articulate that so well and have built that into the work. When I talk to people kind of across the spectrum, even for people who are very supportive and encouraging and in-line with this vision, sometimes they have questions about - Okay, I know we need to invest in people, I know we need to unbuild harmful systems and build ones that will help keep us healthier and safer - but they don't really know what those programs look like, what that work is, and what specific kind of support is needed. When you talk about that and you're considering that with AHSHAY, what kinds of infrastructure, systems, supports are necessary to achieve the end of incarceration, but ultimately healthier and more positive and productive systems?... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29314878

Week in Review: December 29, 2023 - with Erica Barnett 12/29/2023

Week in Review: December 29, 2023 - with Erica Barnett On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! Crystal and Erica discuss how a City of Seattle audit of registered rental properties shows a shift from smaller rental properties to larger apartment buildings that mirrors national trends, rather than being a direct reaction to tenant protections that landlords often cite as an issue. They then call out local media outlets republishing a sensational story of a homeless landlord with a “nightmare tenant” without fact checking. On the public safety front, Crystal and Erica dig into the importance of the upcoming Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract and whether all the newcomers to City Council will get up to speed quickly enough. Finally, they chat about the departure of Sound Transit’s CEO and what it signifies about the embattled regional transit agency. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at and find today’s co-host, Erica Barnett, at . Resources “” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola “” by Katie Wilson from PubliCola “” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist “” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times “” from KUOW | Seattle Office of Inspector General “” by Robert Cruickshank for The Urbanist Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, after a hiatus, we are back with 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: Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:11] Erica Barnett: Hi, Crystal. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Hey - good to have you on. I've been gone for a while and I'm back - so happy to be back, with you on the program. And there were a few really interesting stories that have come out in PubliCola recently - first one I wanted to talk about was about an audit the City did on its housing supply. And really landlords, and whether renter protections - what effect they had - what the types of landlords we have in the city are, what the impacts they're having, and what kinds of things are impacting them. There's been a lot of talk and a lot of conversation about this as we have had broader conversations about the cost of housing - we're in a housing pricing crisis, the cost of housing is way too high - about homelessness and how the cost of housing is contributing to that. What can be done about it? - lots of renter protection initiatives being passed around the state. And this conversation has been happening with a lot of landlords - both big and small - saying - Hey, these are onerous laws and protections. These are gonna push us out of the market. This is gonna create a housing shortage in and of itself. And so the City decided to embark upon an audit to figure out what was really going on. What did they look at, and what did they find? [00:02:37] Erica Barnett: Well, the audit originally came out of some efforts by a few councilmembers - Kshama Sawant, Alex Pedersen and Sara Nelson - to sort of, I would say on Sawant and Pedersen's part, to demonstrate that so-called "mom and pop" landlords are going out of business as you said. And on Pedersen and Nelson's part - they're the more conservative councilmembers - to sort of demonstrate that all these tenant protections are the reason that landlords are being driven out of the market. The audit basically found that this is not really a specifically local-to-Seattle problem, it's a national problem. And whether it's a problem or not depends on your perspective. The very, very small rental properties - meaning single family houses or duplexes - are in fact going, the number is going down. Because of sales - because they look at the market and say, I can get a lot of money for selling this house. And they make a rational economic decision and do so. And because of demolitions to build more apartments. So there's broader factors going on here that are contributing to this, but overall - one other interesting finding from the audit is that the number of housing units has been going up, not down, even as these very small, single family houses, things like that are being sold. So there's a trend toward very large apartment buildings and away from these kind of older buildings. And that's just - I mean, it makes sense if you think about - it makes sense that this is a national situation, if you think about sort of how housing stock changes over. Buildings that are 180 years old don't last forever. And at a certain point, it just becomes a good economic decision for the landlord to sell to either a developer or somebody who wants to buy a house. [00:04:29] Crystal Fincher: And so where - this was one of the issues that they did look at closely - where landlords are saying, Hey, we're being pushed out, we just can't do this anymore. And so were these sales at a loss? Did it look like there was a mass exodus because of this legislation? [00:04:46] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I mean, I seriously doubt any of these sales, or many of these sales, were at a loss. I mean, just looking at the Seattle market, as you said, I mean, housing prices have been going up - not just rents, but obviously the cost of houses and property has been skyrocketing, particularly during the pandemic. And so I don't get the sense that there is an exodus of landlords getting out of the market at a loss. The audit did include a survey of landlords, but it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The survey found that landlords did complain quite a lot about restrictions and all kinds of regulations ranging from the need to let tenants know six months in advance that they're going to be raising rent to a 43-year-old law that says you - essentially it says that you can't evict people without a good reason, you can't just kick people out without having a specific set of reasons. So a lot of landlords don't like these rules - they complain about them, but I don't get the sense that that necessarily correlates with landlords getting out of the market. It seems much more like a market-driven decision in a lot of cases to me. [00:05:55] Crystal Fincher: It did look like a market-driven trend, particularly looking at - of the small units that were sold, almost 70% were sold between 2019 and 2021 after housing prices spiked by about 20%. And so it does look like it was tied to the potential for profit and selling those - and they are selling to larger landlords, it looks like. So there is a trend, but like you said, it looks like it is a national trend - in line with national trends - that we aren't really unique in this area. It also - just interesting in the poll, especially how we talk about and look at polls across a wide variety of subjects, mostly political. The survey of landlords - the way that questions were asked were really interesting. And it was from an industry association where the only choices that they had were really to complain about something or another - like pick which things you don't like - which obviously is going to impact the answers. Now that doesn't mean that there's no validity to them, or that none of the complaints were valid. Certainly we've heard from landlords who have brought up concerns and talked about having particular challenges, but it doesn't look like that is what is driving trends in landlord ownership and in that department. So what is going to come from this, or what is this going to inform? What comes next? [00:07:29] Erica Barnett: Well, I think what's going to happen next - I mean, as you said, these are not just made up or illegitimate concerns in many cases. So I also don't want to just dismiss landlords as being universally baseless complainers. SDCI, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, was sort of the target of this audit. And I think that some of the complaints that landlords made - and particularly again, small landlords who I've reported separately have less access to the City than these big property owners that tend to find it easier to comply with these laws. I think that they have a legitimate gripe with not being able to access SDCI as easily - finding the system that they use for filing information, for keeping up with current regulations - they find it confusing. And so I think what's going to happen next is that the City's Department of Construction and Inspections is going to make some efforts to make things easier, to make things more accessible to landlords and particularly small landlords. And they have indicated that they are willing to comply with that. And in the past, from what I understand, when the auditor has sort of come at SDCI and said you need to do these things, they've done them. So I expect SDCI will be responsive. Now that does not mean that small landlords are going to stop complaining and they now have a very sympathetic city council. I expect that the new city council will be more sympathetic to small landlords' concerns, complaints - it's a significantly more conservative, less progressive council than the one that we've seen over the last couple of years. So we'll see - it could be that the new council will try to roll back some of these tenant protections in response to these landlord complaints. So stay tuned next year. [00:09:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely will stay tuned. We've also heard that from, especially some smaller landlords, that these protections are overbroad - they're really onerous on smaller landlords - and they treat their tenants like family and they're not the source of the problem. It's these big nameless, faceless corporations that are managing these mega properties. Is that what this audit found? [00:09:44] Erica Barnett: Well, no. And actually, one really interesting aspect of this audit, which I can say - you know, as a focus group of one - comports with my own experience living in Seattle and renting for over 20 years, is that these family mom and pop landlords were the ones that elicited the most complaints, overwhelmingly the most complaints, from tenants for sort of everything from basic maintenance - building codes, keeping things up to legal standards - to landlord-tenant disputes where the landlords would violate a landlord-tenant law. I mean, I just - I flashback on landlords who would just kind of barge into my apartment without letting me know in advance and giving me the required notice. This stuff is very common and I think it's - this audit shows that it's much more common, at least in terms of complaints, with smaller landlords and ones that say they treat their tenants like family. I mean, maybe they do, but you know, you shouldn't treat your tenants like family if that's how you treat your family. So I think that's just, that was a really interesting finding of the audit. [00:10:50] Crystal Fincher: Also very interesting finding to me. Now, kind of zooming in a little bit, there was a story that was covered by a lot of local media that Katie Wilson did a little bit of fact checking on for PubliCola and found out that the truth was different than what had been reported, with a story about a supposedly homeless landlord who became homeless because of a tenant nightmare story. What was reported, and what actually occurred here? [00:11:24] Erica Barnett: Yeah, this story actually got picked up, not just by all the sort of local TV stations and pundits - conservative pundits - but it got picked up nationally. And the basic story that, the basic version of the story that was told was that there's this guy named Jason Roth - he's a working mechanic. And he owned this property and he had a tenant who was illegally trying to rent it out as an Airbnb and refusing to leave. And so he, according to this version, was forced to live in his van and really, you know, was just - really missed the property, so he was often interviewed standing out in front of it. And yeah, there's an ongoing dispute between Roth and this tenant - but as Katie discovered, the story was much more complicated than it seemed. [00:12:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it seemed like there was - it was a sob story that a lot of outlets were happy to carry. And it seemed like it was almost in response to a number of the renter protection initiatives, a lot of the momentum that increased protections for tenants have been having, and say - Hey, maybe this has gone too far because look at this guy, he's having such a rough go. And my goodness, his tenant has totally taken advantage of him. And now he's just destitute and, you know, homeless in his van, and this has just gone too far. Is that what happened? [00:12:47] Erica Barnett: Well, no - I mean, what happened is that there was this sort of very complex and I, you know, I'm not gonna try to describe all the ins and outs of it, but there's a very complex business deal between basically this guy, Jason Roth, and his tenant. And you know, these two guys who sort of decided to try to rent out this - the apartment was actually a duplex, so it's a house that's got two units. And they were gonna rent out one as an Airbnb and the tenant was going to serve as the kind of manager of the Airbnb in exchange for a decrease in his rent. He paid rent for a very long time - was renting out the upper unit - but there was a bunch of sort of business machinations that happened. They were using this company, this third party company, to rent an Airbnb. The third party company sort of went out of business, they're also sort of still in business - but anyway, like I said, very complicated situation. But you know, ultimately it boils down to a dispute over a lease that they signed where they were going to go into business together on a different business venture. So these are sort of two bumbling guys - is how I would describe it. But ultimately the tenant was unable to pay his rent - he says, because people were not renting this Airbnb, it's in a kind of industrial area off Rainier - and so he said he wanted out. According to him, Jason Roth, the landlord, said that he needed pay for an entire year. And that is sort of one of the cruxes of this dispute is whether this guy needs to pay him, you know, $40,000 or so. It's in court, they are disputing it back and forth, but it's not as simple as it seemed. Then on the other side of things - the homeless landlord part of the narrative - Jason Roth is the son of a family that is pretty well off. They own a company, they have a beachfront property that's, you know, $2 million, they own a number of properties - so his kind of contention that he has to live in his van is questionable at best. And his claim to be a mechanic - his work history is very, very hard to verify. And so, at best this is a complicated story about a dispute between two people. And at worst, it's a landlord sort of failing to manage a property very well. The property, by the way, is apparently owned by his parents, not by him. He said that, you know, it's his property. It seems like it's not actually his property. So at worst, he's kind of milking this for media attention - he also has a GoFundMe where he's raising money. Okay, I said I'd give you the short version - it's not really the short version - but everybody should read the story, 'cause it's even more complicated than that. [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: There were so many twists and turns. Absolutely everyone should read this story and we will link it in the show notes and on social media. But yeah, just kind of starting off - just beginning to look at this, the very first fact check - Hey, is there a mortgage on this property? Can he not pay the note? Oh, it turns out there's no note, and it looks like it's owned by his dad. And when asked about it, he doesn't want to talk about his personal finances and just said that it was a personal loan. [00:15:58] Erica Barnett: Yeah. [00:15:58] Crystal Fincher: So we see another situation where apparently - this is a property owned by your parents that you give to the kid to do something with and manage, and it sounds like he just seriously mismanaged this thing. And to your point, even he admits - Well, yeah, I could go get an inexpensive apartment, I don't have to live in my van. He's choosing to live in his van, which is certainly a different situation than a lot of people who are homeless and forced to live in vehicles who don't have a choice, who are unable to afford anything else. Not to say that it's a desirable position, but it does look like there is a pretty solid paper trail that - one, this tenant did pay rent for at least a year beforehand. Two, it looks like there was an arrangement that they both - the tenant here and this son playing landlord - agreed that the son hire this property management company to basically run an Airbnb, which may not have been legal in the first place. That company did a very poor job, creating a lot of problems for the tenant - including like hostile tenants, hostile renters of the Airbnb confronting the other tenant, who is helpless to do anything about it. And an attempt to remedy and make right that situation seemed to lead to this dispute of what was gonna happen. And it looked like there was a pretty substantial negotiation including equity that was offered in the son's company. And that just didn't turn out to be a fruitful or successful negotiation, which happens sometimes. But this seems to be almost a contractual dispute later on down the line, stemming from mismanagement or lax management of this property and problems that arose from that. So a much different story than one was led to believe from the initial stories and reporting on this. [00:17:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, and I think - I mean, there's a couple of things here too. I mean, the sort of deadbeat tenant angle - this tenant was supposed to be paying $4,300 a month, which is, you know, an absolutely, maybe it's not exorbitant depending on how much money you're making, but that's a lot of money. And the assumption was that, you know, he would be renting out an Airbnb. And in fact, the lease - all of the coverage said that he was illegally trying to rent out a vacation home or whatever. It says in his lease that he is permitted to engage in a commercial short and/or midterm rental with website listing service, and, you know, e.g. VRBO, Airbnb, et cetera, to sublet one half of the property. So this was never an illegal arrangement. It was explicitly a legal arrangement within the lease. Now, in the larger sense - yes, it may have been illegal, but that's both Roth and the tenant engaging in activity that may be illegal. Pulling back, I mean, I think that - everybody from Business Insider to The Seattle Times to Fox News and our local right-wing pundits jumped on this - just says how eager people are to believe, or a certain segment of the population, is to believe that tenants are somehow getting one over on hardworking people. And I mean, the eagerness extended to not doing any fact checking - The Seattle Times ran this piece, Business Insider ran a piece, where they didn't... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29274963

RE-AIR: The Childcare Crisis with Dr. Stephan Blanford of Children’s Alliance 12/26/2023

RE-AIR: The Childcare Crisis with Dr. Stephan Blanford of Children’s Alliance On this topical show re-air, Crystal welcomes Dr. Stephan Blanford, Executive Director of Children’s Alliance, for a wide-ranging conversation on childcare. They delve into the importance of childcare as an economic driver and its societal impacts through preparing kids for success in school and life. A review of the state of childcare in Washington reveals that this critical resource is often out-of-reach for those who need it most and looks at the factors that make it inaccessible and expensive. Crystal and Dr. Blanford then discuss how various stakeholders can make an impact on the issue at all levels of government. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at . Follow us on Twitter at . Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at , find Dr. Stephan Blanford at and Children’s Alliance at . Dr. Stephan Blanford As the Executive Director of Children’s Alliance, Dr. Stephan Blanford leads a team of committed staff, volunteers and more than 6,000 members, advocating fiercely for the improved outcomes for children in Washington state. As an unapologetic advocate for racial and social justice, Stephan’s work has ranged from early learning to college entrance leading small, direct service youth development agencies to multidisciplinary demonstration projects. In 2013, he was elected by the voters of Seattle and served a four-year term on the Seattle School Board, where he received the “Leadership for Equity” award at the conclusion of his term. More recently, the Evergreen Chapter of the American Society of Public Administrators awarded him the “Billy J. Frank Race and Social Justice” award for leadership and advocacy. Extending his work at a national level, he is the board chair of Integrated Schools and serves on the board of Partnership for America’s Children, Balance our Tax Code Coalition, and several other progressive organizations. Dr. Blanford holds a Bachelors’ degree in Social Justice from Antioch University, a Masters in Public Policy from the Evans School of Governance and Public Policy and a Doctorate from the College of Education at the University of Washington. Resources | Washington State Department of Commerce | Annie E. Casey Foundation “” by Melissa Santos from Axios “” by Sami West from KUOW “” by Joy Borkholder from InvestigateWest Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well today, I am very pleased to welcome to the program Dr. Stephan Blanford, the Executive Director of Children's Alliance. And I wanted to have a conversation today about childcare - how important it is, how unaffordable it has become, and how we fix this - it's so important to so many people. And so I guess I will just start off by asking you, Stephan, why is childcare so important? Why does it matter so much? And what brought you to this work? [00:01:24] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Interestingly, I have a background in education - I served as, I was elected and served for a term on the School Board in Seattle. And also my doctoral work was in K-12. And there's a tight correlation between kids having experience in high-quality early learning settings and them doing well in K-12 settings. And so if you are interested in increasing achievement in the K-12 setting - and in particular, if you're interested in addressing the opportunity gaps, the racial opportunity gaps that affect so many children - you have to prioritize early learning and high-quality childcare in order to achieve that goal. And so that's something that I've been passionate about since - in particular - since my young child was of an age where she was getting into childcare. And I learned a lot about it and then have had a passion to try to have all kids have the type of experience that she had. [00:02:29] Crystal Fincher: Certainly, and I certainly have had my own experiences with childcare with my son, who is now definitely much older than childcare age right now. What do you say to people who say - maybe are an employer - what does childcare have to do with me? Why is this something we should be worried about as a community and as a society? [00:02:51] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Yeah, that's a great question. Because in many parts of the state - Seattle in particular, but many parts of the state - we're one of the most childless cities in the United States. So lots of people don't have that type of experience where they're looking for childcare, where they even know someone that is seeking out childcare. But it is such an economic driver. And so many of the negative outcomes that we see in society - in all parts of the state and in all parts of the nation - are correlated with kids not doing well in school and then not being successful in life. And so I tell people all the time, whether you are a grandparent that whose kids are no longer in school or a business owner or whatever, there's a huge implication on your life by the access or lack of access to childcare. [00:03:43] Crystal Fincher: Well, speaking of access - what is the state right now? We hear that it's unaffordable, we hear that it's hard to come by. Is that true? [00:03:53] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Yes, it is. In many parts of the state, there are families that have to drive great distances in order to find childcare. We call them childcare deserts, where there's such a limited supply of childcare that families are just giving up on that. And in many cases, it affects women - because obviously women are, who would normally be in the workforce are having to make really tough decisions and go back to taking care of kids at home where they would prefer to be out in the workforce and helping to support their families. So it has huge implications, whether you're in one of those childcare deserts or even if you're in a more populated part of the state - because that inability to find any childcare and more importantly to find high-quality childcare has severe implications for families and communities at large. [00:04:50] Crystal Fincher: Why is it so hard to find? [00:04:52] Dr. Stephan Blanford: There's a great number of complex factors that lead to the fact that the supply is reduced. The fact that when I sent my kid to childcare - I was also in school in a graduate program - and I was paying more in childcare costs than I was paying for tuition at that time. And that has not improved over the 10 years since I graduated from graduate school. That hasn't changed - where the cost of tuition at the University of Washington is lower than the average cost of childcare in most parts of the state right now. And so - mine is a middle-class family - if you're a low-income family, then the economics of that just do not pan out. And so we are coming to realize that childcare is a public good - it's a public benefit in the same way that K-12 education benefits the community as well as it does the individual child. But we don't have a mechanism by which we can support childcare centers so they can provide this critical service. And if I could add one more thing that I think is really important and complicates this matter, many of the childcare providers in Washington State and around the country are Black and Brown women. And for some unknown reason that has a lot to do with race and racism, they are undercompensated. It is the third lowest paid profession in Washington State right now. And when we think about the importance and the change in trajectory for kids that having access to high-quality childcare can have, it's unconscionable that that would be the third lowest paid profession. You would think that it would be way up there with doctors and other critical professions - it would be compensated at a rate that is commensurate with its importance in society - but for some reason it is not. [00:06:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And you brought up a great point. It is more expensive to pay for childcare than it is to pay for college, which is really saying something with the inflation that we've seen in higher education prices and along with childcare costs. So in this situation, how is it that costs are so high yet compensation for workers is still so low? [00:07:18] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Well, there's a big component of it that has to do with ratios. In most childcare centers that are licensed, you have to have a certain number of adults for a certain number of children. And in particular, kids that are 0-3 years old - they require an even more robust ratio to ensure that the kids are safe during that time that they are away from their parents. And so that has a lot of bearing on the cost - as well as a licensed center has to have exits, has to have lots of equipment in the center, has to be safe and obviously secure so kids aren't getting out and getting out into the street or whatever. And all of those costs are borne by the childcare provider, usually a business person who is trying to establish a center that has all the safety measures in place and the appropriate staffing ratios to ensure that kids are safe and learning while they're in their care. And that all of those things together lend themselves to it being a pretty expensive enterprise. [00:08:27] Crystal Fincher: Now, what does it mean - for a family and for a community - for childcare to be this expensive? [00:08:34] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Well, we spend a lot of time at Children's Alliance advocating that there is a role that the state government has to play in subsidizing the cost. Because the reality right now is - for low-income families who cannot afford those expensive costs that we've been talking about, that means that their kids don't have access to childcare at all. Or they have access to very low-quality childcare - we're talking about being placed in front of a TV and spending eight hours a day, not engaging in that way - and those are pretty significant, have long term consequences for young children. We believe that there is a role that the state government has to play. It has funded the Fair Start for Kids Act in 2021, which is driving about a billion dollars into the sector. And that's a start, but it is by no means the solution to the problem. So we will continue to advocate for improvements and increased funding to make it more affordable for families - middle- and low-income families - to be able to afford childcare, and also provide support for the providers who are trying to provide the service. [00:09:49] Crystal Fincher: So, you talk about how it is so challenging for the families to afford it. It sounds like the families who most stand to benefit from high-quality childcare, and who we need to make sure have access, are the ones having the hardest time affording and accessing it. Is that how you see it? [00:10:09] Dr. Stephan Blanford: That is exactly correct. Yes, that is exactly correct. And so the Fair Start for Kids Act that was passed in 2021 has gone a long way towards making it more affordable, but we don't have enough supply in Washington state. And that lack of supply is impeding the ability of the legislation to provide childcare. Ultimately, if you're a childcare provider and there are subsidies that are available, you're still trying to figure out ways to make sure that all the families in your community are getting childcare. And if you are constrained by the fact that you're only licensed to take care of 15 or 20 or 50 kids, then if there are a 100 kids standing outside your door waiting to get in, then you have to make some difficult choices. And in many cases, the families of those children - those hundred that are stuck outside - they then have to make difficult choices, which include someone staying at home so that there's someone to take care of the children. [00:11:15] Crystal Fincher: Which again, impacts a family's ability to be economically mobile, to participate fully in our economy, to be able to advance in the workplace. Childcare - for people with kids, communities with kids - is so key to just everybody's ability to function and participate in our society, basically. [00:11:40] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Right. And it has disproportionate impacts, as I've shared before, on women and their participation in the workforce. There's a study out of Washington State University that says that the gains that have been made in women's participation in the workforce in Washington State have been totally eroded by the fact that childcare is so inaccessible. Women who have decided that they want to participate in the workforce and have made that move and have gotten the training necessary to be able to participate in the workforce - those gains have been eroded by the fact that there is no childcare. And so we're trying to bring that data to legislators and say that we are at a time now where there's need for significant intervention and investment in the childcare sector to ensure that women can participate and children can be served. [00:12:37] Crystal Fincher: So you talk about there being this shortage and the wages being so low. How do we impact this shortage of childcare workers and pay them a living wage? [00:12:52] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Well, it has been nice to see - as someone who's kind of a grizzled veteran of advocacy around childcare and other issues - it's been nice to see a coalition of people who are now concerned, who now see the implications of this situation that we're in. So now there are business leaders, governmental leaders who never would have been talking about childcare 5 years ago, 10 years ago. And they now know that it is critically important to the economies of their communities, to business interests, to just every aspect of society. We can't really restart the economy to the degree that it needs to be restarted without a significant investment in accessibility and availability of childcare in the state. It just won't happen. And what it portends - our inaction - is that more and more populations are gonna be disproportionately impacted by that inaction. [00:14:02] Crystal Fincher: So what else is needed to help address both the affordability and the issues on the business owner's side - like the regulations, which sound like they're necessary to protect kids - and the costs involved? [00:14:18] Dr. Stephan Blanford: I believe that at some point we're going to have to have a statewide conversation about childcare. And my hope is that that will lead to more significant legislation. And if not legislation, a referendum that is passed or an initiative that is passed by the citizens of the state to tax themselves to be able to afford childcare for anyone who needs it. There are other states that are playing around with the idea of universal pre-K - making sure that every child in the state has access, which means a significant investment in childcare - there's an argument that says that it's a public good and should be funded in the same way that public education is funded. And the economics of it - there's a study that says that for every dollar invested in childcare, there's a $17 return to the economy of the jurisdiction that makes that investment, which is a significant bargain and helps to address some of the biggest challenges that we face around opportunity gaps - racial and economic opportunity gaps. So my hope is that there - we'll continue to have these conversations and get to the point where the voters of the state take this issue up. I believe it will pass. I think enough people are connected to it and understand that they will benefit. And my hope is that we'll see that in the short-term because it's having detrimental impacts right now for families and communities all across the state. [00:16:07] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely is having detrimental impacts. Barring a statewide initiative being passed - and that's a great idea - what can cities, counties, regions do to try and address this in their own areas? [00:16:27] Dr. Stephan Blanford: A great question. So I mentioned the fact that I served as a School Board director here in Seattle. And during that time, we were able to create a partnership between Seattle Public Schools and the City of Seattle where there were significant investments and collaboration between the two sectors - the K-12 sector and the early learning sector - to actually have childcare centers based in some of our elementary schools that were under-enrolled. Kids would move directly from the early learning part of the school into the K-12 sector. And there was a national organization that reviewed that collaboration and gave it its highest rating - saying all states in the nation should emulate that type of a model. Because in many cases there are schools that are under-enrolled - so they have classrooms that are unoccupied - and by doing a little bit of work around licensing and changing the structure of the school, they can ensure that kids at all ages in their community from 3 years old to 5 years old, and then from 5 years old to 10 or 11 are served by that elementary school. And I think that's a model that could be emulated in many parts of the state and would go a long way towards solving this problem because there's a significant investment that a business owner has to make in order to secure a space, make the changes in that space before they can open their doors and serve the first child. There are existing buildings - schools - that can solve that problem very easily, but it requires a lot of collaboration and cooperation between schools, cities, and in some cases those aren't easy collaborations to make. [00:18:25] Crystal Fincher: Definitely, but it does sound promising - obviously, with the review that it received from when it was happening. Is that still happening? [00:18:34] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Oh yeah, yeah. I was having a conversation with a parent the other day that was talking about the fact that she was able to get childcare and it was just down the street at her local school here in Seattle. And she was just gushing about how important it was and how much it helped her family to be able to have that accessibility and availability so close to their home. And when she got done, I said - Yeah, I was on the School Board, I voted for that, I helped to champion that. And she was really grateful. And it made me very proud because that was a contentious issue - not everybody on the School Board was supportive of that notion. But I know that collaborations between sectors like the early learning sector and the K-12 sector - they go a long way towards addressing some of these very pernicious issues that we've been grappling with for years, like our opportunity gaps, that Black and Brown kids stand to benefit, particularly if those collaborations are set up in the schools that they normally attend. [00:19:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now we also are hearing a lot about school closures right now, about coming deficits, about structural deficits in education. Are these types of partnerships things that can help that kind of situation? [00:19:59] Dr. Stephan Blanford: Absolutely, absolutely. I think you have hit the nail on the head in that - I hear those stories and... /episode/index/show/crystal/id/29231343

Hacks & Wonks

TOPICS