Logo
    Search

    The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness

    enApril 19, 2024

    Podcast Summary

    • Landmark Supreme Court case challenges legality of homeless bansThe Supreme Court is hearing a case that could decide if cities can make it illegal for homeless people to sleep in public spaces, as the number of homeless in the US reaches an all-time high.

      The Supreme Court is set to hear a landmark case, Grants Pass versus Johnson, which could determine the legality of cities making it illegal for people to be homeless and sleep in public spaces. This case comes as the number of homeless people in the US reaches record levels, with over 653,000, a 12% increase since last year. The debate over homeless encampments and how to address the crisis has intensified, with some people advocating for compassionate, thoughtful removal and others arguing that current tools unfairly punish homeless individuals. The case follows a similar one in Boise, Idaho, where a homeless man sued the city for charging him with a misdemeanor for sleeping in public. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for cities across the US as they grapple with the issue of homelessness and public safety.

    • The Martin v. Boise case banned criminalizing homelessness in the western USThe Martin v. Boise case ruled that criminalizing homelessness for those without shelter options is a violation of the Eighth Amendment, as having a place to sleep is an essential human need.

      The Martin v. Boise case, decided in the Ninth Circuit, ruled that criminalizing homelessness for those who have no other shelter options violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. This ruling was based on the fact that having a place to sleep is an essential human need, and the city of Boise did not have enough adequate shelter beds for its homeless population. The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, a town that saw an increase in homelessness around 10 years ago, and the community became concerned. In response, the city council began enforcing local ordinances against camping and sleeping in public spaces. However, the Martin v. Boise ruling prevents the city from punishing people for being involuntarily homeless. The Supreme Court declined to hear the city's appeal, making the ruling applicable in the western United States.

    • Grants Pass's Enforcement of Local Measures Against HomelessnessGrants Pass's efforts to enforce local measures against homelessness, such as ticketing and banning people from parks, have not been effective in making people leave. Instead, these actions have created a cycle of fines and debt that people cannot pay, entrenching homelessness and raising concerns about public safety and human rights.

      The city of Grants Pass's efforts to address homelessness through enforcing local measures, such as ticketing and banning people from parks, have not been effective in making people leave. Instead, these actions seem to have entrenched homelessness by creating a cycle of fines and debt that people cannot pay. The situation became more complex when a group of homeless people challenged the local ordinances, using the landmark case Martin v. Boise to argue that the city was punishing them for their homeless status. This led to a legal battle, with the argument that there was no legal place for homeless people to sleep in Grants Pass. The city's approach, which aimed to make homelessness uncomfortable, has not reduced the number of visible homeless people, and the situation has raised concerns about public safety and human rights.

    • Grants Pass's restrictive shelter policies leave homeless individuals without alternativesThe city's lack of inclusive and accessible homeless shelters violates the Eighth Amendment, leaving many homeless individuals without a safe place to sleep and contributing to the larger homelessness crisis in the western US.

      Grants Pass, Oregon, lacks accessible and inclusive homeless shelters, leaving many individuals without a safe place to sleep. The city's only shelter, a religious one, has numerous restrictions, such as no pets, no smoking, mandatory religious attendance, and exclusion of those with chronic mental health and physical disabilities. These restrictions make it difficult for many homeless individuals to access the shelter, leaving them without alternatives. As a result, the courts have ruled that Grants Pass's ordinances violate the Eighth Amendment, and the city cannot enforce them. The lack of accessible shelter in Grants Pass is a significant issue contributing to the larger homelessness crisis in the western United States, and it has become a politically divisive topic, with both conservatives and liberals calling for the Supreme Court to reconsider the Boise ruling.

    • Clarifying the interpretation of the Boise decision on adequate shelter for homeless individualsVarious entities request Supreme Court clarification on what constitutes adequate shelter, the definition of involuntary homelessness, and the rules around certain types of shelters or beds not qualifying.

      There is a diverse group of individuals and organizations, ranging from liberal cities and governors to conservative legal groups, requesting the Supreme Court to clarify the interpretation of the Boise decision regarding adequate shelter for homeless individuals. The ambiguity in the Boise decision, which prohibits punishing homeless individuals for sleeping on the streets when there is no adequate shelter available, is causing confusion and problems in various parts of the West. The primary concerns of these entities are defining what constitutes adequate shelter and determining the definition of involuntarily homeless. They seek clarification on the standard for what cities must provide and the rules around certain types of shelters or beds not qualifying. Additionally, they question the circumstances under which a person is considered involuntarily homeless, particularly when individuals refuse shelter due to personal reasons or restrictions. These complex questions extend beyond the Eighth Amendment argument and require philosophical considerations.

    • Supreme Court to Address Homelessness and Governmental PowerThe Supreme Court will consider the Grant's Pass case, which could provide clarity on the balance between individual rights and governmental power to address homelessness, as the city seeks flexibility in dealing with the issue and ensuring public safety.

      The Supreme Court's decision to hear the Grant's Pass case follows a pattern of the Court addressing issues of national importance, despite declining to do so in similar cases like Boise. The central argument of the city of Grant's Pass is that if the court upholds the Boise decision, it will limit their ability to address homelessness and public safety issues effectively. The city seeks flexibility in dealing with homelessness and the ability to use a range of tools, including local ordinances and incentives, to help individuals access treatment. The Supreme Court's consideration of this case may provide clarity on the balance between individual rights and governmental power to address homelessness.

    • Dispute over criminalizing homelessness in Grants PassThe Supreme Court is deciding whether cities can criminalize homelessness, with plaintiffs arguing it violates the Eighth Amendment and the city claiming it's necessary for public order. A ruling could set a precedent and impact how cities address homelessness.

      The ongoing legal dispute between the city of Grants Pass and homeless plaintiffs revolves around the constitutionality of criminalizing homelessness. The city argues that it should have the power to enforce its laws against public disorder, while the plaintiffs claim that denying shelter and criminalizing homelessness violates the Eighth Amendment. Both sides agree that addressing homelessness is necessary, but they fundamentally disagree on the approach. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could potentially establish a precedent against criminalizing homelessness, while a ruling for the city could potentially undo the Boise decision. However, it's noteworthy that the focus of the discussion has been on policing homelessness rather than addressing the root causes, such as providing shelter and treatment for those in need. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision will likely have significant implications for how cities approach homelessness and the balance between public order and individual rights.

    • Court Cases Limiting Homeless Criminalization and Tensions Between Israel and IranCourt rulings restrict cities' power to criminalize homelessness, Israel-Iran tensions escalate, and a jury is selected for Trump's trial, while protests continue at Columbia University

      The Boise and Grants Pass court cases, which have limited the ability of cities to criminalize homelessness, have become a contentious issue in the debate over how to address the complex problem of homelessness. If these cases are overturned, it remains to be seen whether cities will focus on creative solutions to help homeless individuals or revert to jailing them. Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Iran continue to escalate, with both countries engaging in a cycle of retaliation, and a jury has been selected for Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan. Elsewhere, at least 108 protesters were taken into custody at Columbia University during a pro-Palestinian demonstration, leading to promises of continued protests. The Daily is produced by Olivia Knatt, Stella Tan, Rochelle Bonja, and Eric Krupke, among others.

    Recent Episodes from The Daily

    'Animal,' Episode 5: Wolves

    'Animal,' Episode 5: Wolves

    In a broken world, what can we gain by looking another animal in the eye? "Animal" is a six-part, round-the-world journey in search of an answer. In Episode 5, the writer Sam Anderson travels to an obscure memorial in rural Japan: the statue of the last Japanese wolf.

    For photos and videos of Sam's journey to Japan, visit nytimes.com/animal

    The Daily
    enJune 30, 2024

    A Brutal Debate for Biden

    A Brutal Debate for Biden

    In the first debate of the 2024 race, President Biden hoped to make the case that Donald J. Trump was unfit to return to the White House. Instead, Mr. Biden’s weak performance deepened doubts about his own fitness for the job.

    Astead W. Herndon, who covers politics for The Times, explains what happened.

    Guest: Astead W. Herndon, a national politics reporter for The New York Times and the host of the politics podcast “The Run-Up.”

    Background reading: 

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 28, 2024

    The Doping Scandal Rocking the Upcoming Olympics

    The Doping Scandal Rocking the Upcoming Olympics

    A new doping scandal is rocking the world of competitive swimming, as the Paris Olympics approach. These allegations are raising questions about fairness in the sport and whether the results at the summer games can be trusted.

    Michael S. Schmidt, one of the reporters who broke the story, explains the controversy and what it reveals about the struggle to police doping in sports.

    Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

    Background reading: 

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 27, 2024

    France’s Far Right at the Gates of Power

    France’s Far Right at the Gates of Power

    The far right in France had a big win this month, crushing the party of President Emmanuel Macron in elections for the European Parliament. But the results did not affect France’s government at home — until Mr. Macron changed that.

    Roger Cohen, the Paris bureau chief for The Times, discusses the huge political gamble Mr. Macron has taken, which has brought the far right closer than ever to gaining real power in France.

    Guest: Roger Cohen, the Paris bureau chief for The New York Times.

    Background reading: 

    • Battered by the far right in voting for the European Parliament, Emmanuel Macron called for new elections in France.
    • The president has challenged voters to test the sincerity of their support for the far right. Were the French letting off steam in the European elections, or did they really mean it?

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 26, 2024

    The Plan to Defeat Critics of Israel in Congress

    The Plan to Defeat Critics of Israel in Congress

    A powerful group supporting Israel is trying to defeat sitting members of Congress who have criticized the country’s deadly war against Hamas.

    Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics for The Times, explains why it appears that strategy may work in today’s Democratic primary in New York.

    Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics and government for The New York Times.

    Background reading: 

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 25, 2024

    The Army of Poets and Students Fighting a Forgotten War

    The Army of Poets and Students Fighting a Forgotten War

    Warning: this episode contains descriptions of injuries.

    Myanmar is home to one of the deadliest, most intractable civil wars on the planet. But something new is happening. Unusual numbers of young people from the cities, including students, poets and baristas, have joined the country’s rebel militias. And this coalition is making startling gains against the country’s military dictatorship.

    Hannah Beech, who covers stories across Asia for The Times, discusses this surprising resistance movement.

    Guest: Hannah Beech, a Bangkok-based reporter for The New York Times, focusing on investigative and in-depth stories in Asia.

    Background reading: 

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 24, 2024

    'Animal,' Episode 4: Ferrets

    'Animal,' Episode 4: Ferrets

    In a broken world, what can we gain by looking another animal in the eye? "Animal" is a six-part, round-the-world journey in search of an answer. In Episode 4, the writer Sam Anderson soothes his anxiety by visiting a convention center in Ohio.

    For photos and videos of Sam's adventure with manatees, visit nytimes.com/animal.

    The Daily
    enJune 23, 2024

    America’s Top Doctor on Why He Wants Warning Labels on Social Media

    America’s Top Doctor on Why He Wants Warning Labels on Social Media

    Warning: This episode contains mentions of bullying and suicide.

    A rising tide of mental health problems among teenagers has sent parents, teachers and doctors searching for answers. This week, the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, offered one: social media.

    Today, Dr. Murthy discusses his proposal to require platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Instagram to include warning labels, like those that appear on tobacco and alcohol products.

    Guest: Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general.

    Background reading: 

    For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

    The Daily
    enJune 21, 2024

    Related Episodes

    Roe v. Wade has been overturned. What happens now?

    Roe v. Wade has been overturned. What happens now?

    Guest: Rosemary Westwood, reproductive health reporter

    The U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — a nearly 50-year-old constitutional right for a woman to end a pregnancy — will lead to bans on abortion in more than half of U.S states. That means abortion clinics will be forced to close in large swathes of the country. According to Planned Parenthood, more than 36 million people could lose abortion access. Rosemary Westwood, reproductive health reporter and host of the podcast “Banned,” explains how one Mississippi case led to the end of the protected right to legal abortions and what this new reality in the U.S. means.

    UPDATE: A Louisiana court has temporarily blocked the state’s trigger laws on abortion. The blocking is temporary and a hearing on the matter has been set for July 8. Abortions can resume in Louisiana in the meantime.

    Audio sources: Reuters, New York Times, PBS, CNBC

    Chat with Hugo Garcia, Burien City Council Candidate

    Chat with Hugo Garcia, Burien City Council Candidate

    Today on the show Hugo Garcia, City Council candidate for the city of Burien, joins Crystal to discuss the planning for growth and justice in a rapidly changing city, how to create more housing and ensure residents are able to afford to live in a city, and the vital importance of parks and public spaces.

    Fun fact from today’s episode: Burien has more than 350 acres of parks.

    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.

    Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s guest, Hugo Garcia, at @hugo4burien. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.

     

    Resources

    “Latino candidates triumph after Burien’s nasty campaign” by Lilly Fowler from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/2017/11/burien-election-city-council-pedro-olguin-jimmy-matta-racism 

    “Inequality by design: How redlining continues to shape our economy” by Amy Scott from Marketplace: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/16/inequality-by-design-how-redlining-continues-to-shape-our-economy/ 

    “How Planning and Zoning Contribute to Inequitable Development, Neighborhood Health, and Environmental Justice” by Wilson et.al in Environmental Justice: http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/downloads/pubs/faculty/hutson_2008_environ-health.pdf 

    “In Washington state, housing is the question and the answer” by Shaun Scott for Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/opinion/2020/11/washington-state-housing-question-and-answer 

    “What is sweat equity?” from Habitat for Humanity: https://www.habitat.org/stories/what-is-sweat-equity 

    “Can Beacon Hill win the fight for quieter skies and a healthier neighborhood?” by Manola Secaira from Crosscut: https://crosscut.com/2019/06/can-beacon-hill-win-fight-quieter-skies-and-healthier-neighborhood 

    “Parks and Health” from the Centers for Disease Control: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/parks_trails/#health 

    “Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions” from the Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/420f14044_0.pdf 

     

    Transcript

    [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in our episode notes.

    Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Hugo Garcia and a candidate for City Council in the City of Burien. Hey, how's it going?

    [00:01:01] Hugo Garcia: Hey, what's up, Crystal - super excited to be here. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. It's going well - yes.

    [00:01:08] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I've been following your campaign - it looks like it's been going well. I'm thrilled to have you on the show because so many times we talk about Seattle politics, Seattle candidates - there's so much going on outside of the City of Seattle - with a lot of times some different stakes. In Seattle, the conversation is about progressives versus centrists pretty often. And although there are some stark differences and important issues, they don't have the same kind of opposition that you find in a lot of our suburbs - where there are Republicans, there are conservatives, there are people who, for example, are actively campaigning on removing the separation between church and state.

    [00:01:56] Hugo Garcia: Right?

    [00:01:57] Crystal Fincher: Like your opponent - so I really wanted to talk with you about who you are, about your race, about the stakes, and what's really at stake in these elections - and help people understand just what's going on and how they can help. So I guess starting out, what caused you to run, what got you in this race, and why do you feel you're the best to take on these issues?

    [00:02:24] Hugo Garcia: Very much like a lot of folks - prior to the last president, I wasn't really involved - yeah, I'll be honest. And I saw the repercussions of that locally - and so much so that I started to see hate crimes. I'm an immigrant from Mexico - I came here when I was eight years old, I was brought here because of a small business that my dad and his cousins ran in Seattle - but he could afford to raise a family of three on the salary of a waiter and my mom's salary of a part-time lunch lady by having us live in what used to be unincorporated King County, because the City of Burien is really a young city - it's only been around since the mid 90s when it incorporated as a city.

    And I just started to see attacks on our people of color, immigrants - specifically our Latinx immigrants - so much so that I saw an event that happened here and it really just turned me around - I did a full 180 and said, "You know what? My privilege as someone that's been here and has been raised here now, I got to make sure I put it to work." So I did a full 180 and had been diving in the last four and a half years into getting civically involved, because I did not want that to spread. I did not want the hate to spread, I did not want the city to become less welcoming and less affordable to working families and people of color, immigrants, refugees. So I've been doing a lot of work on that and I'm excited - I'm super excited because I'm all about Burien.

    I've been living here before it became Burien, when it was unincorporated King County, and there's a lot of change. A lot of time has gone by in those 25-30 years and I know all about it. And I think having that perspective, that lived experience from a working family - now I do economic development work for King County. I saw how challenging things were for our family in accessing capital and getting business finances - that's what my background I ended up going into - I started working in banks. That's how I worked at a Latino-focus bank back in 2006, 2007 in Kent. Started working at a local branch before that here in Burien at one of the big banks - set up some of the business accounts for some businesses that are still here today. And I have just made it my mission to support really small business owners locally that go from that really challenging transition of a side hustle, to a micro business, to a small business, and then growing into just a bigger small business. But if you're not at the table, you're on the menu - and that's why I decided to get myself into this race.

    [00:05:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And you bring up such a good point in seeing how Burien has grown and changed. As someone over here in Kent, not too far away - you're South King County brethren - seeing many similar things. Moving to Kent before - we were kind of - before a lot of people of color moved to Kent, before Kent became more diverse in every way - economically diverse, ethnically diverse, lots of different types of businesses. The complete economy of the city has changed. And there being realistically a backlash to that by some of the people who wanted to keep outsiders outside and aren't comfortable with growth and aren't comfortable with change. And those being the people who were most entrenched in government, in the community, on boards and commissions - and everything geared towards serving people who had traditionally been here, and not serving, and sometimes just being outwardly hostile to people who were new or coming in. And it seems like Burien is experiencing those same kinds of growing changes.

    [00:06:24] Hugo Garcia: Exactly. We have in the last four years, we've seen a lot of that change and we responded. I got involved four and a half years ago - when for the first time ever, we were able to change the leadership of the council. In essence, we flipped it from what had been a traditionally conservative council, to a more progressive leaning council for the first time. We were able to get two Latinx men, a LGBTQ woman representing. And that change also - it was the first time I ever got involved, I ever knocked on doors. I didn't know how to knock on doors before that, but I knew I wanted to because I had to, I had to do what I could. So I was out knocking all the time, I was promoting, I was helping those folks get elected.

    Afterwards though, I saw that staying engaged after that hard a cycle is really, really challenging. And even before that, even before you are elected - for the folks that we were able to get into the council - everybody's like, "Ah, okay - well, now they're there." But I found that they needed some more support, so I started to get involved and I stayed involved. So I decided to learn more about the commissions and found my way into the Planning Commission - because as someone that worked in finance and lending, I did some mortgages - I know that redlining and access to capital, it's all about zoning and land use. So I wanted to understand that a little bit better, so that's why I joined the Planning Commission four years ago and started to really work in making recommendations up to those councilmembers that we helped elect - on multifamily housing, on expanding our ADU policy, making sure we update our tree canopy policy and how to protect that. So really getting into understanding what goes on behind the policy, into being a councilmember.

    Because I knew if I ever wanted to run for City Council, I would have to be that much more qualified - because I saw how challenging it was that the two Latinx men that ran in their primary in 2017, were behind substantially in the primary - a lot, like over 10 points and it's a small town. They were able to make it up, but it was really fascinating - not fascinating, but I guess it just kept pointing out to me that - the other candidates all were white women did very, very well. They didn't have as much of a struggle to get elected, per se. So that's why I've been doing that work to address that. And I've been learning a lot. The city, it's somewhat midsize city for South King County, we're 55-ish, 55,000 residents. Of those, about 30,000 are registered voters. And of those you'll get maybe 10-13,000 that will actually vote on this odd year, non-presidential election. So very few will actually vote and that's what's happened in the past. You've seen a presentation from a very conservative base and they have made up all the decisions, and we're starting to make that change, and I'm excited to be a part of that and have a say to be able to share my lived experience.

    [00:10:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I love it. I love that you got on the Planning Commission, I'm a former land use and planning board member here in Kent, and my goodness, it is just eye-opening to see how instrumental everything that we interact with is influenced by planning and zoning. It's the backbone of how cities are designed and how they function, and really sets the stage for how they can and cannot function, and how communities can and cannot function. So I love that you just went straight into the heart of it - and just saw a need and got involved. And people - when they see something to be able to do something and even coming from Hey, I might not have had this background before but let me go ahead and get it - let me get involved, let me see what I can do, which is what you've done.

    One of the things I love is that - you have been working. You have been, from a political consultant, it warms my heart to see you out working - campaigning daily, doing the things that a lot of people - when they see campaigns, they see people at parades and they see people at forums and giving speeches. And yeah, that happens, but just the daily grind of knocking on doors, making phone calls, dialing for dollars, all of that, sometimes gets monotonous and sometimes isn't the most fun thing. But it's absolutely necessary to win a campaign, especially when you're coming in not as an incumbent. Not as - there's a lack of representation from people who look like you, and you are not coming from people who have historically held that power. So to see the work that you've put in has been enlightening.

    There are also just a lot of issues where there's been some progress made, but certainly a backlash. And so you talked about zoning, Burien is dealing with the issue of homelessness, as most other communities are dealing with this. Housing prices are so much higher than they used to be, we're still in the middle of a pandemic that has hit the poorest the hardest, and it's hit the people who were already closest to the edge the hardest. And so just making sure that we have policies, that we provide shelter and housing, is absolutely necessary. And this is something that is controversial, surprise, surprise -

    [00:12:41] Hugo Garcia: Yes.

    [00:12:41] Crystal Fincher: - in Burien with - we hear that "Seattle is Dying" commentary and people in Seattle don't buy it. They repeatedly just kind of toss that out of hand, and candidates making that kind of argument lose pretty handily regularly in those elections. But that has a foothold in a lot of the suburbs - and the fear of not criminalizing homelessness leading to bad outcomes, when the truth is actually the opposite. What have you been dealing with in Burien?

    [00:13:12] Hugo Garcia: No, it's quite as intense in Burien as it is in Seattle, to be honest. I learned a lot there through a Planning Commission project that came up three or four years ago, when a well-known nonprofit that serves the homeless community, Mary's Place, had a project here in town and it was on Ambaum. So Ambaum is a corridor that runs north to south on the west side of the city. It connects from basically West Seattle through White Center and then it takes you up into our old Burien and our downtown core. It has traditionally been mostly renters along that path, so it's a large renter and middle to lower income segment of the city. And it's adjacent to the waterfront - so right behind, on the west side, you'll have Shorewood on the Sound, you'll have Seahurst, you'll have Gregory Heights, and Three Tree Point. So you're starting to see the growth of the city - and that growth also involves not having enough housing, which results in homelessness, in that impact. So I signed - the project ended up being right on Ambaum Boulevard and it surely was very controversial, even though this was a nonprofit that has a history of serving families, they were well funded, they've done great work. But there was a lot of NIMBYism at all the Planning Commission meetings, all the City Council meetings. And that kind of opened my eyes into, yeah, it's just as intense if not more sometimes here.

    And lately we started to do work on the Planning Commission and we did that. We supported expanding multifamily zoning, ADU. We also brought and enacted a affordable housing demonstration project that had been in the pipeline for the city staff since 2012, but they hadn't been able to get it lifted. And we prioritized having this pilot to bring in more affordable housing to the city, which we did. We opened up - it took us months to prepare it, and we launched it - the City Council voted on it, and it went out. It's a three year project and we now have two projects in place. One is controversial and one is not, even though they're both serving the same focus of bringing more affordable housing to the city.

    The first one is a Habitat for Humanity 43-unit sweat equity program where your folks are able to actually build their own home - they get assistance with the financing, so that they have down payment and actually are able to have home ownership, which brings in that wealth and helps shorten that gap between the haves, have nots and also people that historically have not had access to housing, so great program. The other one is a supportive housing project. It is a 95-unit project. It's close to the downtown core and it is serving - it's by the organization called DESC, the Downtown Emergency Service Center. And it just was very controversial - it was somewhat close to that old Burien shopping center and close to the downtown core. And folks got really, really scared in essence. They were scared and they came out in droves against it, even though it's a very well funded 95 units - it's going to include services, health and behavioral health services in the first floor. It's going to also impact the most impacted homeless individuals - those that have physical and mental disabilities. And-

    [00:17:09] Crystal Fincher: So the exact kind of thing that addresses the issue in its entirety, and also deals with the root causes to get people off of the street and give them a chance to really have that be permanent. This is what people claim to be wanting, except when it's going to be next door to them.

    [00:17:30] Hugo Garcia: Exactly, that's exactly it. And at the end of the day, we need more housing. Homes is what's going to help our homelessness situation. And I know the work on policy, on the zoning, on housing - on how challenging it is to do affordable housing. There's no affordable housing developers, it's nonprofits. So you have to get help from - funding from the state, from the Feds, from the county. And we want to make sure that we lead on that. I mean, we just saw that this supportive housing development - it did go through after a lot of community outreach, multiple meetings, language assistance - it passed. We are going to get 30% of those units to be somewhat local to the Burien folks that are experiencing homelessness, 25 units will be for veterans.

    But this type of supportive housing is coming to the state. The state just passed a bill saying that the cities cannot ban these supportive housing developments - and you just can't. We're actually ahead of the curve because of that. Our city is now - we did a demonstration project, we did the analysis, and we know that we don't want to keep sending or putting these developments out in the fringes of the city. Because what historically has happened is these developments that assist tend to be in unhealthy environments, meaning industrial zones, under airport, air flight paths in very low income communities. So we need to change that. We need to make it so that there's no other-ism. And the services that people get for affordable housing are close to our core - where they're close to bus lines, close to stores, close to our parks, and we know that. So that's a change that we're having a difficult time with in most of South King County. But we have to make that work and we're doing that in Burien, we're already ahead of the curve and I'm excited to be able to have learned so much while doing that work.

    [00:19:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that's an area where your opponent is certainly in a different place than you are. This race offers a very stark choice. There are huge differences between where you and your opponent are. And if people want to see these types of solutions and policies that really do target addressing the whole issue and the root cause, and respect and work with people's humanity in a way that creates these win-win situations for all - that you're really the only candidate who is working towards this in your race.

    [00:20:24] Hugo Garcia: And the only one that's brought up solutions, right? Like I speak about making sure that we expand our funding to our LEAD program to make sure that our LEAD gets introduced to DESC - so LEAD is the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program similar somewhat to the one in Seattle. But ours is specific to the downtown core for right now, and we've had success with it. Our chief has let us know that, I mean - we're a smaller town, smaller program.

    We've had about 20 relocations of folks that were in downtown living on the streets to temporary housing. And we need more of that. But that won't solve everything, right? We need more housing. So we have a goal of 144 units a year that we should reach - to make sure that by 2040, we catch up to the number of housing units that we need. And we're on pace for that with these two projects alone, and we're doing that work. My opponent just screams about not in our backyard, not close to our businesses, and they should just go elsewhere, they should just go to San Diego. If they want to live homeless, they should be in San Diego. He doesn't bring any actual solutions and that's the frustrating part for me - that I've been doing the work, I understand the policy, I know the problem, I've worked with and seen the interconnection between our other cities, the county - and know that you can't just wish people away, man - like he wants to do. You can't do that, you have to work within what you have, the resources that you have, and have a plan which is, at the core of it, just build more housing.

    [00:22:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, which your opponent expressly opposes. And in the middle of a - I'm just going back and reviewing a speech of his where he talks about bringing God back into government and God's government to Burien and aligning government with Jesus, and a lot like that. Which is, clearly a different place, and not that someone being religious or spiritual is bad - but the policies that that translates to, in his opinion, seem a bit inconsistent and ineffective.

    [00:22:58] Hugo Garcia: Yeah. To say the least.

    [00:22:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah.

    [00:23:00] Hugo Garcia: I'm not an expert in religion, but I know that Jesus would probably want to support the poor and the homeless.

    [00:23:11] Crystal Fincher: I mean, that's actually unambiguous - he's pretty expressly supportive, according to the books and the teachings that they ascribe to him in his own words. I do want to talk about public safety and where Burien is. And Burien is such a fascinating city to me - because you do have a progressive council now making moves in some areas, and also a push back to that progressive council by a lot of the conservatives and people previously in the establishment in the city. And so these conversations are really enlightening. But Burien has been willing to try new things and move in different directions. What is happening in terms of public safety, and what more do you want to see happening?

    [00:24:05] Hugo Garcia: Yeah. I think we are ahead of the curve when it comes to that, for South King County. We too have a relationship with King County Sheriff - that's who services our police force. And as all of the county, the Sheriff's Office is right now going through a bit of a transition that has impacted not just us but everybody. So we're very lucky that we have probably one of the best, if not the best, chief for a small city here in South King County. He has made work with the staffing that we have, and has done incredible work - compared to the amount of money that we have to put into our resources, the number of officers, they have done strong work.

    However, I don't think we're ever going to be able to get to a point where public safety will address everything with police. So recently, we launched a three-pronged attack - the city went ahead and had a team of three folks that included both behavioral person specialist, an EMT specialist, and a dedicated downtown business core public safety officer, to basically be the focus of public safety for mental health, homelessness around the core. The rest of the city then has the support of the traditional police force - for burglary, for addressing car thefts, catalytic converters, safety - and I think that's one good way to start to head to. I would want that team to be expanded, I would want our LEAD program to expand to nighttime. Because a lot of times folks experience crises at night - mental health crises - and that results into what people perceive as property damages and crime. So I think we need to do more of servicing folks at night. And we've started to interconnect our LEAD program with those services of behavioral health, as well as - I want to bring some of my experience from helping some of the businesses with economic development, the job I've done for the county. We launched a program where we actually hired folks through Uplift, the nonprofit that used to be called the Millionair's Club. And we started hiring folks that were experiencing homelessness to actually do business district communities' improvement work - so litter abatement, graffiti removement, dumping ground clear up. And that program has done really, really strong work in Skyway and White Center, specifically, over the last two years. It's going to get expanded to other unincorporated areas, and I want that to come to Burien. I want to be able to also provide jobs and those jobs are at working family and I believe those are $18 an hour jobs - because if you provide folks with opportunity, the health and the place to live, you're going to find that that's the way that we're going to be able to make a dent into the crisis that we're seeing, and that will impact public safety.

    But that's just in the downtown core. I think it's really important that we invest and normalize in being in beautiful public spaces - that means our parks - we have to normalize that. And historically, we've spent so much on our policing that our parks are not as robust as they could be. The City of Burien is beautiful - it has 25 parks, 350 acres of parks - but you only hear about maybe one or two, one by the waterfront or one close to the downtown core. We also have a large - used to be a community center type facility called the Annex that unfortunately, had to be torn down because of health concerns. But it is in the core - it has green space, it's in the core of the city, and it could very much be our own version of a Marymoor Park here in Burien. But that's what I want. I want to make sure that the smaller parks - and not just the ones downtown, but the ones in residential neighborhoods - have lighting, have splash pads, have places where the food trucks can come in and people can gather. Because that is public safety - being able to go to those parks and enjoy that. And that's really at the core of what I want to do - not just focus on policing and serving our homelessness, because that's not tied to public safety as its main driver. It's about people being able to normalize being in our public spaces.

    [00:29:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah.

    [00:29:01] Hugo Garcia: And if we invest in them, that's how we'll address it.

    [00:29:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And another thing that has been proven to make people safer - really activating public spaces for the community achieves that.

    I wanted to ask you, and we have a little bit of time left, but in terms of - you brought up earlier in the conversation about how bad it is to relegate the homeless to industrial areas where there's more pollution, less access to services and transit - they're less connected with the rest of the community, which is crucially important. For the community overall, and just dealing with the issues of pollution and climate change - certainly in Burien, being underneath the flight path for SeaTac and all of the research that has come out about how negatively that impacts people's health. Proximity to freeways, major roadways, and pollution - causing lung disease, heart disease, asthma, a variety of problems that directly impact life expectancy. And our responsibility even in suburban cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as we deal with all of these impacts of climate change. What is Burien doing, and what do you think should be happening more within Burien to address that?

    [00:30:31] Hugo Garcia: Yeah, so it kind of circles back a little bit to that divide, right? The divide is a political divide, just like in the Cascades - the Eastern Washington versus the Western Washington and the mountain range. In this case, at the city level, it's the Ambaum corridor - and the east and northeast being the core, and the parts of the city that got added in the annex from White Center in the last 15 years - in relationship to the areas that are adjacent to the water. And those areas historically just have been the ones that vote, the ones that make up policy, the ones that decide where these developments go. And even now, on the Planning Commission, like I mentioned the Habitat for Humanity project - it's a great project - 43 units, it's going to be multifamily sizes, it's going to have some green space in it. But it's literally adjacent to 509 - like right next to 509. And it's progress that at least it's affordable housing, it's ownership. But we really tried to challenge Habitat for Humanity to make sure they could do as much as possible to make it safe, to protect that green space in there, to not make this a norm. And we know we made comments to the council to say, Hey, we have to normalize being able to provide these type of projects close to our downtown core.

    And doing that, like this project, makes progress towards that. And I think the way that you can make that progress even go further is to make sure that you normalize and bring our local government to other neighborhoods. We have to be a community governed city. But historically, the north, central, east part of the city has just never gotten outreached to enough. So I would plan on having quarterly town halls in all the different neighborhoods - at least quarterly, if not more. I would move our city council sessions at least to - every quarter, to other neighborhoods, so people realize, Hey, we care. Like I went to east of Boulevard Park to like the very northeast - I was out yesterday. And they're like, Yeah, no one from the city has ever come out here. We have easements that get used as dumping sites. And that's what has to change - but that only changes if you come to people, because people in those areas historically are going to have to work harder, have to travel further to go to work, and don't have the time - everybody's just working on surviving. So we have to make sure we go and connect with folks out that way, because that's how they can see, Okay, you know what? If this guy went from doing this by going to the Planning Commission, and there's a way - there's a way to start making that change. So I think that's impactful and we need to make sure we do that, otherwise the same people are going to be making the rules and that's only going to prolong progress.

    [00:33:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So if people want to get involved with your campaign, how can they find out more about you and how can they get involved?

    [00:34:06] Hugo Garcia: Please hit me up on Twitter - it's probably - I'm on there all the time. Hit me up on Twitter @hugo4burien. You can also reach out to our website of course, that's www.hugo4burien.com, and you can email me at info@hugo4burien.com. Facebook - we have a page, but Twitter's where I'm at - I see you on there a lot too.

    [00:34:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah.

    [00:34:34] Hugo Garcia: But yeah, just hit me up because it is a tough race. My opponent is very well funded. Historically, his part of the neighborhood of the city votes a lot more. And our race is very, very - how should I put it? We don't get paid. I mean, we get a stipend. The city councilmembers get a stipend, 500 bucks I think a month. People are not doing this for the money, right? I'm now choosing to do this because it's - one, I have the privilege to have a flexible job where I'm able to do it. But historically, man, you have to have time and you have to have money. And the people that live in the outside of the downtown core, generally don't have both of those things. It's changing a little bit with the demographics, but if we don't get the word out and people don't start to connect, it's just not going to happen. So please hit me up, I really would love to connect, show you - when you canvass with me, you're going to know about all the food spots, all right? Because afterwards we're going to go get some tacos birria, we're going to get some chilaquiles. Burien has got amazing, amazing food scene - we're a small business city, we don't have big employers, so I'm all about connecting through food. So come out, support, and let me share with you why I love Burien.

    I love it, I want to make sure that other people have the same opportunity as my family and us did - where we're able to raise a working family, keep it affordable somehow, and develop here so that kids want to stay here and grow up here - and even have the option to do so. Our family's doing that because we're thankful for that opportunity. So hit me up. Let's go, let's get Burien represented, we need to do this. So hit me up.

    [00:36:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And this is the type of race where - one, you had a very strong showing in the primary, so this race is winnable. It's going to take people pulling together and community support. And a lot of times, I'll have people ask, and we've talked about on the show like, Hey, outside of Seattle, what are the races to pay attention to, what's going on? And have talked about Burien myself, but definitely wanted to talk with you directly because this is one of those races that if we pay attention and if we get engaged, then we'll get somebody on the council who aligns with our values. But if we don't, and if we tune out, then that's where the establishment uses people's apathy and just people not engaging, to continue to perpetuate the same things. And there's a foothold of a progressive movement in Burien that really can be codified and can go so much further if this election goes right, so -

    [00:37:39] Hugo Garcia: Yeah, for sure. And I just want to make sure - it's a foothold and that's just it. And right now, even though I had a good strong primary, it wasn't enough.

    [00:37:51] Crystal Fincher: Right.

    [00:37:52] Hugo Garcia: My opponent had more votes. And I mean, when you talk about - we want people of color to run for office and represented, I've been putting in that work to make sure that I have a chance to represent and help our community. But we need people to show up and right now, with the hard four years that we went through, the tough election that we had, COVID - we're in a pandemic, not post-pandemic, we're in a pandemic. Heat waves, reopening, closing, our businesses are closed, people are just tuning out. And when that happens, you're going to get people that want to discuss theocracy into their policy. So we need to show up. I know people are tired, I know I'm tired, but this is the difference between having a city - that it stays welcoming, that supports their small businesses and keeps families together versus not. So come out, hit me up, I'm ready to do that work. I'm already doing the work and I will continue to do that work.

    [00:39:07] Crystal Fincher: Well thank you so much - appreciate having you Hugo, and we will make sure to put all of those links in the show notes if people want to get in contact with you and just stay engaged.

    [00:39:18] Hugo Garcia: Yeah, thank you, Crystal. Appreciate it. Take care.

    [00:39:25] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar - be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

    Thanks for tuning in, talk to you next time.

    Brianna Thomas, City Council Candidate

    Brianna Thomas, City Council Candidate

    Today we have Brianna Thomas, candidate for Seattle City Council, Position 9 (Citywide). With Crystal, she dives into her knowledge of how Seattle does work, and vision for how Seattle could work. They touch on the causes of and solutions to homelessness, where public safety in Seattle goes from here, and how one takes demands from the community and crafts them into policy.

    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.

    Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s guest, Brianna Thomas, at @peopleforbrianna. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.

     

    Resources

    Read about Seattle’s housing constraints here: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-seattles-rapid-growth-most-new-housing-restricted-to-a-few-areas/ 

    Learn more about how homelessness and trauma go hand-in-hand here: https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/trauma 

    Learn about the rise and fall of Seattle’s navigation teams here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/project-homeless-faq-weve-answered-your-questions-on-seattles-navigation-team/ 

    Read about inclusionary housing, as well as other types of housing projects Seattle has tried, here: https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/05/29/seattles-affordable-housing-progress-in-2019/ 

    Find out more about the Seattle City Council’s recent passage of a law requiring legal representation be provided to those facing eviction: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-passes-right-to-a-free-lawyer-for-those-facing-eviction/#:~:text=Seattle%20City%20Council%20passes%20right%20to%20a%20free%20lawyer%20for%20those%20facing%20eviction,-March%2029%2C%202021&text=The%20Seattle%20City%20Council%20on,in%20the%20city%20facing%20eviction

    Learn about Seattle’s long path with police accountability here: https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-seattle-police-accountability 

     

    Transcript

    Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.

    Well today, I am very thrilled to have with us, someone who I've known for over a decade. We came up together, actually, managing political campaigns in Seattle. And now she's gone off to do big things and is doing an even bigger thing now and running for City Council in Seattle. Please welcome Brianna Thomas. Thanks for joining us.

    Brianna Thomas: [00:01:13] Pleasure to be here, especially on something called Hacks & Wonks. I identify as both of those.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:01:19] Very much us, very much us - both IDF alums, and that very much describes us. It is why the show is named what it is. So, we go way back. This has been a long journey for you. This is your second run for City Council. And so, I guess what made you decide to run for Council again right now?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:01:43] My friends told me to - no. Truly, I've been serving with Council President González for the last five years. 

    The last time I ran, I didn't get out the primary. And a lot of that was about me not knowing what the job was that I was asking for, so I wasn't able to bring that to the trail. So I spent the last five years making an education of my job. I know how the City works, I know how the City doesn't work, and I have a vision of how the City could work. I've invested in making sure that I've got the hard skills that are necessary to talk about things like homelessness, affordable housing, criminal justice reform, equity, and recovery for COVID. What are we going to do for the artists? And all of that came to bear in one moment in February, and here I am now.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:02:29] So as you said, this is certainly a trying time for many people. We're coming out of this COVID crisis - we're beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel just in getting back to where we can be social again, but lots of people are struggling. What can you accomplish as a City Council member right now? And what are your plans?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:02:51] Well, we can take a look at the way we use land. It's a area that I've had to educate myself in, but it touches every piece of policy - where we site childcare centers, whether or not we're building the right systems to make sure our elders can age in place. What about density? Is transit working for people? All of that ties back to our relationship with the land and how we use it. So I think that's one thing I'm really going to be interested in digging into. 

    One of my campaign platforms is building a Seattle for the future that's environmentally sustainable. We know people are coming here because we have clean air and we have clean water. It's a beautiful place to live. There are plenty of economic opportunities. And I think it's our job to get ahead of that demand and start building right now for the Seattle of the future.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:03:36] Well, that's really interesting, and as a former land use and planning board member myself, I certainly agree that the way we use land shapes how we build our communities, and how we're able to connect and thrive. So I guess, are we doing a good job of that right now? What needs to change?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:03:53] We're doing okay. Seattle's a tough town when it comes to land use. Folks are in deep relationship with their communities and their neighborhoods, and change isn't something that we welcome. Some of us have heard about the Seattle process, and that's a thing. It is a real process to make forward progress in that space.

    But I think that with some shifting demographics and the obvious need in that space, we're ready to have a different kind of conversation. We're ready to talk about infill. We're ready to talk about ADU/DADUs. We're ready to talk about taking a real hard look at two thirds of the city still being zoned for single family housing and what that means for our families. During COVID, we saw that communities of color were able to bond together and get through the challenges of educating our children at home, innovating in home-based businesses, and keeping our elders in place with us to keep those families together.

    So what I think we need to do to keep some of that momentum going is have a conversation about where we've been and where we'd like to see ourselves in the future. One thing that's really obvious to me is some of the NIMBY attitude that we had about zoning and exclusionary or inclusionary zoning has exacerbated the homelessness crisis. Had we been more forward-thinking and more open and more progressive as we say that we are, just a simple decade ago, then we would have been creating more infill with affordable housing. And we would have been creating multi-generational households that would have given folks options when they hit a point of crisis.

    So that's what we can do better. We can look at a city and say, and demand that it works for all income levels, all lifestyle choices in a multi-generational city.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:05:35] Well, I think a lot of people are thinking that they'd like to see that, but they very much aren't seeing that right now. You brought up the way that we have created our city has exacerbated the homelessness crisis that we see right now. Why are we in such a problem? Why does it seem to be impossible for us to figure out how to get out of this thing and what do we need to do?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:05:58] We need more meaningful investments, and I know that's not a popular response because it feels like we're already throwing good money after bad. But we need to recognize that homelessness is a form of trauma. It is a trauma on a trauma. There are layers of trauma there. And while rapid rehousing is a tool we must keep in our toolkit, it is not the only solution. No one that I've ever met - that has experienced trauma or myself - has been able to turn their entire life around, stabilize, and thrive in 90 days.

    We need longer term solutions for housing. We need expanded hotel programs. We need to recognize that tent encampments are not compassionate, long-term solutions. And quite frankly, I think that the City, wherever you are on the spectrum of your political ideology, recognizes that that cannot continue to be our default setting on addressing homelessness.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:06:54] So when you talk about - people need services - what does that mean? And what are we providing right now? And what more should we be providing? Because lots of people talk about, they need services. We heard about the Navigation Team that was established to much fanfare and it turned out they actually weren't offering much at all. So what is that missing link and how do we implement that?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:07:19] That's a really great question. You can only use services as a solution if there's services available. So we can send folks out to do outreach, but if there's not a room or a safe place for them to go to in that moment, when they are able and willing to accept assistance, then it's a hollow offering. We're just moving folks around because there's nowhere to put them.

    We had a conversation about needing regional solutions - that Seattle couldn't go it on its own. And so we worked for 18-24 months to stand up the King County Regional Housing Authority. Now, I'm excited to see that we've got an Executive Director on board and hopefully we can make some progress there, but if we're going to have a real conversation about this issue - we created that authority as a regional approach and several of our regional partners, after agreeing to the rules of engagement and agreeing to the rules of the game, decided to opt out. They still want a seat at the table, they still want to vote, but they don't want to pony up. And they're still going to shift the burden of the solution to Seattle in its own right.

    So we have to partner with the State. We have to partner with our regional, our local cities that aren't Seattle. Because Seattle cannot solve this on its own. And we have to create some accountability for what we are doing in every neighborhood in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County. This is a national problem with a regional impact. And we've got to start looking at the solutions that way. If you don't have an actual shelter for someone to go to, where's the incentive for them to change anything about their behavior?

    So we got to step away from nice words and platitudes, and probably start having some harder conversations with each other about where the buck actually stops, because there's been a lot of mmmhhh. Oh, you can't see me because this is a podcast - I'm pointing in different directions.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:09:09] Well, and that brings up a good point. You talk about - we put the expectation on people that they do something once they're put into a short-term shelter, that there is a clock that's ticking that they're encouraged to get out, but they're not provided with the services or even set up for success at all in that area. We're sweeping encampments, which is as we've talked about before, recommended against by the CDC, which has been affirmed by King County Public Health. Do you ever see a justification for doing sweeps?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:09:47] Yes. Short answer, yes. Again, it goes back to my framing of not moving people for the sake of not moving people is not a compassionate answer. We've gotten to the point where we have accepted people using public lands as a substitute for the gaps in the system. So I think that if we know that there is an encampment that is struggling under the burden of drug abuse and trafficking, and again, the mental illness and trauma that comes from being houseless and homeless day after day after day after day. And those folks have been offered services. Now, to be clear, the services have to exist. This can't be services in name only, there has to be an actual place for folks to go. If we are able to create all of those conditions and all of those backstops and all of that cushioning, and then folks still aren't willing or able to make that shift for themselves, there is a role for government to intercede.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:10:53] Well, and I guess the form of that intercession is the question. So you just mentioned - okay, justified, if there is drug abuse or trafficking. Substance use disorder is a known contributor to people losing housing stability and winding up in an unhoused situation. So it seems like that wouldn't be unexpected at all to see, and that the focus should be on services to address that.

    You brought up trafficking, which actually Councilmember Andrew Lewis brought that up too. We weren't able to find any evidence of any trafficking in encampments, or that happening. I don't know if that was something talked about in a Council briefing or something, but we hadn't seen that at all in what happened. So I guess, what would be the situations that you - what would you do in the instance - in the instance that someone is unhoused and they are suffering with substance use disorder? What would you do in that situation?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:12:07] Again, this is going to be a long-term solution. We know that right now at the State level - we're building a facility in Kent that will have a whopping 26 beds for the entire state - for inpatient treatment for folks that are in this condition. 26. I feel like that's not going to cover the need, not even kind of, not even a little bit.

    So what are the conversations that we need to be having with the House and the Senate right now about the gravity of the need. Now I understand that the budget's looking pretty good this season and that folks are taking advantage of the fact that we have Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. That's encouraging. But we all have to be real - that with 12,000-15,000 people currently experiencing homelessness in this county alone - if you assume, roughly, I don't have the math, but let's assume 10% of them are dealing with substance use disorder. That's a 1,500 bed situation. 26 isn't going to cut it.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:13:03] So as a City of Seattle Councilmember, what should be done in the City to address that?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:13:08] Well, we've started the hoteling program. Hopefully that sticks and that we find other opportunities to expand that programming. 

    One thing I'd like to revisit is inclusionary zoning, I'm sorry, inclusionary housing fees. So when developers came in and put in big beautiful apartment buildings or condo buildings, they had an option to either provide a certain number of units of affordable housing in-building or write a check. Shockingly, most of them chose to write the check. And now we are building affordable housing in communities that are already traditionally distressed. So we are concentrating poverty in communities that are already experiencing poverty. I'd like to have a conversation with the folks that wrote the check and chose not to, because there's no way their occupancy rates are anything based on what their projections were supposed to be for a return on investment.

    So it does not behoove those developers to continue to maintain the status quo with the vacancy rates that are at this point morally corrupt in order to continue the segregation along economic experiences, so that everyone can live a certain type of way. It is absolutely necessary to take a look at where we're putting affordable housing, who's paying for affordable housing, and what sort of come-to-Jesus moment we have to have with ourselves in a city where we are willing to accept beautiful homes empty night after night, while we watch our neighbors pitch tents.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:14:34] Do you think there's anything that can be done about that from a policy perspective - in terms of utilizing vacant properties and just in terms of affordability for people who are housed, but are struggling to pay rent and to pay their mortgage?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:14:51] Yeah. I think that I'm really proud of the work we were able to do in COVID around eviction moratoriums. And just on Monday, the council passed legislation guaranteeing representation for tenants who are facing eviction. We also created a legal defense against economic hardship due to COVID. So if you do find yourself in a situation where you've got a landlord that is not trying to work on a payment plan, that is not trying to understand your humanity and the economic challenge the planet is facing. So not a Seattle problem now, the whole planet is going through this right now. They're not willing to come to the table in good faith and insist on proceeding with eviction proceedings, you now have a right to a lawyer. You have someone who can stand up for you and say, By the way, this is the law, this is your obligation as a landlord. And very similar to the legal defense fund that we created, we know that 9 out of 10 times when someone has a lawyer, they come out on top because we know that large landlords have the benefit of large law firms and small guys don't. So we're trying to equalize the playing field here to prevent additional homelessness in our city, while we work desperately to recover from the crisis we're currently in.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:16:04] That makes sense. I want to talk about public safety and starting off with a conversation about policing. Certainly there's been a lot of conversation about how we need to change, modify, reform, fundamentally alter the way that we view public safety, whose safety is being prioritized, and how we keep each other safe in our neighborhoods. What do you think has gone right and wrong so far in the existing efforts, and where do you want to go?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:16:45] I love this question. It's very popular question this season. So I have had the fortune and challenge of being on the frontline of police reform since 2016. I am a Black woman. And the first time I engaged with the police was being transported into foster care in the back of a car, police car, like I was a criminal, like I had done something wrong. Because the police officer that was transporting me didn't want to clear out his front seat. This was in Georgia. This was not the SPD. But this speaks to the culture of policing we're trying to address.

    So we wrote 107 pages of beautiful legislation in 2017 that re-imagined civilian oversight of our police force. We were not able to bargain all 107 pages of that legislation and of those reforms. And that's where the rubber hits the road. We're operating from a space where collective bargaining agreements trump local laws in the State of Washington. And until we turn that ship around, we have to go to the table and bargain. Now we have to be able to go to a table with someone who wants to bargain, who shares the values of accountability, who shares a vision of culture reform and reconnecting and re-establishing trust with community. It is incumbent upon the guild to find the political will to find leadership that shares those values.

    Until we have someone at the table who actually wants to invest meaningfully in reform and culture change on behalf of the guild, the Council will continue to be trapped, the City will continue to be trapped between the Department of Justice, a federal judge, and a collective bargaining agreement. And somebody has got to go first. We have done the work, we have set the policy, we have met with community, we have taken the criticisms to enact these sorts of changes, and it's not just a single actor issue anymore. There are multiple actors at the table. That was a very long answer. Sorry about that. I just get very impassioned.

    My vision of public safety is a collective bargaining agreement that actually works for the community, that creates accountability, and allows us the budget flexibility to invest in community-based alternative responses that are appropriate for each community. You're not going to have the same response in Rainier Beach that you're going to have in Wallingford, or Maple Leaf, or Northgate, or West Seattle out here on the island where I live. Each of those communities are proud of their individual cultures and their individual dynamics. And we thought about going there with micro-policing plans, but it just sort of fell short because there wasn't the institutional support to really do the work on crafting programs that matched the culture and needs and requirements of each of the 118 neighborhoods of the City of Seattle.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:19:30] So you brought up a variety of things, and I like the detailed answers. Those are very good things. We don't have the kinds of time limitations in short form interviews or that are instituted sometimes in TV interviews or anything like that. So we can just talk. But in that, you talked about the Seattle Police Officers Guild - obviously right now, they have leadership that by almost everyone's account does not appear to be operating in good faith, has been chastised and called out by people across the political spectrum for inflammatory, false misleading statements from everything about - from protests to the insurrection. So that right now is not looking very promising that they don't have that. 

    But I guess on the Council end - as a Councilmember, the first question I've asked others - would you vote to approve a contract that didn't include the 2017 ordinance provisions?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:20:36] No. I lived through that - it was painful. The Council and the City were put in a position, at the time, where they were presented with a false choice between standing with the rights of workers and standing with the needs and demands of community. And we have learned from that, I have learned from that, and I have the intestinal fortitude and temperament to just keep saying No, until we get there. I just cannot emphasize enough that the people taking to the streets, the activists demanding change and accountability were right. And we made the wrong choice. We can make the right choice this time.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:21:19] Council certainly can make the right choice this time. And I certainly hope that the Council does. In terms of staffing, this is something that the City can dictate and determine, and that isn't necessarily hindered by the SPOG contract or state provisions. Would you be continuing to look to reduce the head count within SPD moving forward?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:21:49] So the real answer to that is, I don't know. I don't know. I think that we have to take a look at response times. I think we have to take a look at what we are asking officers to do. Do we need a gun and badge to respond to everything? Absolutely not. And do we have to continue to ask police officers to be mental health service providers? Absolutely not. So I don't know what the right number is. I don't think anybody knows what the right number is, if there is a right number. I do know that we are continuing to do a needs assessment and a task assessment of what we are asking SPD to do now, and whether or not that is appropriate. 

    In 2018, we took big steps toward restoring the community service officer program. Wildly popular. But taking certain tasks away from SPD and putting it on the plate of community service officers does require bargaining. That is a limitation of bargaining. So if we are reimagining the tasks that police officers are performing, we have to recognize that each of those changes requires a session, or two, or ten of bargaining with the guild to get them to accept that change of work conditions. 

    And there are still limitations about how far we can go from the Department of Justice - that remains. I think it's a sticky thing to be honest about, but last summer, community insisted in the middle of a cloud of tear gas, rightfully so, that we stay under the consent decree. There was a move to have it removed, and that would have given the City more flexibility in setting policy, staffing levels, and budgets. But we heard them and so we withdrew that request. That however has had the result of limiting what the City can and cannot change while under federal supervision. And that's the hard thing about governing, right? That's the hard thing and the magical thing about governing is - you want to give community all of the things that it wants, but your job is to figure out how to get as much of both requests as possible, wherever feasible. It's a little bit of an art and a little bit of a science.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:23:52] And that's an interesting conversation. And I think, one, that you are in a very unique position to address. Maybe more than almost anyone else who's a candidate for a variety of positions, really. It's how do you take demands from the community and turn that into policy. And that is not a simple thing to do.

    You come from community, you have been on the street enacting policy. You have protested, you have certainly carried the voice of community to those in power before. And now you have been in the halls of power, certainly as Chief of Staff for Council President Lorena González. And have worked on taking the desires and the demands and working within institutions, working with the Council, working with other entities, understanding and realizing the challenges, the limitations. Sometimes you can move fast, sometimes you can't move fast at all. 

    How do you balance that? How do you negotiate that? And what do you think in considering that lots of people are going to be looking at you and looking at other candidates and saying, We know we need massive radical change in many areas - from policing, climate change, economically, you name it. We need that change. We're counting on it, we're feeling it, the lack of it in our daily lives. And so we're counting on you to enact it. And sometimes we get frustrated when we hear, We just can't do it, or we can't do it all right now, or you need to have patience or here's what we can do in different ways. How do you think people should think about that? And what is your experience in navigating that?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:25:51] One thing I like to remind people of is because I have a seattle.gov email address, and because I am a public servant, I have not stopped being a Black woman in America. I have not stopped being part of this community. And quite frankly, it's a little isolating - the polarization that happens and creates an us and them narrative between community and "institutional actors." I need my community as much as they need me.

    And sometimes it's a lonely place to be, and I'm not trying to be a sad sack of a bureaucrat right now, but there have been many days last summer where I didn't feel like I had my community to hold me together while fighting for my community. And my inability to deliver on community demands breaks my heart as much as anybody else's, if not more. So I get out of bed every day is to fight for my community and to move the needle as hard and as fast as I can. 

    The forces that we are fighting against, the institutions that we are fighting inside of are designed to perpetuate their own interest. And that's where you have to start - with the understanding. So if you're asking me as the person who answered the phone for Council President González, when you called in today, to undo a 2-, 3-, 4-, 500 year old way of doing things, there has to be some recognition that I'm not going to be able to do that in a single budget cycle. I can plant seeds. I can make investments. I can move the needle. There are some things that you can flip a switch on, but normally that lives in the hands of the executive, honestly. 

    But in terms of the Council, legislating is a team sport. So I might be 112% with you, but I've got to get to five votes to do anything in my job. That is my job - is getting to five. So it's not just one office, it's not just one moment, it's not just one batch of emails. It is a constant and continuous, iterative team sport. I'd be doing a lot of interviews lately, and been getting a lot of feedback that I'm harping hard on this team sport theory, but I think we've seen what happens when folks try to go it alone. You can't be a single voice in the wilderness. This is not how democracy is designed. Democracy is designed for a diversity of ideas, diversity of tactics, diversity of perspectives, to get to a shared goal. And quite frankly, I am tired of hearing that Seattle can't get its act together. We introduced over 500 bills last year - from our living rooms in a pandemic. Over 500 pieces of legislation. So it's not that there is disharmony or discord or we don't know where we're going. We know where we're going. We're actually pretty good at getting there. We just are dealing with a volume of needs simultaneously and concurrently. None of which are happening in a vacuum.

    I could sing bars about what it's like to try to schedule something in committee - quit playing. There are nine committees that oversee all of the departments in the City and each of them have their niche market. So if there are 15 labor standards proposed in a single season, it turns out there's one committee for that. And it only meets twice a month. So I'm not going to be able to do all of them concurrently. If you've got 15 ideas for land use and code changes - still one committee, one chair who has to manage all of that work. And so we really have to recognize that there are limitations in the infrastructure. There are limitations to our human capacity, and sometimes I'm being protective of Central staff because there's one subject matter expert for every subject in the City. And they can't do 15 projects at one time.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:29:33] Well, that makes sense. I think it's helpful for people to have a clear understanding of what the needs and demands and kind of working conditions and general operational structure is of the positions that they're electing. And lots of people look at City Council members in the same way that they look at the mayor. Those are two very different positions. One is legislative and on a team, like you said, the other is an executive. They have two different types of authority. And even as a Councilmember, you are working in concert with several other Councilmembers that all have as much power as you do. So you do have to work together and figure that out.

    So I guess, as we wrap up today, how would you work with your Councilmembers differently? What experience would you be bringing to the Council to help get people to five on issues, and moving forward on what community needs most, and what residents in the city need most? How are you uniquely able to move your Councilmembers in a productive way?

    Brianna Thomas: [00:30:44] One of the things that government gets a real bad rap for is it has a tendency to be very transactional. And again, that's because we're dealing with the 500 bills that are all moving simultaneously, or not moving at all because there's 500 of them. And that's where being relational comes in. 

    Sometimes you got to know when to be like, Listen, a topic has come up and it is the most important topic. And I've got a topic that I want to cover too, but I'm willing to take a beat because this supersedes what my vision of the world for today is. Sometimes you got to know when to step up, you got to know when to step back. And again, elected officials are people too. There is not like a chip or an upload that turns us into automatons. So maybe it is donuts on a Tuesday asking for a favor. Maybe it is being willing to invest in a conversation beyond where your natural reason wants you to go. But listening is the biggest part of government. And listening for cues from your colleagues is paramount to being successful in this job. 

    I'm very fortunate that of the nine Councilmembers that are on the Council currently, I have worked with all nine of them for at least four years. We have relationships - they know what to expect from me when I call them. They're very clear. I'm often in meetings and I can be heard to introduce myself as "still Brianna." Yep. Just like last week, just like last year, just like a decade ago. You know what you're getting with me and if I disagree with you, I'm going to be straight up. I'm not going to hide the ball. And we're just going to have to deal with that. We are ready for tough conversations that don't have to be divisive, because at the end of the day, I firmly believe we share the same goals. We share different strategies and we share different tactics about how we want to get there. But I firmly believe that we as Seattleites have a shared set of values that we are marching toward. And we need to have a little bit of grace with each other because talking about trauma, we have all been through a global trauma for the last year and it will be years before we unwind how to get back to what was "ourselves" before the great confinement began.

    So I'm going to lead with grace. I'm going to lead with a little bit of sass and I'm being very direct because I grew up on the East Coast. I'm not afraid to do that and we're going to get work done. That's what I've been doing for the last five years. You've just never heard of me because it was my job not to be heard of.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:33:02] Well, that makes sense. And I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today. Certainly has been enlightening. We look forward to following you as you proceed through the campaign trail. Thanks for joining us today.

    Brianna Thomas: [00:33:13] Thank you for having me.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:33:16] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. 

    Thanks for tuning in! Talk to you next time.

    Week in Review: August 13, 2021

    Week in Review: August 13, 2021

    Today Crosscut political reporter David Kroman joins Crystal to discuss the Seattle City Attorney primary election results, the massive impact of primary endorsements from the Seattle Times and The Stranger, the lawsuit being brought against Compassion Seattle, Seattle Police Department consent decree updates, and local governments having a responsibility to protect residents from dangerous heat and toxic, smoky air.

    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.

    Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, David Kroman, at @KromanDavid. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.

     

    Resources

    “Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes concedes primary election” by David Kroman from Crosscuthttps://crosscut.com/news/2021/08/seattle-city-attorney-pete-holmes-concedes-primary-election 

    "Nikkita Oliver overtakes Sara Nelson to assume the lead for Seattle City Council #9" by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocatehttps://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/08/nikkita-oliver-overtakes-sara-nelson-to-assume-the-lead-for-seattle-city-council-9.html

    “Lawsuit filed to block Charter Amendment 29 from the November 2021 Seattle ballot” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocatehttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/aclu-and-advocates-file-lawsuit-over-compassion-seattle-ballot-initiative/ 

    “Federal judge to Seattle officials: ‘Too much knee-jerk, not enough forethought’ on police reform” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Timeshttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/federal-judge-to-seattle-officials-too-much-knee-jerk-not-enough-forethought-on-police-reform/ 

    “Trump’s stolen election racket is working extremely well -- even here in Washington state” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Timeshttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/trumps-stolen-election-racket-is-working-extremely-well-even-here-in-washington-state/ 

    “Hidden Toll of the Northwest Heat Wave: Hundreds of Extra Deaths” by Nadja Popovich and WInston Choi-Schagrin from The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/11/climate/deaths-pacific-northwest-heat-wave.html 

    “Smoke from Canada arrives, air quality alert issued for some parts of Puget Sound” by Christine Clarridge from The Seattle Timeshttps://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/smoke-from-canada-arrives-air-quality-alerts-issued-for-some-parts-of-puget-sound/ 

     

    Transcript

    [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost.

    Welcome back to the program friend of the show, today's co-host, Crosscut political reporter, David Kroman.

    [00:00:51] David Kroman: Hey Crystal.

    [00:00:52] Crystal Fincher: Hey, how's it going?

    [00:00:54] David Kroman: It's going well. How are you doing?

    [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: I'm doing okay. Well, we have got a number of things to talk about today. I think we will start off just putting an exclamation point on the primary results. We spoke a bit about that last week, but we got some clarity this week on a few races - particularly, probably top of mind, is the City Attorney's race. What are your thoughts about that result?

    [00:01:25] David Kroman: My thoughts is - well, on the one hand, I want to be surprised because I think it's a position that people - I think maybe don't often understand exactly what it is. And for good reason, because the City Attorney is not really a job that exists in a lot of other places. Most places like Philadelphia or San Francisco, you have one prosecutor which is basically our Dan Satterberg, our King County prosecuting attorney. For most places, that's it. But in Seattle, we have this weird position where there's this guy who, or soon to be woman, who only prosecutes misdemeanors and then does civil litigation for the City. So it's a weird position and I don't think a lot of people really understand that.

    And so my baseline assumption going in was - you have a huge advantage as an incumbent because especially someone who's been there for three terms, it would take a lot, I think, to motivate people to want to shift gears on that. At the same time, I'm also not surprised because there's been a lot of conversation from both the left and the right - on the left about reforming how we do criminal justice, a lot of introspection around whether prosecuting misdemeanors makes any sense at all. And then from the right, this feeling like, Pete Holmes has been too light on low-level crime and this broken windows view of things - which is, if you don't clean up low-level crime, it leads to more serious crime - that sort of thing.

    And then I think the icing on the cake was the endorsements, which maybe we'll talk about more later - where Nicole Thomas-Kennedy gets The Stranger's endorsement and Ann Davison gets Seattle Times. And so, it's a surprising result that it led there, but I think by election night, we all understood that this was a real possibility - that Pete Holmes could win or could lose, rather. In fact, Pete Holmes was saying that he could lose. So it's surprising, and it's going to make for what I think is going to be probably the most interesting and contentious race Seattle has seen in a really long time.

    [00:03:35] Crystal Fincher: I agree. And I think you hit the nail on the head talking about some of the dynamics there, and it'll be interesting to see what kind of a role people's understanding of what the City Attorney is plays in that race and how different people may try and exploit that. Because just looking at messaging and rhetoric, particularly from Republican Ann Davison, who made it through in addition to Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, it's very much, "Oh, he's letting dangerous criminals back on the street. It's a revolving door." And it seems like a lot of people do not know that the City Attorney does not handle felonies - and really thinking about violent crime - some of the more serious crime that is associated with felonies. And this is really a different conversation, so it'll be interesting to see how that conversation unfolds.

    Going into this, I don't think many people were surprised that there were a strong competitor or strong competitors, but yeah, definitely the weakness of Pete Holmes - and some of it, it appears that he did a lot of this to himself. One, just trying to not do anything to rock the boat, it seemed like for a majority of the election - just act like he didn't really have opponents, just try and be an incumbent, don't make any waves. That didn't seem to work out really well. Then he realized that, "Hey, this is really competitive." Polling came out showing that it was really competitive. And then a last minute push with an odd interview with, I think it was Jim Brunner of The Seattle Times, where Pete Holmes admitted that he changed his decision to sue the Seattle Times and ended up dropping the lawsuit, in part, because a State Representative threatened to withdraw his endorsement for his campaign. So it just looked really odd that, okay, are you making decisions based on your responsibilities as City Attorney, or just fear based on where you stand and in terms of voters and funders and all that kind of stuff.

    So, and there's been so much conversation about public safety. Certainly the City Council has been held to account for their decisions and a lot of examination, and the mayor and the police department. The City Attorney does have a lot of influence there, and he was also silent throughout so much of that process. And I think people were certainly dissatisfied with just what they were seeing, and where we stand on so many big issues - and were searching for an alternative. The endorsements by The Seattle Times and The Stranger of his opponents certainly didn't help. And you brought up an interesting question online - I mean, I'll let you pose the question - but thinking about how The Times and Stranger endorsements matter, what was your question and thinking there?

    [00:06:49] David Kroman: Well, I guess it's just that every primary election, we see - Danny Westneat always comes out with his analysis pretty quickly on election night. And we see columns and hand-wringing around what happened. But at the end of the day, the people who won are the people who got either The Stranger or the Seattle Times endorsement. So in some ways, there's this obvious answer around who wins - which is, especially in a race where I think people maybe don't always understand exactly what the office does. People turn to the newspaper that they feel aligns most closely with their politics and goes that direction. And I don't think that is as important in the general election when it's just two people, but in the primary, when you have a lot of people running and a lot of decisions to make, and a few points can make a big difference - I think it really matters.

    That said, I will caveat that a little bit and agree with you that Pete Holmes certainly did not help himself. He didn't campaign hardly at all, as far as I can tell, until maybe the last week or two. And at the end of the day, he didn't lose by that many votes - because when you have three people in a low turnout primary, you don't need to win that many more votes to make a difference. And so, I think there was a path when he could have overcome the fact that he didn't get those endorsements, had he taken this race more seriously from the beginning. But I think the fact that - a day before the filing deadline, no one had really filed against him - I think created this impression that he was just going to waltz to a fourth term. Nicole Thomas-Kennedy decides, basically last minute, that with hours to go, that she's going to do this. And so I think that beginning to the season - my sense is, and I hear this from talking to allies of Pete Holmes, that he just never really - he was just caught flat footed. That he didn't think that this was going to be as challenging of a race as it was.

    And I don't think it was until those endorsements came out that he started to understand that his position was really in danger. Which I think there's a broader message there too for Pete Holmes' whole tenure, which is even people who were basically backers of Pete Holmes and preferred him to the other two people say - I think he was progressive on a lot of fronts, but he never quite did enough to fill this void that was being left around. He's saying basically - there are better ways to handle public safety than prosecutions, but he wasn't really saying what those ways were. And he wasn't throwing the full weight of his office behind - we can do this for people, here are all these things we can do for people, and we should be pushing really hard for them instead of prosecution. So, because he didn't really have a good answer to those things, it left a lot of room for someone like Nicole Thomas-Kennedy, to say, "I'm going to come in and I'm going to fill that void by not prosecuting and offering a lot more service or whatever it might be." And then on the other hand, Ann Davison, who's saying, "Pete Holmes doesn't know what he's doing. He needs to be prosecuting more people and so I'm going to run." So, I just think he never had really a strong - he never really had anything like a competitive race for City Attorney since he was first elected, and I think he got complacent. I just think he didn't have a good strategy and it came back to bite him.

    [00:10:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would absolutely agree with that. And on top of that, the dynamic of the middle is a challenging place to be in a primary. Particularly in a three-person primary where you're offering stark choices, where people are unhappy with what is happening now - maybe for different reasons that they're unhappy - but it gives them somewhere to go for people who are presenting strong, bold visions on one side or another. But that middle of the road position, it is just really challenging in a primary.

    And I think in terms of the endorsements, particularly from The Times and Stranger, you had two lesser known people, in Ann Davison and Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Ann Davison had previously run for Lieutenant Governor as a Republican candidate. Nicole Thomas-Kennedy was largely unknown before she threw her hat in the ring. So when Seattleites aren't that familiar with someone, I think those endorsements matter much more than they do in races where they have already formed an opinion, or there's been a lot of coverage already. As voters get more familiar with candidates, then those endorsements matter less because they can already form their opinion. They don't have to rely on someone else's, but certainly in a race like that, it is impactful.

    And when these races are being decided within 10 points, that boils down to communication. I know a number of consultants have talked previously - we before have compared those endorsements to basically being the equivalent to a citywide mail piece or two where - in terms of communication, a lot of times it's like, Well, usually you figure a communication can give a candidate a 10ish point bump if it's good and effective. And that is what those endorsements generally can do also. And in close races that can determine who wins and who loses. And I think that's what we saw. Do want to pivot to talking about a lawsuit that was filed this week against Compassion Seattle Charter Amendment 29 in the City of Seattle. What is happening with that?

    [00:12:51] David Kroman: I always caveat talking about lawsuits that I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have any prediction as to the merit of this particular lawsuit, but it's interesting because in Washington State with initiatives, usually what happens is there's not a lot of recourse for preventing an initiative from going to voters in the first place. Usually what happens is it goes to voters and then if it's approved, then you start to see these lawsuits - people fight over whether it's constitutional or not. We've seen this a ton of times with Tim Eyman's initiatives, where they pass, go to court, get struck down, sometimes with gun control related initiatives or things like that.

    But this lawsuit is basically arguing that a city's response to homelessness and how it handles homelessness should not be a subject of an initiative vote at all. It's the same argument as was made against a measure to stop or to ban safe injection, safe consumption sites, which is that, it's a matter of public health. And it's basically the city's prerogative to decide how they want to do this for the health and safety of people involved. And so that's what this is saying - is it's trying to get ahead of the normal legal proceedings that happen around initiatives and say, This shouldn't be on the ballot at all.

    [00:14:14] Crystal Fincher: So who are the parties who are bringing this lawsuit?

    [00:14:18] David Kroman: So, it's a few parties - the ACLU, Real Change is involved, I believe the Tenants Union, or is it the Transit Riders Union? I need to actually pull up the actual case itself, but it's a few different advocacy organizations who have been pretty skeptical and opposed to this possible charter amendment from the start.

    [00:14:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And it'll be really interesting to see how this proceeds - the ACLU of Washington - again, I'm also not a lawyer, but certainly they have brought a number of successful lawsuits in a range of policy and issue areas before. And so, certainly having them attached to this makes a lot of people pay attention and say, "Hey, maybe there's something here," because they typically are very thorough in what they choose to pursue and not pursue. And usually only pursue things they feel they have a good chance at winning and they often do. So certainly an interesting development - we've talked a lot about Charter Amendment 29 on this show and the differences between the rhetoric from the pro campaign and what the actual initiative says. So this conversation throughout the general election will be interesting, and this is going to be competitive. This charter amendment, as we were talking about - we did a consultants roundtable last night - and the people who are putting on this initiative have very deep pockets. There's a lot of downtown business associated with it. There was just an article this past week by Danny Westneat talking about some of the funders involved with this. And one of Trump's biggest boosters and financial supporters in the State of Washington is a big supporter of the Compassion Seattle campaign, also Bruce Harrell's campaign. So it'll be interesting to see just how House Our Neighbors, the ACLU of Washington - those on the record as opposing the initiative - are able to respond to this campaign, which certainly has a lot of slick messaging. But really debunking and fact checking that is going to be a tall task because of the differences in resources. But certainly there are some organizations involved who are very capable of doing that. So we'll see how that unfolds.

    Also, want to talk about updates on the consent decree process and the federal judge who is in charge of that. What is happening there?

    [00:17:17] David Kroman: What is happening there is, I think, a lot of uncertainty around what comes next. I will preface this - it's really difficult to talk about the consent decree and not get too far into the weeds. But what we're seeing, I think, is some tension between essentially branches of government - which is you have this consent decree, which is basically under the ownership of this federal judge. And that consent decree, I think people forget, is not really - it's actually pretty narrow. It's not really just about - make the police department a better place. I mean, that's part of it, but it has pretty specific goals around use of force, and training, and things like that. And so, because the goals are so specific, anything that the judge thinks might get in the way of those goals becomes the subject of his skepticism and ire.

    And so, that recently has become - the City Council's actions around "re-imagining" or possibly even defunding the police - because it gets right at the heart of this debate around how do you make public safety better? Is it by funding more police? Some people think that is the case, or is it by moving police dollars into something else? And I think for the federal judge, James Robart, he comes clearly more down on that depriving police departments of resources will make it more difficult for Seattle to meet its obligations of this consent decree, which is pretty much in direct conflict with a lot of the cries of the protestors and things of the last summer who wanted to move away from this model of policing.

    And so I think right now I don't really know what the path forward is. I think the judge is a little stumped. I think the people involved in this consent decree are a little stumped. This thing has been going on for almost 10 years when it was supposed to go on for 5 years, it costs a ton of money. And so I think the federal judge the other day was basically saying, "I'm skeptical of what the City is doing, but you guys need to give me a plan for how you're going to finish this thing." And I don't think that plan really exists right now.

    [00:19:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and particularly because that plan is the policy, the politics of it. It really is a matter of perspective. I think you are correct when you talk about the federal judge has hesitations about the direction that the Council is taking. But residents of Seattle elected the Council based on the positions that they said they were going to take. They're taking the positions that they were elected to carry through. The challenge is them attempting to do that can be overturned by this judge, and that's an element in this reform discussion and through re-imagining discussion, that's confounding to everyone. Activists are pushing hard. Electeds are pushing hard trying to move in a different direction and get some of these changes that they've been talking about implemented. And that can actually be rejected by the judge, so there's this extra unelected element influencing policy in the City. And there have been decisions that the City Council had to basically walk back, or not make, or revise because it may be rejected by this federal judge. So in essence, they're negotiating with a federal judge regarding police department policy. And if it doesn't meet his approval, he'll just reject it. That's a very powerful position for an unelected person to be in, in terms of such impactful policy with the residents of Seattle. And I don't think this is what people on any side envisioned at the outset of this consent decree process.

    [00:21:51] David Kroman: Yeah. I agree with that. The one tweak I would make to that is it's - I think it's not so much that people are - that the City is beholden to an unelected judge. I mean, that is true. That is true. But I think what he would argue - I think what's really happening is the City is beholden to the people who were elected in 2010, because this settlement agreement that the judge is enforcing was written by the people who were in office or in the Department of Justice in 2010. And so - it's like if you imagine the 2010 City Council passing a piece of legislation and the 2020-2021 City Council still negotiating over whether or not - how to implement it. And that's what's going on. And so, it's this - and as we all know, the notion of police reform or what police reform looks like has changed fairly dramatically since 2010. So I think that's the main tension - is that the City is negotiating against its past self when negotiating the settlement with the Department of Justice was what they viewed at the time as the best option. And now their view of that has shifted and yet they are still obligated to fulfill the parameters of that 2010 settlement agreement.

    [00:23:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah. That's a great point. And this is a reminder, I mean, that was the Council that had, I believe, Tim Burgess and Bruce Harrell, Richard Conlin - certainly a much more conservative Council than we currently have. And a completely different conversation on police reform. I mean, they hadn't even gotten to the point of body cameras at that time, I don't think. That was basically on the bleeding edge of consideration at that time. Certainly a lot different than we're looking at today. And there were people, including Mike McGinn, at the time who were calling it out as, "Hey, we're setting ourselves up for some problems here. And this policy is going to wind up different than Seattle voters seem to want at that time." Those calls weren't heeded, here we are - but it'll be interesting to see how we continue to proceed here and who we place as the next mayor in Seattle, who the Councilmembers are going to be coming in - could dramatically impact the way this conversation and policy unfolds.

    I also want to talk just a little bit about the situation we find ourselves in again - today, here, Friday, August 13th, we have hazy, unhealthy skies again because of wildfire smoke. We're in the middle of a heat advisory - temperatures in the upper 90s once again - and heat is something that we are going to be dealing with increasingly. This extreme heat, it's lethal heat. Absolutely dangerous to people's health and wellbeing. And we've talked about on this show, the responsibility that particularly local governments have in protecting their populations from threats to their health. And I think it's pretty clear that heat and the impacts and effects of heat were not top of mind on many cities' radars for a long time. And now that we are here, cities are trying to reckon with this.

    Last time in June, when we had extreme heat over - we reported over a 100 people, over 115 people died. It was the most lethal heat event that we've had in the state to date. There was a story that came out in the New York Times, I believe it was, this week talking about in the Pacific Northwest - there were actually over 600 excess deaths during that heat wave, which is far higher than any of the governments reported. No matter what lens we examine this through, heat is a major problem and a major threat to our health and wellbeing. And that's even before we get to the effects that it has on our ecosystem, the changes that it's making to the organisms and fish that inhabit our waters, our - we rely heavily on agriculture. It's a huge industry here. That is jeopardized by extreme heat. So we're going to have to deal with this and governments are not only going to have to take action to make sure that we keep this from getting worse than it already will be, but also protect their populations from the impacts that are happening right now.

    And I am looking at governments providing cooling centers. It's great. It looks like this is on - getting further on the radar of governments. But for example, a lot of suburban cities have cooling centers that close at 5:00 PM, which we're still dealing with lethal heat far after 5:00 PM. And the Seattle Times did some great reporting the end of June about heat islands. And because of the lack of a tree canopy, the extent of pavement - there are some areas in King County, particularly South King County, looking at like Kent, Auburn, Burien - that are routinely 20 degrees higher than other areas in our county and in our region at 8:00 PM, far after the highs of the day have been reached. Other areas are cooling down rapidly, but particularly in South King County, some areas just aren't cooling, so the threat of heat carries on well into the evening and night. And so I just hope that as we all listen and continue to move through this, that we all hold our government at all levels to account for making sure that they are protecting people from heat. We demand this when it comes to hurricanes, floods, other emergencies, and this is predictable. We know it's going to happen more frequently. We have to do a better job protecting our population because man, this is just highly lethal to people. And with significant unhoused populations, with one of the largest populations that doesn't have air conditioning in our homes and our region - this just continues to be a big threat. So I will hop off my soap box on that, but feel very strongly that we have to be more proactive in addressing this and in protecting people.

    With that, I am very thankful for you joining me today, David - lots of excellent insight and information. Appreciate it.

    [00:29:18] David Kroman: Thanks so much for having me.

    [00:29:19] Crystal Fincher: And I want to thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 this Friday, August 13th, 2021. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assisted by Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today is Crosscut political reporter, David Kroman. You can find David on Twitter @KromanDavid that's K-R-O-M-A-N David. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks - it really helps. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

    Thanks for tuning in, we'll talk to you next time.

    Week in Review: April 9, 2021

    Week in Review: April 9, 2021

    Erica C. Barnett joins Crystal on the show this week to discuss developments in Seattle’s response to the homelessness crisis, the ironic language of the Compassion Seattle Initiative, the cancellation of a needle exchange program in Federal Way, and calls for the King County sheriff to resign in light of a recently publicized email articulating her support for a cop who unjustly murdered a civilian.

    As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.

    Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Erica C. Barnett, at @ericacbarnett, and read more of their work at Publicola.com. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.

     

    Resources

    Watch our guest today, Erica C. Barnett, talk with Omari Salisbury about the “Compassion Seattle” Charter Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohb-H65i9AY 

    Learn more about the proposed charter amendment here: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/04/02/group-seeks-amendment-to-charter-requiring-homeless-services-and-clearing-of-parks/ 

    Find more information about the Federal Way decision to end needle exchanges here: https://publicola.com/2021/04/08/hostile-architecture-at-the-library-needle-exchange-ban-in-federal-way-and-a-roads-heavy-transpo-bil/ 

    Read about calls for the King County Sheriff to resign here: https://publicola.com/2021/04/09/calls-for-king-county-sheriff-resignation-expand-beyond-county-council/

     

    Transcript

    Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work with behind the scenes perspectives on policies in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. 

    Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week. Welcome back to the program friend of the show and today's co-host, Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, and author of Quitter: A memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett.

    Erica Barnett: [00:00:48] Great to be here, Crystal. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:00:50] Great to have you here with us again. It's always an enlightening time when you're here. And as one Seattle City Councilmember noted, It seems like Erica's always on there. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:01:01] Ooh, which one?

    Crystal Fincher: [00:01:06] So you're - people are hearing you. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:01:08] Awesome. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:01:08] And I wanted to start off talking - with an issue that is really relevant in the City of Seattle right now. A proposed charter amendment - an initiative that's being brought up that they'll be gathering signatures for, from a group called Compassion Seattle. We talked about this a little bit last week, but do you want to go over what it is and who is putting that forward?

    Erica Barnett: [00:01:33] Sure. Compassion Seattle is a group of organizations and individuals. So the original proposal was made by former City Councilmember, Tim Burgess. But it's being funded primarily at this point by the Downtown Seattle Association. There's also some organizational support from the Public Defender Association and the Chief Seattle Club and the Downtown Emergency Service Center, so some homeless service providers. 

    And what the initiative would do is it would set a mandate in the City charter. So it would amend the city's constitution to mandate that the City spend 12% of its budget every year on a special human services fund that would pay for homeless services, behavioral health, and things like that. And it would also mandate 2,000 new units, beds of shelter. It says shelter or housing, but I, think that realistically, what we're talking about is shelter, within the first year after the charter amendment passes. So it constrains future mayors and City Council members in that way.

    And then in addition, it says that as this housing/shelter becomes available, the City shall endeavor to keep, or it shall keep, parks and public spaces open and clear of encampments, which I would say opponents and just people kind of reading between the lines would say is a return to sweeps. So that's the broad strokes of what it does. Still a lot of unanswered questions about some of those mandates in particular. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:03:20] Well and still a lot of questions, certainly. One of the first ones that I have just currently is - What exactly is different in this proposed charter amendment than the current state now? Are we currently funding anywhere close to 12%? Is that - that's being certainly billed as a big amount and, Hey, we're really investing. Is that a big investment? 

    Erica Barnett: [00:03:44] Well, I mean, it will be a big investment, if it ends up being additive to what the City is already providing to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. And I know that's a bit of a wonky answer, but we are supposedly going to a regional approach to homelessness. And so the question - I mean, a huge unanswered question with that 12% of the budget, which is about, I think, $185 million a year at the current budget size, is that - is this going to be the City remaining in the business of providing homeless services, or is this going to the King County Authority?

    So that's a whole other giant policy question of - are we moving toward regionalism or is this a step in the other direction? The 12% number was apparently based on it being 1% higher than what we spent in the 2021 budget, but that is sort of a very, very - not misleading, but not representative amount. We usually - the City usually spends considerably less than that. So more like 9%. So this would be a pretty big hike and it would commit the City in perpetuity. So, no matter what happens, if there's a giant earthquake or other disaster, if we have another economic depression - no matter what, this money would have to be spent in this way.

    And so it really is - sorry that this is a legalistic term and I'm sure they've vetted this legally, but it is a prior restraint on future city councils and on mayors, to spend this money in this way. And to use the City's constitution to do that, as I've reported on PubliCola, is unprecedented. It's just, it's not usually what we amend the City charter for. So there's a lot of things about this proposal that are highly unusual and unprecedented. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:05:46] Definitely. And this initiative was announced just over a week ago, but you have been reporting at PubliCola on this for months and saw this coming. So I guess, as you're looking at what the actual impact of this is going to be in terms of housing units and in terms of sweeps, what does it look like? 

    Erica Barnett: [00:06:11] Well, I think that the - if you look back at the early drafts of the amendment, and I'll have a story coming up on Monday about this as well with more details. But if you look back at the early drafts, it was all about sweeps. And I think that one sort of reason some of these groups that are not business groups bought into it is that some of that language was eliminated. 

    But where this came from was polling that found a tremendous amount of support for encampment sweeps. And so, the early language was all about removing encampments, keeping parks and public spaces clear of encampments, and it was much more punitive. So I think that, you know, that language isn't quite in there as much anymore, but the fact that that's how it originated says to me that this is fundamentally about removing encampments from parks and public spaces where they are visible. And whatever the actual language - it's important to know that context of that's where it comes from. 

    I think that because there's so many unanswered questions at this point, it's a little hard to say what the long-term impact is going to be. But I think that there - when you have a very vague language, like emergency housing including everything from enhanced shelter to permanent supportive housing, that tends to default to the cheapest, lowest, common denominator of those things. So if you're saying you have to build a thousand units of something, it's much, much easier to put in a thousand shelter beds in a congregate, enhanced shelter than it is to build a thousand units of permanent supportive housing. And of course that's impossible in one year. It's just not going to happen that quickly.

    So what I perceive this as is - a mandate for shelter that probably won't happen because there is no historical precedent for the City building shelter that fast. I mean, look at the pandemic. We stood up 95 new shelter beds in the first six months, not a thousand, not 500. 95. So the City is very slow about this stuff, and there's a little bit of, I think, magical thinking going on that if we just tell the City they have to do something, they're going to do it. We tried that with the emergency declaration on homelessness and that's been five and a half years now. And the emergency is still here and if anything, worse than ever. So, I don't think the immediate impact that you're going to see, in terms of actual housing, is going to be very great. 

    I mean, I could be proved wrong. That's certainly why some of the supporters from the kind of more left-leaning, homeless service provider community are - say they are supporting it. Because it actually does set sort of priorities and principles out, but let's also look at practice and look at what the City has done historically. And there's just not - there's not a whole lot of promising precedent there. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:09:16] Yeah. And you actually raised a really interesting point that caught a lot of people's attention when they announced. This isn't - certainly with the original language and as many people see the intent, it is being supported by a lot of people who have been very in favor of sweeps without any services and seem to be primarily concerned with doing away with visible homelessness and not actually providing shelter for people.

    With the language around, one, just the name of the organization now - Compassion Seattle. It just sounds, I mean, how can anything bad happen from a group named Compassion Seattle? I mean, come on. How could you not trust that? But at the same time, there is a coalition of organizations and people like Lisa Daugaard from the Public Defenders Association, who people associate with the LEAD program, other programs that have been lauded as beneficial from social justice advocates and others. And so they're looking at this going, Well, why is she on board? Are they on board? Why does this - has this attracted someone who seems to be pushing in the other direction, I guess, what have you seen from that? And what have you heard from them as to why they're supporting. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:10:46] Well, I mean, what I've heard from Lisa and from other groups in their statements - Chief Seattle Club put out a statement and other groups have as well - is that, as I said, this sort of sets out principles and it doesn't contain language that mandates sweeps without any kind of services. So it ties those two together, in principle. I think, and I've written a little bit about this too - the Downtown Seattle Associa-, uh, the Downtown Emergency Service Center, and the PDA, and Chief Seattle Club, and Plymouth Housing as well - I mean, these are not as unlikely of allies as you might think. 

    Simplistically, it's easy to just think that, Oh, these are homeless advocates and these are bad business guys. Right? But the Downtown Seattle Association and DESC and all these groups have been working together on various things for many, many years. I mean, LEAD is Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion. They started out as an organization in Belltown that came out of complaints about encampments and about drugs and - actually primarily drug users and crime in the Belltown area. And it's - it was done in collaboration with police. So, you know, the directors of Plymouth Housing and the Chief Seattle Club sit on the board of the Downtown Seattle Association. The CEO of DSA is on the board of the Downtown Emergency Service Center. So these organizations are all connected, and I don't mean that in a conspiratorial way, just that they've worked together for a really long time and it's not really that surprising. 

    I mean, I think that advocates, the fact that advocates have not signed on - advocates like Real Change, like the Lived Experience Coalition, which is made up of individuals who actually have lived experience of homelessness. They told me yesterday that they have not even been consulted on this initiative and they have asked to be - they've asked to be included in conversations and they say that they have been refused or just didn't get any response. So, look at who's not there, I think, and that is more telling than the fact that these downtown groups are there and are at the table.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:13:06] Yeah, certainly. And again, as we've talked about in candidate races with endorsements and figuring out where people stand and where their interests seem to align, follow the money. Who is funding this and who is likely to benefit from it? And that's pretty illuminating, but in this entire conversation, we will certainly continue to keep paying attention. They will be collecting signatures - will probably be able to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot. So we will see, as this unfolds, but certainly a lot of people are asking questions. A lot of people are skeptical, and there's a lot of people who have not been heard from, as you said.

    So I guess looking - in a related issue - currently what we're dealing with, there are more sweeps planned right now. Do you want to talk about those? 

    Erica Barnett: [00:14:09] Sure. So the City is, well, this week actually, this morning, as we're talking on Friday - the City's parks department removed an encampment at the Rainier Playfield. And it was a small encampment that was inside the dugout. It was a number of men who all are Spanish speakers who were removed from that place. And the City has told me that four of them were moved to the Executive Pacific Hotel, or at least offered spaces there. I'm not sure if they are actually there right now. And then the rest of them are being offered some kind of shelter. 

    So that's kind of the first in a wave that's going to be happening over the next few weeks, I'm told. Miller Park, on Capitol Hill, is next. They've got a playfield there that kids, I guess, play Little League there and there's a school a few hundred feet away. So that's happening. There's one up in Ballard at Gilman Playfield. And then - or Gilman Playground rather. And another happening at the University Playground after that. So, this is just kind of the beginning of a ramp up, I think, of returning to encampment removals, which have been mostly suspended during the pandemic because it's the danger of moving people around. I would argue that moving people around is dangerous to those people no matter what. So yeah, so we're back at this again. And the reasoning given is that it interferes with playfield use, it interferes with children being able to get to school safely, and all the same kind of reasons you always hear for these encampment removals.

    Crystal Fincher: [00:15:54] Well, you know - speaking of a reason that we always hear. In two separate instances, we have heard people say, Well, you know, if there is trafficking going on within encampments, and there may be sex trafficking or trafficking of minors - have you ever heard of that happening, or are aware of any instance of that happening ever in Seattle?

    Erica Barnett: [00:16:19] I'll be honest with you, Crystal. I mean, yes, that does happen at encampments. I mean, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. That certainly does happen. Not on the level that it would be proportional to the response. Because I think instead of using a scalpel like we do with housed people, where we target the individual who is engaging in the activity, as opposed to saying, you know, we're going to sweep everybody who lives in the house. We should be doing that in encampments. There's certainly, I mean, there's bad stuff happening in encampments just like there's bad stuff happening in people's houses and people's apartments across the City. 

    So I would say that that has happened, and sex trafficking has happened in encampments from what I understand. And I don't want to whitewash that or sugarcoat it, but that's not - but to me, that is still not a justification for saying we're going to remove every encampment, or we're going to remove every single person at this 60-tent encampment where something bad or illegal was happening in one tent. I mean, we don't do that with any other kind of crime. It's only with homeless and vulnerable people that we use that kind of broad brush and just say, We're going to get rid of all of them. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:17:40] Yeah, absolutely, and appreciate the perspective. It is important to address the problem and not just do that broad brush. It doesn't matter how many people we negatively impact if we are trying to address a problem. And also this week, in Federal Way. Federal Way decided to ban needle exchanges. Do you want to talk about what happened there? 

    Erica Barnett: [00:18:17] Yeah. There was a City Council vote this week, I think on, Oh boy, Wednesday? I don't know - time is meaningless. But essentially, the precipitating factor - so what happened before, leading up to this meeting, was that there's this needle exchange that is run by King County. It's called SCORE. And it's a van that goes out upon request when people call and say, I would like to exchange needles. So you're talking about - generally, drug users. And they go out there and a lot of times, they will go to a Park and Ride in that area and do the needle exchange. So it's on request. 

    So a woman, you know, neighborhood activist woman, called and said, I don't have any needles to exchange, but can I get some needles? She claims that she was given a hundred needles and this kind of turned into a giant social media nightmare like a lot of things like this do. And it just kept getting blown up and blown up more and more. And so this ended up leading to King County, actually, agreeing to suspend this program down there. And then last, or earlier this week, the City Council voted to affirm that, and to extend it, so that they can convene a working group to talk about what to do about this, I would say, non-existent problem. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:19:46] Yeah, definitely a non-existent problem. And making sure this does not get mixed in with the conversation about safe consumption sites, which, you know, that has been a conversation, definitely in South King County, that has been used to scare people and as a wedge issue. 

    With needle exchanges, these have been around for decades and are very uncontroversial from a public health perspective. They've been around, they've been established. It is a benefit to all of our health. We have a very recent example of how our health depends on the health of our neighbors. And if there is a vector of risk that we can address, we should do that. And that's really what needle exchanges do. We are all healthier when we make sure that everyone in our community is healthier. And if we can reduce the risk from activity that is going to happen - people are currently using, and even if we're unhappy about it in our own minds, it doesn't solve or address substance use disorder. So people are going to be using. If they're going to be doing that, we want to make sure that they are not inflicting more harm than they would be otherwise. And actually make sure that they're alive and healthy so that if they can get back on a healthier path then excellent. But there's no reason to just let our neighbors die if there's a better option. Really. Frankly. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:21:22] Yeah. What was so - what was so shocking to me - I mean, because I've been a reporter for a long time and these debates about drug use have really evolved over the years. And there's much more of an acceptance of the idea of harm reduction. And what was shocking to me at this meeting, or maybe not shocking, but surprising, was that people in Washington state were saying things like, I don't, you know, if they get AIDS, I don't care. And, well the drugs are going to get them anyway, so who cares if they get hepatitis. And, if you give them needles, it will make them do drugs. 

    And I mean, which is truly like the kind of stuff I heard as a kid, growing up in the eighties, about condoms. I mean, it just - it doesn't make sense that condoms cause sex and it doesn't make sense that clean needles cause drug use. The reason for needle exchanges, just to be clear is - if you're reusing needles over and over again, first of all, as you said, there, it becomes a vector. I mean, you can get hepatitis, you can get HIV. All kinds of diseases are communicable that way. But also if you have old needles that aren't sharp, it leads to abscesses. It leads to horrible infections. It leads to, frankly, hospital stays, which costs all of us as a society, money to put people in the hospital for weeks for abscesses that - for people who are uninsured.

    So even if you're just looking at it from a selfish perspective, it's not a good policy to let people get infected and sick and need long hospital stays, which is truly what happens and where the needle exchange movement emerged out of - was that people were getting very, very sick and being sick didn't deter them from using drugs either. So, there's just absolutely no evidence that denying people access to clean needles and clean drug paraphernalia causes them to stop using drugs because that's just not how addiction works. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:23:35] Yeah. It's not a choice at that point. If someone is experiencing addiction, then choice has been removed from the equation and they are experiencing a health issue. And so to simply act like they could choose to stop, or to not care that they can't, and to even get them to a place where that's an option, we need to keep them healthy. It's just, it's just sad. 

    And to me, I see the connection between this conversation about "Seattle is Dying" and that whole thing, which a lot of people in Seattle can very easily dismiss because the portrait that they're painting of Seattle does not ring true from anyone who lives in the City and is moving about. I mean, it's very disingenuous. They're telling a - it's propaganda. It is not reality. But for people in the suburbs, I don't think people really understand that Seattle is not actually the audience for that. It's the suburbs. And it's people who do not have an immediate experience in Seattle and who they're trying to inoculate against public health guidance. The data that is becoming increasingly clear and conclusive, in a variety of different areas saying, Yes, we have many shared concerns with public health. The health of our neighbor directly impacts us - our immediate health financially. It does. And that helping people instead of criminalizing them is generally the most effective method to deal with most problems that have a health or substance use component.

    So, there are people who are very, very interested from the religious right, from the alt-right, and who just see this as a front on their culture war. And that is how they're battling against it. And so this propaganda and scaring people that, Hey, Seattle treated people like humans and look what they got - it's dying. And that is being heard and reacted to in suburbs, and rural areas, and areas outside of Seattle. And it's not a coincidence that we're seeing this kind of backlash. And that we're not just having a conversation about the policies in Seattle today. This is leading to the repeal of long-term, decades-long accepted, uncontroversial issues and practices that now they're using to advance their agenda on the other side, really. So it's just really troubling. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:26:23] Yeah, it'd be nice if people listened to public health experts instead of the testimony of somebody who says they knew one person who used drugs and they responded well to a tough love approach, which is secondhand, anecdotal, and not based in any actual public health data or expertise. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:26:44] Not based in any public health data at all. I mean, everything flies in the face of it. This is uncontroversial from a public health perspective. It just was used by people who wanted to advance a social agenda. And who felt that humanizing people was not compatible with that agenda. And treating people like people - like people we care for, and not just not caring if people die. So I hope that we see a change of that. And certainly there are a lot of local elections this year that are going to dramatically influence that conversation. And I hope you all get involved in that wherever you're listening to this from. 

    There's another issue this week. Looking at the King County Sheriff, the current King County Sheriff, who was elected, but actually will be - the Sheriff is going to transition to an appointed position after a vote last year by voters in King County. But the Sheriff is not having a good time right now. And lots of people from lots of different corners are asking for her resignation. You want to explain why?

    Erica Barnett: [00:27:57] Sure. So, and this is based on reporting by my reporter Paul Kiefer, as well as some great reporting in the South Seattle Emerald by Carolyn Bick. Great reporting by both of these reporters about a department-wide email that the Sheriff, Mitzi Johanknecht, I believe is how you say it, sent after the killing, or about the killing of Tommy Le in Burien in 2017. And in this email, she basically said that the settlement with King County for Tommy Le's death was not uncalled for, but that she understood why the deputy shot Le. A couple of the shots landed in his back. It was clear that he was not in fact, as the deputy argued, running at him or a threat in any way. But what she said in the email was that, It was an understandable decision and that she did not entirely agree with the decision to settle.

    So this is causing a lot of consternation on the city- on the County Council. And this week, State Senator Joe Nguyen joined the chorus and said that she should resign. Now, I don't know that that is going to have any impact on her directly. There's going to be an appointment process that comes up. It will probably not include her among the candidates, but I have not heard that she has any plans to resign so far. So it looks like, at this point, we're going to have to wait to see that appointment process play out. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:29:46] Yeah, certainly it looks like that. She just did a King 5 interview. I feel like it was three days ago, but this week - days run into each other for me. So in the past she did that and certainly said that she did not plan on resigning, that she has no plans to resign, and really defended her actions. And is going on a tour to try and cover things up, and I guess get beyond this crisis for her, but, it certainly is troubling. She certainly is not reading the room. Just, you know, this is a conclusive finding. This is not - this seems like it should have been out of the realm of opinion by this time with the data and evidence that came out. There doesn't seem to be room for question about what happened and that it wasn't correct.

    There were King County Councilmembers who, right after the decision said, Hey, we legally could not comment while this was going on, but now that it has settled, this is the bare minimum that the family should have received. And they also should have received an apology that this was wrong. And for her not to be able to engage with that just further underscores why a lot of people say, Hey, this conversation about reform - it's not actually working for a lot of people, because if that is the attitude that we're dealing with in that extreme circumstance where it looks pretty conclusive that the version of events given by the deputy did not match the version of events that actually happened. And that that was an outcome that was not necessary. And that if it's not necessary to kill someone, then someone shouldn't wind up dead. 

    Erica Barnett: [00:31:42] Yeah. It's interesting to sort of contrast the way - you know, looking at the Sheriff's response to this and sort of saying, She understands why this deputy did what he did and he made a tough decision. And it - that feels like the kind of statement that you would hear from police chiefs and sheriffs maybe a decade ago. And now it seems as though there's, in most cases, at least some lip service to the idea of reform from chiefs and from people who are high up in law enforcement. So what struck me about it is, Wow, this is just such a throwback attitude. And not to say that the Seattle Police Department has made meaningful strides toward reform and certainly not defending them in any way, but just to go out of your way and cross 12 lanes of traffic that you don't need to cross to say, to defend the actions of somebody who has pretty unequivocally acted badly. Just, I think, speaks to how behind the times and how the Sheriff is and how inappropriate that kind of leadership is for 2021. 

    So in some ways I think it really validates the decision - I mean, we'll see who the County Council ultimately appoints, or the commission that's going to be discussing the appointments. But it does speak to the reasons that the voters passed this initiative to have an appointed sheriff rather than an elected one. 

    Crystal Fincher: [00:33:22] Absolutely. And that is our time, actually, for today. 

    Thank you for listening to Hacks and Wonks on this Friday, April 9th, 2021. The producer of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler and our wonderful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and founder of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett. That's Erica with a "C" and on PubliCola.com. You can buy her book, Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery anywhere right now. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F I N C H F R I I. And now you can follow Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live show and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. 

    Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.