Feb 23, 2024
On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by metronews columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma,Matt Driscoll!
With two weeks left in the State legislative session,Crystal and Matt dig into several bills with potential for hugeimpact and needing public support to get across the finish line -HB 2114 (rent stabilization), HB 1932 (even-year elections), and SB6105 (Stripper Bill of Rights). See the resources section for linksto contact your legislators about each of these bills!
Next, they discuss the promise of the City of Tacoma’sdetailed Anti-Displacement strategy, Mayor Bruce Harrell pledgingno new taxes at his annual State of the City address, and nocharges against the SPD officer who killed Jaahnavi Kandula.
As always, a full text transcript of the show isavailable below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’sco-host, Matt Driscoll, at @mattsdriscoll.
Resources
Why Seattle’s Proposed Surveillance Mash-Up is a Lose-Lose with AmySundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget from Hacks &Wonks
“Passbill limiting rent hikes to help stabilize households” by TheSeattle Times Editorial Board
“Seattle'sLGBTQ Communities Demand Rent Stabilization” by Rich Smith fromThe Stranger
HB 2114- Send a comment to your legislators
“NPI'seven year elections bill advances out of Senate State GovernmentCommittee” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate
HB 1932- Send a comment to your legislators
“Whya dancer with Tacoma ties is fighting for WA's 'Stripper Bill ofRights'” by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune
SB 6105 - Creating safer working conditions in adult entertainmentestablishments.
SB 6105- Send a comment to your legislators
“SomeTacomans are being pushed out of their neighborhoods. The citywants to intervene” by Shea Johnson from The News Tribune
Anti-Displacement Strategy | City of Tacoma
“MayorBruce Harrell Promises to Deliver Bare Minimum at 2024 State ofCity Address” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger
“$230Million Deficit Hangs Over Annual Harrell Speech” by Doug Trummfrom The Urbanist
“KingCounty Prosecutors Decline to Charge SPD Officer for KillingPedestrian” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger
Find stories that Crystal is reading here
Listen on yourfavorite podcast app to all our episodes here
Transcript
[00:00:00]CrystalFincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm CrystalFincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On thisshow, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gatherinsight into local politics and policy in Washington state throughthe lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what youcan do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get thefull versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Fridayweek-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you likeus, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review whereveryou listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resourcesreferenced in the show are always available atofficialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show, ourproducer Shannon Cheng was guest host and welcomed back AmySundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget to discuss how the Cityof Seattle is rushing to bring three surveillance technologies tothe streets of Seattle with minimal public input. Make your voiceheard at the final public meeting next week on Tuesday, February27th at 6 p.m.
Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-reviewshows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcomeback to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: MetroNews columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma,Matt Driscoll.
[00:01:31]MattDriscoll: Thank you for having me - it's alwayswonderful to be here. And of course, as luck would have it,hammering started in the background. Hopefully that's not tooannoying, but yeah - it's great to be here. Thanks for havingme.
[00:01:42]CrystalFincher: Excellent - love having you back. Well, wehave a couple weeks left in this legislative session, which isscheduled to end on March 7th. Houses have already gotten donepassing legislation that originated in their chambers, now theother chambers are taking up things. And there's a few bills that Iwanted to talk about that are trying to make it through, that a lotof organizations have as policies, and that would be reallyimpactful to residents throughout the state. The first one is onetalking about rent stabilization - different than rent control -rent stabilization basically limits rent and fee increases duringthe year. So this is something that a lot of renters have beentalking about. We've certainly covered the housing affordabilitycrisis at length on this program, but it really is a challenge forrenters facing seemingly endless rent hikes. And those rent hikescurrently don't have any caps. We've seen instances of rentliterally doubling in some places, but fees 20-30% increasesannually, which is way beyond the cost of inflation, generally, andreally challenging for people to be able to afford. This has beencited as contributing to income inequality, to our homelessnesscrisis, and to just regular affordability, to displacement. Reallychallenging, so one thing that has been in the works for over ayear has been the effort to try and limit rent increases. This billwould limit rent increases to 7% during any 12-month period, whichis still a pretty substantial increase for most people - but withinthe realm of reality and affordability and achievability for a lotof people. How do you see this bill?
[00:03:38]MattDriscoll: Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting andit is very similar to a citizens' ballot initiative that we coveredhere in Tacoma last election cycle, which did place some rentincrease limits on local landlords and some caps on local fees. Tome, it's kind of the other side of the coin - although this coin isprobably not a coin, it has a bunch of sides. But we talk a lotabout just the affordable housing crisis and the need to build morehousing of all kinds, particularly affordable housing - being ableto meet all sorts of different economic demographics with that. Andthis is another side of that, which is people faced with the crisisof housing, calling on lawmakers and policymakers to enact someprotections and some regulations to keep them from just gettinggouged and forced out financially. And particularly in this billand in the initiative that ended up passing just barely in Tacoma,I mean, the rent increases and the fees that they still allow arenot insignificant. And the fact that we see the pushback to it thatwe do, particularly from landlords' associations, and conservativelawmakers, really speaks to how out of whack the market is. If youcan't get by by raising rent 7% annually, I think it raisesquestions. Now, there are, I think, some legitimate concerns abouthow far to crank that lever, because I personally believe at somepoint, if you do crank it too far, you are going to impact the "momand pop" landlords who do exist, who are real providers oflegitimate affordable housing to people and housing to people thatthey might not be able to get otherwise. So I do think you have towalk that balance.
Certainly to me, this bill seems reasonable, butI'm sure for a lot of lawmakers, it comes down to that question ofhow much reach do you want the government to have in dictating whatare supposed to be those free markets we love so much in thiscountry. But really, this conversation is indicative to the crisisthat's happening in cities across Washington and across certainlythe West Coast, where the cost of housing is just greatly outpacingany income growth or job growth that we might have. People arefreaked out, and rightly so. You talk about all the necessities,whether it's food or - there are safety nets for that. But I thinkthe housing one is one that feels really close because there aren'tsafety nets. If you lose housing, you lose housing. If you need togo to a food bank, you can go to a food bank, but there's not ahouse bank. And so it'll be interesting to see what happens andthen see where the momentum goes on this.
[00:06:02]CrystalFincher: It will be interesting to see where themomentum goes. And you raised a good point in talking about theTacoma Renter Protection Initiative, which is similar to otherrenter protection initiatives and legislation we've seen in variouscities throughout the state - whether it's Spokane, Bellingham,Tacoma, Federal Way, we've seen local communities across the statetake action on this because this is plaguing communities. Thathousing expense is almost everyone's biggest expense and so if thatis skyrocketing, that's taking families' available discretionaryincome, that's impacting the local economy, and obviously causing alot of housing insecurity that is really putting a lot of people intough positions, and communities in tough positions, andgovernments and how to deal with that. And it's so much moreexpensive to deal with once it gets to the crisis level - oncesomeone is displaced or can't afford housing, loses theirapartment. All of those are really, really expensive to deal withfrom a city and county perspective.
So I am hopeful that this legislation passes.It's currently in the Senate and it faces an uncertain future, sothis is going to be one where community feedback to all of yourlegislators is really going to make a difference on this -particularly your senators, because they're going to determine thefate of this. There are a number of people on the fence - somemoderate to conservative Democrats who have voiced some concerns.Jamie Pedersen is working on this in the Senate - has expressedsome reservations, but has certainly heard a lot of feedback fromhis constituents who overwhelmingly are renters in his district.We'll see how this turns out, but this is one where - for folkslistening - if this is something that's a priority to you, reachout to your senators. Fortunately, we make it really simple inWashington to be able to send communications about legislation.We'll also put links in the show notes to make that easy. Butthey're going to need to hear from you on this - certainly would bea big step forward for the state in terms of renter protectionshere.
Also want to talk about another bill, which we'vecertainly talked about before and recently in our conversation withAndrew Villeneuve in one of our Tuesday topical shows, that theNorthwest Progressive Institute has been very active with. Theeven-year elections bill, which has advanced out of the House andthen advanced out of the Senate State Government Committee. So it'slooking fairly positive, but still has to go through some morehurdles. This would enable cities and towns to choose to hold theirelections in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years.This is a big deal because turnout is much higher in even-numberedyears. And as we've seen in the state of California, when we do putthose other races - municipal races, local races - on the ballotwith those national races, people still vote, still great turnout,even better turnout than they would see in those odd-yearelections. We just got done with an election in November that hadthe lowest turnout since we've been keeping records here inWashington. It is a problem. We're deciding elections withsometimes close to only 20% of the residents participating in theelection - that's not representative. I don't think that's doinganyone any favors. The more people who can participate, the better.I also sometimes hear - This is all a progressive conspiracy toturn things out because we see so many elections that trendprogressive in the end.
And one thing that I would remind people isSeattle is a very visible place. Seattle has more progressivevoters than conservative ones, so certainly elections in Seattleand therefore King County do trend as ballots are counted in thefinal days - those late ballots certainly do trend in a progressivedirection. That's not the case statewide. It really just depends onwhat the local population is. If we're looking at southwestWashington, for example, those often trend red in a lot of thoseswing districts there. It just really depends on what there is onthe ground. And even in those situations, I still think it's betterfor more people to participate in elections, and voting, anddeciding what their communities are going to look like. What do youthink about this bill?
[00:10:23]MattDriscoll: First and foremost, Crystal, it's awfullygenerous of you to acknowledge that even where there are moreconservative voters, it's better for more people to vote - that'svery bipartisan of you, I appreciate that. This is one of thoseones that makes me question myself - am I a super liberal hack?Because there really doesn't seem to be a good reason not to dothis, in my mind. At the end of the day - participation indemocracy, in our elections - the more people, the more registeredvoters we can get involved, the better. That's what we should allwant. None of us should be afraid that our arguments should standup and they don't - if they're in the minority, they're in theminority - that's the way it's supposed to work.
I will say that there's also part of this thatfrustrates me because we do look at those even-year versus odd-yearelections, and one of the reasons that this gets cast as perhaps aprogressive-motivated thing or a progressive scheme is because inthose odd-year elections, the voting demographic does skew older,whiter, landowner, property owner - that's real - and i guess thefrustrating part about it is just progressives could vote. I justwent through that election last November and it was brutal to gothrough the endorsem*nts. I do think election burnout is real. Itdoes feel like there's always an election. I think we got to begenerous to the general public and realize that most people arejust trying to get through their lives, and put food on the table,and get their kids to school, and all that. And I think we'reasking a lot of them to constantly be kind of in election mode,which is certainly how it feels. But at the end of the day, ifprogressives are concerned about the disparity, they could justvote in odd-year elections and they just don't - historically - wetalk about it every time until we're blue in the face, and thenthey don't. But full circle - this is about participation. Whetherwe like the reality or not, the reality is people don't vote inoff-year elections nearly as much as they do in the even year. Wehave historical data backing this up. And I also think it'simportant to note that all this bill will do is give places theability to do it. It doesn't dictate it. It's local control of it.If you want to make that change, you can. So to me, again, I don'tsee an argument against this. It seems like a no-brainer, but solittle is a no-brainer when it comes to Olympia.
[00:12:34]CrystalFincher: I completely agree with what you'resaying. And as this makes it through and follows the path that alot of bills do, one of the things that happens is amendments areoffered and sometimes accepted. So this passed the House. Once itdid arrive in the Senate, it received some amendments that passedout of committee. I'm not in love with these amendments. One ofthem not only requires the city to basically opt-in legislativelyand pass an ordinance to say we're going to do this, but now itrequires a popular vote from the people. So the city has to bothadopt an ordinance or policy by its legislative body-
[00:13:10]MattDriscoll: An odd year? Do they have to vote in anodd year? Is that part of the stipulation?
[00:13:15]CrystalFincher: You know, it probably is. And yeah, itwould have to receive approval from its voters. Now, this issomething where the voters vote for their city council or theirtown council - whatever their government legislative body is,usually a city council - who make decisions like this all the time.Putting this out to a public vote is a costly endeavor. Electionsaren't free. You have to pay to administer them, it's costly, it'stime-consuming. And as you say, this is probably going to be onanother odd-year election ballot. This is pretty simple. I wish wewould let people and the electeds that they selected make thesedecisions. I would love to see that amendment taken out before itdoes get to a final vote, but we'll see how it goes. It would beprogress either way. Definitely better than nothing, but would loveto see as much good as possible and not add another hurdle to thisthat is seemingly unnecessary and also costly at a time when a lotof cities and counties are dealing with budget deficits and arereally trying to trim costs instead of add them.
Another bill that you covered this week is abouta proposed Strippers' Bill of Rights that's currently in Olympia.What is happening with this and what would it do?
[00:14:29]MattDriscoll: Yeah, I mean, I kind of became mildlyfascinated with this over the last week because it was pretty newterritory for me, to be honest with you. So basically, thebackground on it is adult dancers, strippers in Washingtonessentially lack a whole lot of protections that I was, for one,shocked to hear didn't exist - like requirements of clubs to havesecurity. In recent years, there have been some slight upgrades,installations of panic buttons and stuff, but really it's kind of aWild West out there in terms of staffing, and trainingrequirements, and de-escalation requirements. And basically,whether you frequent strip clubs or not, just picture a strip cluband think of all the things that you would assume would be in placeto protect people and employees and the reality is that many ofthem don't exist currently. And so this bill would do a lot of thataround training, de-escalation, that sort of thing - which all, tome, feel like no-brainers. And I think in the legislature's view -from the testimony that I've heard, at least in the House - itseems to be a shared sentiment.
Where it gets tricky is this bill also opens thedoor for the legal sale of alcohol in strip clubs. And at leastinitially going into it, for me, it's a juxtaposition until you getinto it. Because on one hand, you're talking about safety andregulations. And then - oh, yeah, we're going to add alcohol - andyou're like, what the? that doesn't necessarily seem like that'sabout safety. But at the end of the day, as I learned and wroteabout - and others have written about it plenty this session -essentially the deal for strippers is they pay a nightly rate, ifyou will, to work, to perform. They're independent contractors.They're not employees of the strip club. So you will end up owing$100, $200 just to start your shift. And then the money that youmake in the process of your job, after you pay that back, that'swhat you make. One, that's clearly exploitative. It sets up badsituations, as you can imagine. But the reality of it is becausethere's no legal alcohol sales in Washington strip clubs, that'sreally the only financial model that exists for club owners. And soit puts pressure on them to exploit the dancers. And then that putspressure on the dancers to maybe ignore warning signs about thingsthat make them uncomfortable because they're all of a sudden infinancial distress trying to pay what they owe just to work. So itjust creates this whole set of tensions that I think - really a lotof the supporters of this bill would argue - really decrease thesafety in these clubs.
So this bill would do all of that - it made itsway through the Senate, it's now over to the House, it's out ofcommittee as of earlier this week. But the hang up is going to bearound that alcohol point. I think most lawmakers seem to agreewith the safety measures, but there's hang up around the alcoholand how that works. We could go into the weeds - some legislatorsthink that the Liquor Cannabis Board already has the ability, theycould just make a rule. Liquor Cannabis Board says - No, we needyou to grant us the licensing authority, yada, yada, yada. It's allvery complicated, but it's going to come down to the booze.
[00:17:22]CrystalFincher: Yeah, and this is really interesting - Ipersonally am absolutely in support of this. Strippers are workers.They deserve protections that any worker deserves. Employers havean obligation to protect their employees, or in the case ofindependent contractors to protect the people who they are makingmoney from when they work in their establishment. As you said, thisdoes require adult entertainment establishments to providededicated security personnel during operating hours. It doesestablish restrictions on the leasing fees charged to not exceedwhat a dancer can make so they don't go into debt while they'redancing - that serves no one. It also requires adult entertainmentestablishments to provide mandatory training to their employees onfirst aid, conflict de-escalation, and identifying and preventinghuman trafficking, sexual harassment, discrimination, and assault.Expands certain safety requirements, including key padlocks forlocker rooms, cleaning supplies, and certain safety signage. Andthen, as you said, it prohibits the Liquor and Cannabis Board fromadopting or enforcing a rule that restricts the exposure of certainbody parts or that restricts sexually-oriented conduct. Thatparticular element, I believe, came out of the targeted enforcementof gay establishments in the City of Seattle - seemingly with theselewd laws - saying that those can't be in the proximity of alcohol,which just seemed really out of touch, antiquated, potentially away to harass the LGBTQ+ community, and just not something that isconsistent with the values - certainly that we hold in Seattle, butin Washington state, as we've shown. So I do hope this getsthrough.
The alcohol issue - for me, I trust the strippersworking in the establishment to know what's safe for them and ifthey're advocating for this and saying this is part of what we needto have a safe and sustainable environment, I trust them with that.There are plenty of situations where we allow alcohol where, if youtake away the purity-attached issues to it, that seem to me to bedicey in a lot of situations. I'm also someone who it's just like -Wow, we have parking lots at bars. Doesn't that seem like it'ssetting up a very problematic thing? So that's a much broaderconversation there. But if the strippers don't have a problem withit, I don't have a problem with it, really. They know the businessand their environment much better than I do, certainly.
[00:19:48]MattDriscoll: Yeah, I just think the whole thing'sfascinating because I was talking to Laurie Jinkins about this lastweek when I was reporting on it - and she comes from a publichealth background. And her basic reaction to it is the expansion ofalcohol is not good - she points to health data. I think you cancertainly make that argument, but it's very interesting what youhear from folks working in the industry, and they a lot of timeswill compare it to Oregon. And admittedly, I'm going to lose anyPierce County street cred here, but it's been a long time sinceI've been inside a strip club - but I've never been in one inOregon. What they say is - Look, in Oregon, whether you agree withstrip clubs or not, they're actually a place that legitimate peoplemight want to hang out because you can get a drink and maybe youcan get some food, and if that's what you're into - entertainment -it works for you. And guess what you have in Washington? Stripclub, honestly, is almost the last place you would want to hang outunless you were really driven to go to a strip club. Door chargesare insane, you're buying $15 co*kes, there's nothing to drink,there's nothing to eat, it's empty and kind of sad. And lo andbehold, what do you get? You get the folks who are choosing to goto those establishments - and I'm trying not to paint with a broadbrush here, but I think we can all imagine the scene that thiscreates.
And then when you really talk about the fact thatyou've essentially created an economic model where the clubs inWashington rely on taking income straight from the dancers asopposed to everywhere else, where they make their income off thebooze and the food - like every other sort of nightlifeestablishment. You can see how that would even out the relationshipor the power dynamic between the dancer and the club, where herethe club has all the incentive to suck as much as possible out ofthe dancer, and the dancers are in tough positions where they'retrying to make it work. So I think it's fascinating. And again,this is not very satisfying, but it'll be very interesting to seewhere this goes in the coming days.
[00:21:41]CrystalFincher: Absolutely will be. And I agree, it willbe very interesting to see where it goes. Moving on fromlegislation and where things stand there, there was something thatI wanted to talk about that I found really interesting and perhapsa model that other cities may be able to look at, depending on howthis turns out. And that is a plan from the City of Tacoma toprevent displacement in the city. And this is in addition to ahousing affordability action plan that was adopted by the City thatthey seem to have been making positive progress on. But a specificanti-displacement strategy that consisted of 21 actions, includingbuying property to build affordable units in areas that have a highrisk of displacement, requiring owners of subsidized properties toissue notices if they intend to sell, or opt-out, or refinance. Butreally saying it's as much of a problem that people are beingeconomically displaced, forced out of neighborhoods - we're losingthe culture and character of our neighborhoods, we're losingcohesive communities that are being displaced - and the falloutfrom that is undesirable. So often we hear in other conversationsabout zoning - maintaining the character of the neighborhood -well, the people are essential to the character of theneighborhood. And when the people are being lost, that's a problemthat the City of Tacoma has recognized and is taking action on,which I think is very commendable. What do you see in thisanti-displacement strategy?
[00:23:12]MattDriscoll: Yeah, I think it goes back to thatmulti-sided, not-a-coin thing I was talking about earlier. Well,we've got the need for housing and you've got policy pushing toplace some regulations and protections for tenants. This is anotherpart of that where cities, certainly in Tacoma, are recognizingthat the economic realities and the housing realities in the cityare, in fact, displacing untold number of people. We've been seeingit here for a long time. Hilltop is often painted, at leastregionally, as the epicenter of it, where we've had Link Light Railexpansion and we've seen the housing going in, and if you see a lotof families that have been here for a long time getting pushed out.This is an acknowledgement of that from City leaders, and so Ithink it's commendable, they get credit.
Of course, the cynic can me points out thatcities, including Tacoma, are great at coming up with plans - wealready had an affordable housing action strategy, and now we'vegot our anti-displacement strategy, and we passed our anti-racismlegislation with 21 bullet points of what we commit to do. And atthe end of the day, the proof's in the pudding and people are stillgetting pushed out. And so the hard part is the work of - is thecity actually going to acquire land and do the sorts of things thatit lays out as its vision? I've been here long enough to have seenlots of visions - very few of them have come to full fruition -it's usually you get pieces and then a crisis pops up or some otherthing happens. And so we'll see what happens at the end of the day,but certainly if nothing less, it's an acknowledgement of thosevery same forces we started talking out with at the beginning ofthis show of just the crazy increases of the cost of living,particularly of the housing. I hear from Chamber of Commerce typessometimes who point out - You keep saying rents are skyrocketingand really it's raising similarly to everything else. Yes,everything's getting more expensive. And yes, in theory, there havebeen some income gains - although I think it's totally fair andaccurate to say they have not kept pace with the cost of living.But I just think housing is that one that people feel just soclosely and it feels so razor thin and desperate that lawmakers,city council - here in Tacoma - are hearing it loud and clear fromtheir constituents who are actively being pushed out or justlooking around and realizing that one wrong move and they would nolonger be able to afford to live here. I don't take any shame inadmitting that's certainly my family's situation - if we had notpurchased our house when we purchased our house, we couldabsolutely not live where we live today. We would be in Parkland,somewhere other than that - and that's just the reality. And soagain, we'll see what comes long-term, but it's an acknowledgementand it's an important one, and I think it's right.
[00:25:40]CrystalFincher: I also think it's right. This affectseverybody. A lot of times I hear a lot of people say the same thingyou did - Well, thank goodness we were able to buy our house at thetime that we did because we certainly couldn't afford it now. Thisis an issue that is really affecting seniors in the community andwhether they can age in place - whether they can remain in thecommunities that they have built their lives in, that they haverelationships in, that is so important to maintaining their ownsafety net as perhaps their abilities evolve and change as theyage. Lots of people need to downsize houses, need to have moreaccessible homes. And right now in many communities - certainly inSeattle and Tacoma, but also many of the suburbs - it is notpossible to buy in the same area and get something similar that youwould there. They're looking at a much different quality of life ifthey were to do that, or they need to move far away, basically,from perhaps family, support systems, the doctors that they've seenforever, the people who've been helping them in their lives for solong, and really lose touch with those things that keep themhealthy and supported. And often their family too - and theirfamilies aren't able to afford to move in and live in the same area- it's really a problem that a lot of families are facing in thismulti-generational way that is really, really troubling. And I'mglad this is being addressed.
[00:27:05]MattDriscoll: Yeah, it's just a subset of the folksbeing affected by this - you probably know the data better than Ido - but if you want to be terrified at some point, look at thedata about the number of people moving into retirement age and thatage bracket in the next decade or more. It's a significant amountof people. And if we don't come to terms with the fact that oureconomy as it currently stands, particularly in relation tohousing, is just cruel and out of whack right now - there are goingto be countless people really with no flexibility, nowhere to move,creating those situations that you just described where you getstuck. You have a house you probably can't look after anymore. Youcan't afford to move anywhere else. You don't have whatever itwould take to get into senior - I mean, it's terrifying. And so onesmall part of a bigger pie of the economic cruelty that we have,but it's a big one. And so I'm hopeful, but again, cities are greatat the plans and the bullet points and the statements of greataspiration. The proof is in how it pans out. And so I think it'simportant for people to keep an eye on it and keep folksaccountable, so it's more than just talk.
[00:28:11]CrystalFincher: Absolutely agree with that. Getting moreinto the details of this, there were a number of actions - I washappy to see that this was a pretty comprehensive report - thereare metrics to track over the time. As plans from cities go,especially ones that we're seeing these days in major cities, it atleast had a lot of detail - that they'll either follow or theywon't - but certainly a lot less vague than some of the plans thatwe see elsewhere. Some of the other things included were expandingone-time cash assistance to keeping families housed, offeringincentives for developers to build affordable housing in at-riskareas, prioritizing new units to be rented or sold to at-risk ordisplaced residents, focusing down payment homebuyer assistance inhigh-risk neighborhoods, or reducing the cost to build accessorydwelling units. In addition to proactive rental inspection programsor community land trust with the intention of preserving affordablehousing, increasing funds to the City's tenant protection programand housing assistance contracts, or creating a property tax reliefprogram. The strategy also called for the City to considerestablishing a reparations committee that would research thepossibility of reparations for historical racist policies,particularly because BIPOC communities have been disproportionatelydisplaced. Those communities have been decimated - they're far lessthan half of what they initially were, and that percentage is stilldeclining there. It is a challenge - they're beingdisproportionately displaced, and certainly reparations are beinglooked at in a variety of areas and is justified.
We'll see how this does play out, but I'mexcited. The plan excites me because it was quite detailed. We'llalso link that in the show notes for people to read themselves andsee the data behind the policies, the justifications behind them,the metrics that they'll continue to be tracking, and what theirmetrics for progress are. It'll be interesting to see, but we talkabout affordability under a whole umbrella of a homelessnesscrisis, the housing crisis - but it is going to take addressingthese discrete elements, each one by themselves, and a plan toaddress all of them. And I think Tacoma is certainly showingleadership so far in that area.
Also want to talk this week about Mayor BruceHarrell delivering his 2024 State of the City address. This is histhird State of the City address since he has been elected, theseaddresses are annual. He touted some reductions in crime, which I'msure everyone is happy to see. He talked about the CARE Departmentthat they established, which has started with a small trial of aco-responder model during limited hours during the day. Hopefullywe will see that expanded - certainly, to at least cover 24 hoursthroughout the day, and more than a handful of responders there -that would certainly be welcome. And I think polling continuallyshows that residents want to see this expanded and available at alltimes and in all areas.
He also made news with basically a no new taxespledge, which is very different than what he said before. He saidthat he'd be looking to implement progressive revenue. He conveneda task force to look at different progressive revenue optionsbecause there's a $250 [million] budget shortfall that the City isgoing to have to deal with this year. And he basically said - Hey,we're not going to raise taxes. I'm not going to support anyraising of taxes. Our challenges are much more fundamental to that.We need to basically look at every inch of the budget andre-examine what we're doing. This seems aligned with CouncilPresident Sara Nelson's pledge and op-ed where she said not onlywas she looking to not implement new taxes, but also cut taxes forbusiness. This is also at a time when they're saying they're goingto increase funding for public safety. So this seemingly indicates,particularly if they're looking at cutting taxes - but reallyeither way, whether they do or don't cut any taxes - some prettysignificant cuts for services and programs throughout the city thatdon't have to do with public safety. And this has a lot of peoplealarmed. How did you see the State of the City address?
[00:32:31]MattDriscoll: What I always enjoy about ourconversations is I view all this stuff from afar, from Tacoma. Iknow what Tacoma and Pierce County budgets look like, and I knowwhat Seattle and King County budgets look like -and there's part ofme that looks at that, and if you guys can't figure it out with theresources you have already? But I also acknowledge that thechallenges in a place like King County and Seattle are notinsurmountable, but are sizable. And when you look at budgets andyou look at the need for these services and potential of cuts, it'svery real and it could be not good for a lot of people.
From a broader perspective, I do think thedynamic and the shift that we've seen in Seattle is interesting -particularly as it relates to homeless response as an example ofthat, because there was a development where some funding appearslike it's going to get taken back from the King County RegionalHousing Authority. And I do think from the broad constituency thatis now reflected in certainly the city council - and you couldargue in Mayor Harrell's election as well - there's adissatisfaction with the amount of money that we are spendingtowards trying to address some of these problems and the actualoutcomes that we are seeing. And I think a lot of that is verynatural because the positive outcomes of homeless response aredifficult to track. People always want to break it down - we spentthis much and we housed this many people. The reality is it's justnot that simple. There's more human nature involved in that. But atthe same time, I do believe - and I think Seattle in some ways canbe the poster city for this - is it's understandable when peoplelook at the more progressive side of homeless response and say -You're basically advocating that we can't sweep encampments, whatwe see around us is okay. But I think for most people, when theylook around and the problems that they see and the suffering theysee, it feels not okay. A lot of times, from one side of it, thesolutions you get are really long-term. And because of the waythese debates stick us into stupid corners, it starts sounding likeyou've got one side advocating for - Shut up about the encampmentin front of your business, just deal with it. And I think that, atsome extent, bleeds into the electorate where they start havingpushback to that. And I feel like that's the tension point whereSeattle's at - yes, it's a progressive city. Yes, people genuinelywant humane responses to the homelessness crisis. They're notlooking to criminalize people. They're not looking to make mattersworse. They want to address the underlying root causes and the lackof housing and the lack of everything that we need. But at the sametime, the status quo is unsustainable. I think you see that in someof this talk of re-evaluation of what we're doing, is it working?And those can be tricky evaluations because like I said, they'renot always straightforward. And I think there's a lot of good workbeing done. And I think attempts to purely quantify it in hard datacan be suspect. But at the same time, I don't think it's entirelywrong when people say we're spending a lot of money, we've beentalking about this a lot, and all I see is it getting worse. And sothat's a very rambly way of - my view on Seattle politics from 33miles away.
[00:35:33]CrystalFincher: Well, there's a lot there to talk about. Iabsolutely agree that people see the problem getting worse and arefrustrated by that. And hear the amounts of money that are beingspent and are wondering if that's effective or not - because theamounts do sound big. With the budget in Seattle - Seattle isunique in the state, in the types of industry that it has and thetypes of companies that it has. And Seattle certainly gets a lotfrom those companies. But I also feel we absolutely need to talkabout and acknowledge that those companies get a lot from Seattle.As of a few years ago, Amazon had more office space in the city ofSeattle than any corporation in any other city in the country. Sogreat - Amazon is hiring. But Amazon is also taxing ourinfrastructure. They're causing a lot of stress on the roads -people talk about potholes and trucks - and well, Amazon isimpacting a lot of that. Amazon is a lot of the impacts on ourtransit network. Amazon is impacting just the use of our resources,right? And Amazon is benefiting from the great resources that thecity of Seattle does provide. And again, this goes both ways.Certainly people benefit from being employed, but we can't say -And that's it, that's the end of the story. There's also the desireto have those corporations, some of the richest ones in the worldin Seattle, pay their fair share. In our state - as we've talkedabout, our regressive state tax code without an income tax - I dothink there's a very valid conversation, especially in a city thathas as many high-earners and as many mega-corporations as the cityof Seattle does, whether people are paying their fair share. Andwhen you look at how residents in the city of Seattle vote, thatanswer continues to be - No, we don't feel like everyone's payingtheir fair share yet, and we need to move further in thatdirection. City government currently, both the council and themayor, seems to feel differently. So that will be a continuingtension that carries on. We'll see what happens, but certainlylooks to be a bumpy ride coming up.
The last thing I wanted to talk about this weekwas the announcement that there are going to be no charges for theofficer who killed a student, Jaahnavi Kandula, as he was driving74 miles per hour down a city street - the speed limit is 25 milesper hour - responding to a call. This is the incident that a lot ofpeople probably became familiar with because they heard anotherofficer, who is also the vice-president of the Seattle PoliceOfficers Guild, mock her death - saying that her life didn't havevalue, basically laughing about it in just a really sick andsad*stic way. No charges will be faced by that officer either. Forthe officer who was mocking, the rationale that the countyprosecutor gave was that it's up to the Office of PoliceAccountability in Seattle to determine what, if any, disciplineshould be faced by that officer. And then for the officer whoactually ran over this young woman, just saying there was notenough evidence to show that basically he was actingrecklessly.
And a lot of people's response to this has beenif driving 74 miles per hour with no indication that it is in adifferent category of emergency, certainly - and really respondingto a call that police are not needed at and that other cities don'thave police responding to those calls, but that's a side issue -but hey, if that's not reckless, then what is? And so we're againin a situation where the law feels woefully inadequate. And we havethe county prosecutor saying - Okay, but according to the law, thiswould be tough, if not impossible, to prosecute and get a guiltyverdict. And people looking at the common sense of it and saying -But that just doesn't make sense. Can we drive 74 miles per hour ona city road and have no consequences for any actions, any harm thatresults from that? And so we're once again in a situation where ourlaws seemingly have endless loopholes or exceptions for people whowork in public safety that don't seem to apply to the rest of us.How did you see this?
[00:39:53]MattDriscoll: Yeah, we're certainly tackling the bigones on today's show, aren't we? I mean, to me, and I realize thatthis is a difficult view to articulate fairly, and I'm going to trymy best because people feel very passionate about it for a lot ofreasons. But I think two things are true. One, creating the type ofpolice force that we need does demand accountability. There has tobe accountability. And I think right now, a lot of folks genuinelyfeel like there is no accountability. Attempts are made to holdpolice accountable for what many feel are reckless, or dangerous,or whatever behavior. The result we get is - well, it wasn'tillegal, it was fine. And so accountability has to be part of that,but I don't think you can change police culture throughaccountability. I feel like what this situation represents is morethe reflection of a police culture, particularly in the mockingcomments. I don't know enough about the intricacies of this case tore-litigate it. I've read the same things you read - I know thespeed, the lack of lights, I also know the prosecutor came back -the interviews with other people, that they heard it, that thestudent seemed distracted. I don't feel prepared to re-litigatethat exact string of events.
What I will say is when you're in an emergency oryour family members in an emergency, you'd probably want the firstresponders driving 75 miles an hour - maybe not 75, but you get mypoint. I do think there has to be leeway in the law that givesfirst responders and cops the ability to do things that otherwisewould be considered reckless. I think that needs to happen, but Ithink the problem we run into is that responsibility that we'vegiven to a police force - the police force, their culture, doesn'treflect those values that are behind that. In a perfect world, ifwe had the police force we had, they would use these powersresponsibly. But a lot of times what we see - and again,particularly in the commentary, that's what feels inhumane. The copwho was involved in the accident, it sounds like they weredistraught at the scene - I don't know what's going on with them.But I know when people hear cops talking about this person’s lifein a way that assigns it no value, it feels like a reflection ofpolice culture that feels above the law, and feels drunk on power,and feels reckless. So if this cop had been charged with this, Idon't know what it would have changed. I do think accountability isnecessary, but I think the bigger problem is the police culture wehave. And maybe, best case scenario, we're in the process of slowlytransforming our police forces to - hiring the type of people andweeding out the bad - I don't know if I have a lot of faith inthat. But it's not going to happen overnight. My overarching pointis - yes, you need accountability, but I don't think accountabilitycan be your vehicle towards the change that we need, if that makessense.
[00:42:49]CrystalFincher: It makes perfect sense. I completely agreewith that. It's just a really, truly unfortunate situation. Andthis young woman deserved better - from everybody, at all points intime from this. And I hope we take this seriously as a community,both locally and statewide, and really do look at issues withculture and start to get to the root of that problem.
And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks& Wonks on this Friday, February 23rd, 2024. The producer of Hacks& Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was MetroNews columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma,Matt Driscoll. You can find Matt on Twitter or X at @mattsdriscoll,with two L's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at@HacksWonks. You can find me at @finchfrii, with two I's at theend, on all platforms. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to getthe full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and ourTuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you likeus, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a fulltranscript of this episode and links to the resources referenced inthe show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episodenotes.
Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.
