Week in Review: August 30, 2024 - with Ashley Nerbovig

Stalled Progress: The Struggle to Achieve Vision Zero Amid Rising Fatalities from Hacks & Wonks

“Hand recount in primary race for commissioner of public lands begins” by Olivia Sullivan from King5

“Pierce County election workers start hand recount in historically tight statewide race” by Becca Most from The News Tribune

“Statewide recount of Washington lands commissioner race gets underway in Spokane County” by Nick Gibson from The Spokesman-Review

“King County Council votes against shuttering youth jail” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“‘Open and operating’ — County council votes in support of continued youth detention at 12th Ave’s Children and Family Justice Center” by CHS Staff from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog

“Concerned About Children in Cages? Look No Further Than King County's Youth Jail” by Girmay Zahilay for The Stranger

“Juvenile crime is up in King County. Officials can’t agree about how to handle it” by Ann Dornfeld from KUOW

“Lynnwood light rail is opening. Here’s what you’ll find at 4 new stations” by Mike Lindblom from The Seattle Times

“How Cities in Lynnwood Link’s Path Prepared for Light Rail’s Arrival” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“County council spent months on homeless stability site. That plan is dead. Now what?” by Cameron Sheppard from The News Tribune

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Ryan Packer of The Urbanist about how Washington's Vision Zero initiative faces setbacks as road deaths have surged in recent years, what infrastructure improvements lead to real traffic safety, and how Seattle's new transportation levy measures up. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration, and courts, Ashley Nerbovig. Welcome.

[00:01:27] Ashley Nerbovig: Thank you - glad to be here. Glad to be back.

[00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Glad to have you back. Well, there is some news this week. We will start off by talking about the super close Commissioner of Public Lands race that concluded with Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dave Upthegrove advancing to the general election. But in the top-two primary, the difference between second and third place was just 51 votes, which means that a hand recount was mandated in this race. And that hand recount is now underway in counties across the state. How does this process unfold? And how long do they anticipate this will take?

[00:02:10] Ashley Nerbovig: So a machine recount is required when there's a 2,000 vote difference, or less than half of 1% for the total number of votes cast. But a statewide hand recount is required when the difference between the two candidates is less than 1,000 votes - which is nuts and crazy to see. And so basically each county election office will recount ballots from their area - and King County had to hire 100 people back to recount all of this stuff. The expected completion date for the recount is approximately September 3rd or 4th. And it's cute, though, that Watkins was saying - The county is not in a rush, they want to do the work right. I'm like - Yeah, drag this out. I want even longer to talk about this race. I want Upthegrove sweating.

[00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: Oh, man. So this is happening across the state in these different counties. And I think it's important, especially as there's so much misinformation, disinformation about elections - people denying elections, calling the integrity of different various election processes in question - to really underscore that this is a really transparent process. How is the recount set up and how have they put in measures of transparency and allowed both parties to participate?

[00:03:24] Ashley Nerbovig: So runners bring boxes containing 250 ballots to the counters - and the boxes are sealed with a tamper-evident seal which has a unique number on it and is logged into the batch itself, so all of that stuff can be audited later and looked at. The pair then counts the box - goes through every ballot - so you have two people sitting there. If the ballots are correct, they move on. If there's a discrepancy, the pair recounts the box. There are also observers in the room to watch the process - this includes up to two observers from the campaigns and four observers from both major parties. So you have people in the room who have vested interest in the outcome of the race - from both sides of the party - you have people who are neutral. They're watching people who are counting in pairs. So there are a lot of things in our world and democracy that I understand why there's a mystery around it, or why people kind of question it, or say - Oh, I can't see it in front of me happening, so I don't trust it. I don't love that logic, but I understand it. This is like - you can go see everything happening, and you can audit it, and you can call the elections office and they're happy to answer questions for you. It's just an incredibly transparent process.

[00:04:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this is happening, in again, all the county elections offices across the state. They all have the representatives from both campaigns, as well as both parties - they're observing the process. And there have been several articles that have been written - looked at one in The Seattle Times, another in The Spokesman-Review - where they've even interviewed some of these observers, who are saying it's really important to them that it's done correctly. Here in The Spokesman article, they talked to a Republican and a Democrat. Both of those are retired - obviously, people who can apply on short notice, who don't have anything else to do during the day, are oftentimes going to be retired. But they talked about it's very important to them to - one, participate in democracy. Two, to make sure things are happening fairly. But they also said it looks like things are really done and handled professionally, transparently, and accurately. And so far in King County, they've reported - I believe it was counting 52,000 ballots - they have not found a counting discrepancy yet. Not to say that it's not going to happen - there are over 1.9 million votes cast in this race. But it is notable here and also in other recounts - counts are usually very, very accurate. Recounts rarely, if ever, change a result - and the count and the result usually doesn't vary much. So not surprised to see that the counting has been very accurate so far - it is reinforcing the accuracy of the original count. Certainly, we will see what comes. Also noted that larger counties have more frequent recounts - they're used to doing this process. Smaller counties or counties that haven't had to do a recount in a long time - some haven't done a hand recount in decades - so they may take a little longer. But hopefully, we'll have results in the next couple of weeks for this - barring any court cases, challenges, anything like that. So hopefully there is a speedy and transparent resolution to this. But really interesting to see this process.

[00:06:36] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, and hopefully some more awareness of the Commissioner of Lands position - I think that's one that sometimes gets a little slept on, so it's nice that they're getting a little awareness.

[00:06:45] Crystal Fincher: 100%. And the fact that it's easy to get lost sometimes when talking about federal races and the presidential race with - Oh, my vote doesn't matter anyway. There are races all the way down the ballot. that matter tremendously, especially for me and my beliefs where the federal government - certainly the Supreme Court - is not aligned frequently these days. And so state and local protections are often the only protections that exist for people - and that's the difference between people having autonomy over their own body and healthcare and choices and not, and so many other things. So it is just really important to understand that your vote absolutely does matter. It counts a lot, particularly in local races - and please do not take that for granted.

Also, want to talk this week about news that I think a lot of people are finding disappointing and that certainly is contrary to what a number of councilmembers and the King County Executive previously said. In that this week, the King County Council committed to keeping the youth detention center open after previously committing to close it by 2025 and then 2028. What happened here? What was voted on? And why did this happen?

[00:08:00] Ashley Nerbovig: So it was a motion by Reagan Dunn, essentially a non-binding motion that he really just wanted to get out - kind of like a statement. And it was to end discussion about closing the Judge Patricia H. Clark Children and Family Justice Center - so our child jail. I think we've been seeing this a lot lately where - I've never seen cop Twitter feeds and social media feeds so filled with stories of youth crime and ensuring that you know that it's a youth armed robbery or a youth carjacking, those types of things - arrests, not convictions. And it's really a part of this narrative that is being pushed right now. And you and I have talked about this - it feels like a return to this idea of the super predator kid from the 90s. So it had been months of the Council pushing this vote. I think Reagan Dunn was really trying to box in people like Jorge Barón and Teresa Mosqueda and Girmay Zahilay to get them on the record - either voting yes or no, and to try to put them in a weird position. They amended it a lot. Zahilay had the biggest push on his amendments, which were to make sure that people understood that we were seeking a balance between seeking better paths for youth and acknowledging the realities of dealing with serious crime. But that was kind of sad to see because Zahilay did a good job of being like - the kids in the youth jail right now talk about being in solitary for so many hours that sometimes they'll come out of their cells and literally feel dizzy and disoriented by just the concept of leaving and going into a bigger open space. I mean, it's really sad and horrible what the conditions are right now - there's not enough programming. We don't have people staffing the jail, and then we don't have people doing programs for the jail. These kids are just being left in there.

And so the vote came through 8-0 - Mosqueda wasn't there. And it really does feel like a broken promise, especially from someone like Zahilay, who - his whole campaign, his op-ed that he wrote for us - in it, he flat out says, Here's his approach. Dismantle our current youth prison model, invest in community-based alternative and close-to-home facilities, and ensure everyone in our community does their part to support just alternatives to youth prison. And I just think that it's clear that the political winds and the political rhetoric around this idea of youth crime is pushing him to have to say things like - We do need a secure facility. And yes, it needs to be something different or transformative, but where is it? You've been on the Council now for four years. Where is our transformative approach to this?

[00:10:25] Crystal Fincher: And I think that's the big question for me. Because certainly, there have been some crimes that have been absolutely alarming - and this is not to say that there is no problem in existence at all. But from a policy level, you look at the totality of the issue. There are going to be individual instances that we look at that are absolutely scary, that we absolutely need to reduce. There are so many ways we need to make our community safer for everyone involved - and that's going to require a variety of approaches. There's absolutely been an effort to - and this goes back two years, this was a major issue in the Leesa Manion and Jim Ferrell campaign for King County Prosecuting Attorney, where Ferrell was essentially saying youth crime is out of control. But they actually did not agree with him at that point in time. And so what I'm interested in looking at - and what I frankly don't know, but I've heard this so much and have seen it disagree with the data before that I actually want to get an understanding of where we're at - and that seems to be missing from most of the coverage and most of the discussion here. Certainly, there has been some discussion that - in 2023, youth bookings increased. But increased from when? Is it because the prior two years, they actually essentially ceased youth bookings? So any increase from zero - yes, it's going to be an increase. But is that part of a growing trend? Where are we at? Certainly, we've heard a lot about car thefts. That seems to be a problem that, if you are addressing that problem, seems to benefit from a more concentrated and direct approach - it is not solved by policy to jail people.

And then also with a backdrop of - certainly we have to contend with the fact that there are sometimes very serious and heinous crimes committed. We also have to contend with the fact that the vast majority of crimes are misdemeanors - some go into felonies. But what we do know, what has been borne out through research - we've done shows on before - is that sending youth to jail actually makes it more likely that they'll commit another crime when they come out. And I think so often we get hung up on the punishment end of things instead of the actual safety end of things. And if our goal is to make the community more safe - if we want to talk about youth detention in that context, then let's talk about it in that context. But it seems like we don't even get to that context. And so what is it that prevents crime, that keeps people from being victimized in the first place? What is it that keeps people safe? What is it that if someone does commit a crime or is harmful to people, keeps them from reliably doing that ever again? That's where I wish we would focus on. That's where we have so much data. And that's where I notice we don't invest, while we continue to invest in the carceral solutions. So there seems to be a lot of agreement on the rhetoric. And we even hear from Reagan Dunn in these stories to say - This was absolutely necessary, and now we need to keep working on alternatives to incarceration and other things. Well, we've been saying that for years. And where is it? And the fact that that isn't there is showing. And the fact that that isn't there is foregoing the opportunity to prevent crime, and to prevent people from being victimized, to prevent youth from having their lives gone astray and making their road ahead that much tougher. That's where I wish we would put our money where our mouth is. And until that happens - especially in light of this vote - it's hard to really take seriously the commitment to actually implementing these policies, and putting these frameworks in place, and supporting programs that do this. It's hard to believe when the money goes in that direction. Now the votes are going in that direction. Where is the substance here in really standing up meaningful alternatives and providing helpful evidence-based programming? Where is it?

[00:14:35] Ashley Nerbovig: And I really get frustrated with the data that we use in these stories. I've been very critical of the way that KUOW has tended to go after the places we are investing in youth diversion, because oftentimes they'll pull out stats like - out of 747 youths diverted to community groups through 2023, 28% have had another juvenile criminal case referred to the King County Prosecutor's Office. The first thing that the prosecutor's office said is that's not meaningful information about the program's effectiveness for recidivism because you use three years to calculate recidivism, right? And in addition to that, you don't know what those crimes are, you don't know if it's another misdemeanor - that's not put in context of what the recidivism rate was when we put kids in jail. If you can't compare these things to what was happening before, there are just these holes when we talk about these stories. And it's really frustrating because I wish that we could all get on board with the fact that if you are under the age of 25, you are going to be a part of this society a very long time. And so we have an opportunity to intervene and to get you the resources that you need, connect with you, give them a chance to show us how incredible and amazing and smart and important they are. And the fact that we don't see this as an opportunity, and instead we see it as something that we need to punish and slam down on - it's so narrow-minded, it's so short-sighted.

And another thing is that we have put guns into our world and kids have access to them in a way that they shouldn't. And we are punishing them for playing with adult tools that they do not have the capacity to understand, that they did not create. And then we are treating them like they are making these really premeditated, horrible crimes - when a lot of the time it's a kid making a horrible mistake that we have allowed to happen. And then we punish that kid singularly for that mistake in a way that makes it so that they are just taken off the map and told that they don't matter anymore - because they made a mistake when they were not even a quarter of their way through their entire life. It's just really cruel and it's absolutely racist. And it frustrates me - I just don't understand the logic and I don't think there is any logic to it.

[00:16:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, there isn't - without extremely cynical explanations for it - because we are spending so much money on solutions that have proven to be ineffective or less effective. And we could spend less money to get better outcomes - meaning less people are victims of crime, less people are being harmed. We know the things that accomplish that. A lot of that is in prevention. A lot of that is in giving resources, providing resources to right now people who so many politicians and kind of the easy thing for society to do is just blanket condemn them. And to think - Just lock them up, throw away the key - as if we don't pay for that. And we're paying financially - and in so many other ways - that also comes with a cost. And so my desire is - there are absolutely problems, and what I'm not saying is that there is no youth crime problem at all. But we have a lot of data with holes. And there is this politicization of this problem where people have a solution in mind and are trying to just pick little data points to support it. And I would actually like to know what the situation is - because when we make decisions based on bad data also, we wind up usually wasting money. And again, not doing the thing that ultimately this is supposed to do and keep people safe. I do find it notable that we don't talk about public safety in terms of keeping people safe, in terms of people not being harmed. It's so much about punishment. In fact, we don't even get to the victims in conversation so many times. We purely focus on perpetrators, on criminals, on the punishment - and that is missing so much of the picture of what actually it means to keep people safe. We talk about hiring police officers. Do we talk about the impact of people in the community? Do we do anything to substantively help victims, or do we allow it to pretty much derail people's lives? Something like a stolen car can financially derail someone, something like a broken-in business. But all of our policy solutions actually don't address that. And especially with youth crime - most youth criminals have been victims of crime. And how we intervene and heal and restore after crime or harm has been committed is so much more predictive of what happens in the future. And so we're also, by not addressing and helping to restore and heal victims - which also helps to prevent putting them on a path towards harmful behavior themselves - our failure to do that is also part of the problem.

[00:19:37] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, and the last thing I'd say on this too is that I want people to be really cautious or cognizant when they're reading these stories. There is a goal here. Like after Blake, it was - we need to make drugs a usable, workable misdemeanor again for cops. Like that was the police and sheriff's whole goal. And then after they got that through, it was police pursuits. And they got that through. And the next thing is - of the reforms that we managed to pass after 2020 - is youth right to counsel. And that is such an important part of our legal system, because kids are the most vulnerable to getting pressured by an adult to make a confession to something they didn't do. And I just think that's really important to talk about when we're talking about these arrests and filings against kids - I agree, I don't want to say there isn't any youth crime problem. I think it makes sense - after the pandemic - that there might be a spike in the number of kids who don't have access to services, who weren't going to school regularly, who weren't making connections. Again, not their fault - our fault. But that absolutely would be on trend and would make sense. But what we shouldn't do in reaction to that is say - We're going to make it easier to put these kids in jail. And this is what this rhetoric is targeted for - it's to make it softer and easier to go after things like youth right to counsel. And you saw with the Sue Rahr story - and she said that she regretted how she spoke about youth right to legal counsel, and acknowledged that it doesn't block the cops from talking to witnesses, and acknowledges that it works. But there is a concerted effort right now to attack that. And that's, I think, what you're going to see in the legislative session coming up.

[00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that - and it really is important to keep that in mind. And the red flag to me was not seeing the data - seeing the talking point parroted all over the place and not seeing any coherent data, or any data presented in the way that it traditionally is when we're exploring that. That's a red flag that there is more politically at play here, and this is part of a campaign and a useful talking point.

Well, I do want to talk about exciting news this week, and that is that - we're recording this on Thursday, but it will air on Friday - and at 12:30 pm, Light Rail trains will be traveling all the way up to Lynnwood. The Lynnwood Extension opens - four new stations in Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood open. So now you'll be able to travel all the way from Angle Lake in SeaTac all the way north to Lynnwood on Light Rail. And partially on the Eastside right now, soon to be the full Eastside extension. But this is a big deal - this is an extension into Snohomish County. This is going to serve a lot of people who didn't previously have access to light rail. How are you feeling about it?

[00:22:31] Ashley Nerbovig: I'm good. I'm a little nervous because the guy I'm seeing was like - Would you ever move to Lynnwood? And I'm like - No. [laughter] I'm like - I don't want this to be a thing. But - love Lynnwood, no shade to Lynnwood. But I'm really excited for it - I'm going to ride the Link this weekend, we're going to do a little train hop and do a little bar hop around in the Lynnwood area. So I'm sure it'll drive a lot of people there. I think it's nice - especially the thing that The Urbanist had - was the promise of a 28-minute traffic-free trip from Westlake in Downtown Seattle to Lynnwood. I'm sure that's very exciting for commuters. It's always bittersweet to see a line open because it's like - Man, I want this to be going so much faster. But then I also feel like - Well, we should celebrate it when it happens. And congratulations, Sound Transit, for extending out the line - we're proud of you.

[00:23:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I mean, if you know me personally, you have seen me compare maps of LA's rail system to maps of our light rail system. We started planning them at the same time - Los Angeles County is like six times further than we are. But process, like the Seattle process, has taken over everything. And it actually did take a lot of fighting and a lot of overcoming challenges and obstacles to get here. And this is going to be a meaningful quality of life improvement for so many people in the region. And also development can occur, has already started to occur - a lot of housing has already been built around this. More density is able to be absorbed around stations, so the kinds of communities that are more resilient to climate, that are healthier and easier to navigate, are being made more possible also with these line openings. And people able to align a life that isn't dependent on a car for everything, but still able to maintain mobility and get around - which is not only an issue for people in Seattle city limits who live on Capitol Hill, who are young and childless and all that. There are lots of people in lots of different situations who can't drive, or don't drive, or don't want to drive all the time for various reasons. And this just helps expand the possibilities for how they have options to live, how we have options to get around. People have alternatives in this area and region for not having to sit in traffic if they have to commute somewhere. It's just a really good, cool thing. And there is not a major city or community that's renowned in the world that doesn't have this - this is an element of a modern society by any measure, and so it's great to see us taking a step forward. The Urbanist is having a meetup happening later. Transit Riders Union will be tabling at stations earlier in the day. So I hope people get on it, check it out, see what's going on with it. I'm certainly going to try and do it - if not this weekend, certainly next weekend - it's a busy time. But yeah, this is an exciting thing and it's worthy of celebration.

[00:25:35] Ashley Nerbovig: It's absolutely exciting. I have a car because I was living in Montana before this - it made sense - and I've kept it because Seattle is hard to manage around. But my god, am I excited to get rid of it someday. I would love to be in a transit city where it didn't cost me an extra $300, $400 a month - having a car is so expensive in an already expensive city. And just to have transit be real and as flexible as it is - and like the most time I lived in a city with real transit was in New York, and the subway system is miraculous. And I agree with you - it's a mark of a real city that people have that ability, and I really hope that the Seattle process speeds up a little bit for us on this.

[00:26:16] Crystal Fincher: Agree, agree. Anything that can be done to accelerate the need. It just serves and helps people - gives people more options, more affordable options to live and work and recreate. And certainly we've got to mitigate the climate hell that we've brought upon ourselves and less driving is a necessary component of that. So great to see.

Also, I want to talk about a couple of recent developments in Tacoma. The first thing is that, as we've talked about on this program before, the residents of Tacoma passed a tenants' rights bill above, kind of over the objections of the city, over attempts to water it down and potentially present an alternative. The residents of Tacoma said - No, we don't want a watered-down version. We don't want half measures. - and they approved a renter's bill of rights that limited rent increases to 5, that gave additional protections to tenants. And this is after there have been predatory increases. We've seen this reported everywhere from Bellingham to Vancouver, from Seattle to Spokane. Renters are having a hard time and outside of some metro areas are very little protections for renters in our region. So Tacoma residents stepped up in response to a problem they were experiencing and were able to pass this over an opposition campaign against it. And now the landlords are suing. What is happening here? Why are they saying they're suing?

[00:27:50] Ashley Nerbovig: So the Bill of Rights - it requires landlords to help with relocation in cases of 5% or more rent increases and creates the winter eviction ban that we have in Seattle. So it's a really good - it's a law that makes sense and that I think a lot of people agree with. And this group, the Citizen Action Defense Fund, has filed a lawsuit with unspecified damages, basically to just reverse this Landlord Fairness Code Initiative - saying that it's wreaked havoc on the rental housing market and they're alleging basically that the law is unconstitutional. And Tacoma For All, the people who spearheaded the Tenants' Bill of Rights, they're saying - We're not surprised to see this. Landlords are eager to challenge the new law in an effort to preserve what they see as their right to raise rents rapidly without consequences and turn out working families into the street in the middle of winter. And I love stuff like that because that is what they're fighting for. And whenever they try to cover it up with smoke, it's like - This is unconstitutional. They have a right to do this. It's such an apt thing that the landlords are pushing against these tenant protection laws at the same time that we're exposing more and more how much the rental system is rigged, like the RealPage lawsuits that are coming out right now about how there's basically a rental cartel that says we're going to set the rents at this regardless of vacancy. It really does undercut the idea of landlords as these mom and pop shops who are scrambling and only have a couple properties. No, it's these big conglomerates a lot of the time who has now AI to help them - that regardless of vacancy, they can set the rents at what they determine to be the market rate. And the free market competition is not real right now in renting. And so we need these protections and the landlords are pushing against them because they want to have the right to make profit and they don't really see what they're doing as - I mean, you're making money off of a shelter, which is just a tough thing to make money off of because so much of human life depends on having a safe place to live. And I think it's obvious this pushback is going to come. And it's obvious that the people of Tacoma already said they want this. So then to come out and say it's unconstitutional, I think - it's just crazy to me.

[00:29:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I've seen this. We even saw it reported - this controversial law - which is wild that a law passed by the people is what is being called controversial and not the efforts that have clearly been rebuked by the people, by the landlords, by the attempt to pass a weakened version of this. That was deemed more controversial. So controversial, in fact, it could not and did not pass. Now, the city is saying that they are not able to enforce this. Do you know what's behind that?

[00:30:28] Ashley Nerbovig: I don't. The people who are suing over it say that the local government's refusal to enforce it could recognize there are legal problems with it. I assume that it's just that Tacoma doesn't have - in the same way that you need an Office of Labor Rights to investigate this stuff, there just isn't a way to complain about it. But I have to look into that - I don't understand what's going on in Tacoma with this. If they're just hostile to the renters, if they are trying to enforce it. I will say an initiative is not something that the government prepares for, so maybe the city's just saying we're not enforcing it now.

[00:31:03] Crystal Fincher: It's not uncommon for legislation - if there need to be tweaks that don't alter the purpose and the main function of the legislation, but that minimize unforeseen impacts that it had or that might enable enforcement to happen easier - maybe there's a conversation about that if that's a problem there. But that isn't what this opposition is. And this opposition actually reminds me a lot about a lot of people who oppose the minimum wage increases and the rhetoric that we hear from that frequently - Well, if you do that, it'll be horrible for the economy. Employers will pack up and they'll go elsewhere. This will be bad for jobs. It'll actually cost more people jobs than help people. We've heard that with literally every single minimum wage increase statewide. We've heard that as opposition to literally every single municipal minimum wage ballot initiative that there's been. And they've passed. Part of the reason why they're passing - and this is much less controversial now than it was 20 years ago - is that those the-sky-is-falling predictions never came true. In fact, our economy grew. Jobs grew. Because when you actually give regular people more money, they spend that in their communities - it actually supports and makes stronger the local economy. They're more able to buy all of their necessities, maybe go out to the movies, maybe get some dinner on the way - they spend money in their community that helps the businesses there.

In the same way, protecting renters against predatory rent increases keeps people in their houses, keeps people from having to come up with a gargantuan amount of money to put down as a deposit for the next place they need to move to or to try and get in there. Eviction is so harmful. And you have a lot of people who can afford what they're paying now, who can afford modest increases to that. But can they afford 30% increases, 40% increases? No, they can't. And year after year - absolutely, they cannot do that. And the expectation of landlords that they should be able to do that with housing is just one that needs to be rapidly corrected. And I think residents all over the state are in the process of doing that - and they're predictably fighting back. But I think we do need to understand that typically in this - Hey, the city passed something. What we would see is - okay, after two, three years, what has the data shown is the impact of this? And then what tweaks do we need to make of it? This hasn't been put into place. It's just more of the sky is falling. Oh - they like to call themselves housing providers - housing providers are going to leave the market. This is going to make things less affordable and make housing less accessible. And it's really interesting that you're saying that to people who are like - We're the actual renters who are absorbing the impact of this and we're telling you, No, it's the increases that are untenable, that's what we need to fix. And also, let's not get lost here - that yet another thing that has been now talked about by the president - President Biden has called for 5% caps on rent increases. This is not extreme. This is not pie in the sky. This is another one of those things that is just kind of normal common sense, so much so that even the president can advocate for it. And that obviously is being opposed by the people who stood to profit from this. And platforms like RealPage also let smaller landlords into the collusion-esque benefits that a lot of those bigger ones got. So the price fixing was absolutely real - when you read the DOJ evidence - and what made it so easy is that basically RealPage and their customers admitted flat out, They just take care of everything. And that is textbook price fixing. That's great. That's why I like the platform. It makes me more money - can't say it more plainly than that.

[00:35:00] Ashley Nerbovig: It makes it so easy.

[00:35:02] Crystal Fincher: Yes. So it is a problem and we will continue to follow what happens with this in the city of Tacoma. The last thing I want to talk about today is Pierce County redirecting plans for a homeless stability site that had been in progress and being worked on - to be supported by federal funds that were coming - but that looks like it is running into the buzzsaw of Pierce County's current executive, Bruce Dammeier, in saying he's going to veto legislation that results, which would effectively kill the planned homeless stability site. What's going on here?

[00:35:40] Ashley Nerbovig: It seems like it's a little bit of posturing because Executive Dammeier said that he would veto this $2.5 million in ARPA funding that the Council had earmarked to provide a stability site. And what Dammeier proposed in contrast to that was to provide about $1.8 million of that to affordable housing projects and $600,000 for homeless and housing services. And Dammeier's whole kind of thing was he was saying - Oh, our shelter system is already stressed. And so I don't want to put more money towards a shelter system when we could be putting money towards affordable or housing projects, which will create permanent housing solutions for folks. Which is dumb because affordable housing requires that you have an income and can pay something versus you are fully coming off of the street and need somewhere that you can temporarily stabilize. Now, on the other hand, Ryan Mello did a different proposal and said it would keep the $2.5 million in ARPA funding originally intended for the homeless disability site, but changes the definition to temporary non-congregate micro-shelter communities. And The News Tribune is funny because they say - It's notably similar. Temporary non-congregate micro-shelter communities is notably similar to how the stability site was described, and to what would have been allowed by the ordinance Mello sponsored and passed before Dammeier promised to veto it. So it sounds like if that gets passed, it's just going to be like a little thing where at least Dammeier can say - Well, I didn't allow an encampment site to be built in it, but then it'll effectively go to the same thing. And yeah, it seems like a lot of posturing. Also a lot of Dammeier being incorrect about how people leave homelessness.

[00:37:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I absolutely think that we need to not only focus on temporary shelter solutions, non-congregate shelter solutions, but also have more actual housing. But the answer is not one or the other, it is truly both. And really, the posturing is laid plain by the fact that you are pitting one against the other. And the fact that you're essentially supporting the same exact thing, just not from your Democratic colleagues. So you can posture to the Republican homies to say - I stopped that Democratic overreach. And if that was it, maybe you could roll your eyes and shrug your shoulders at it, but this is really delaying the entire process. There's been a lot of work put into fixing this really real, present, urgent problem that everyone agrees is an emergency, that any survey of voters - this is a top concern that they have. And so really this posturing is harmful in the fact that it's delaying solutions. We could get to the work of funding this now, getting the site set up, these people off of the streets and housed now, these people stabilized and into a better place, into permanent housing. And that's not happening because of this posturing. This is not what we elect people to do. And I think that there are too many people getting comfortable with releasing a press release, in the rhetoric of it all. But this is really about actions and solving the problems that we can all see with our eyes. No one is happy when they pass by an encampment. No one thinks - That is just fine, we are happy - should remain. Now, should we sweep them and make the situation worse? No. But do we need to actually work to get them off the street with things that we know help? Absolutely. There is action that can and should be taken, and that is urgent. And this posturing, just because he has issues with a Democratic proposal - and especially a proposal by someone running for his job.

[00:39:29] Ashley Nerbovig: Exactly, yeah.

[00:39:31] Crystal Fincher: It just actually makes Dammeier look really petty. And it really shows that Ryan Mello has been earnestly working to get this done. And his proposal is so effective that Dammeier doesn't even really need to change any of the substance - just a few words - to make it seem like he didn't let an effort from his colleague, who is a Democrat running for his job, get through. But just, we need to do better. He needs to do better. The residents of Pierce County deserve better.

[00:40:05] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I 100% agree, especially if they're going to be taking away - if the residents of Tacoma don't have renter protections.

[00:40:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 30th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration, and courts, Ashley Nerbovig. You can find Ashley on Twitter at @AshleyNerbovig. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. And find me there and on all the platforms at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. Also, feel free to shoot me a message about how you found the show - I find your feedback to be really, really useful. You can get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.