Week in Review: June 27, 2025 - with David Kroman

Girmay Zahilay Outlines Vision for Executive Role from Hacks & Wonks

@robertcruickshank.com‬ on Bluesky: "Bruce Harrell is in *worse* position than Andrew Cuomo ever was. Cuomo got 36% of the vote, lower than most polls suggested he'd get. Harrell was at 25% in the only public poll of the Seattle mayoral campaign - a number that rose to just 33% after favorable descriptions were read about him:"

“Seattle mayor, council member propose rewrite of city’s business taxes” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Seattle City Council approves new tech to help SPD track fleeing cars” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“License Plate Readers Proliferate in Washington, Bringing Concerns over ICE Overreach” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“SPD wants to stop calling its surveillance program a “pilot” 3 weeks after implementation” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City

“Seattle Council signs off on towering digital billboards” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Seattle to ban controversial rent-setting software RealPage” by Heidi Groover from The Seattle Times

“Seattle’s affordable housing industry is in crisis. City faces tough choices” by Greg Kim and David Kroman from The Seattle Times

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 your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight in the 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.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with King County Executive candidate Girmay Zahilay about his plans for the region's biggest challenges, including homelessness, public safety, and housing affordability.

Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with the co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. Welcome back!

[00:00:59] David Kroman: Thanks so much for having me - happy to be here.

[00:01:02] Crystal Fincher: Happy to have you here. We've got a lot of Seattle stuff to dive into this week. Starting with some big news outside of Seattle - wondering if it's going to have any implications for Seattle - news that Zohran Mamdani in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary race prevailed over former Governor Andrew Cuomo - who had a lot of baggage, a lot of issues, but the backing of a lot of establishment entities and people. But Zohran Mamdani was able to to prevail over him. The nation was watching this race - kind of an upstart, more populist, progressive - not quite an outsider, even though it felt kind of like an outsidery campaign, but very much taking on the Democratic establishment and prevailed. This is a ranked choice voting election, so we got the initial results - we won't get the final ranked choice votes until, I want to say, next week. But really interesting - and so a question is, How did you see this? And does it have any implications to you for Seattle's mayoral race?

[00:02:14] David Kroman: Yeah, I thought it was interesting. I think, for the progressive base in Seattle - they hope that the answer is yes, and believe that the answer is yes. I think the answer is yes and no - It's not a very satisfying answer. But the yes piece is there is clearly broad frustration with establishment Democrats. And Bruce Harrell is an establishment Democrat. He's as establishment as they come in Seattle - he's been in office, with a small break, since basically 2008. And so if there is broad-based frustration and an appetite for unseating anybody who's seen as an establishment Democrat, then yeah - I think it does have an implication for Seattle. The nuance there is, of course, New York is a much, much different place than Seattle - much more diverse, a lot more income brackets, frankly. And then I think Andrew Cuomo is uniquely flawed. Of course, Eric Adams is uniquely flawed. Both of them have legitimate long records of pretty established scandals. Andrew Cuomo had to resign because of sexual harassment allegations. And of course, Eric Adams is under federal corruption charges, or was until he apparently struck a deal with the Trump administration to dismiss them. So I think that the anger and the willingness for backlash in New York is probably more salient than it is in Seattle. But I think, from a sort of broad-based political electorate perspective, it is the first hint. It is just one data point. I would like to see more data points. But it is a data point suggesting that it might be a slightly uncomfortable time to be a long-serving establishment Democrat.

[00:03:49] Crystal Fincher: I think a lot of that is spot on. I think that, as you said, certainly on the progressive side, a lot of people are hoping this is another data point that shows that the incumbent - who I think many progressives find themselves lining up on the side of a more progressive candidate to the incumbent, Bruce Harrell. And hoping that this - along with the social housing vote in February, along with Alexis Mercedes Rinck's win in November - are a continuing series of signs that the status quo is not good enough and that what many people feel establishment Democrats or the Seattle establishment is pushing is just insufficient. I think that you would find a healthy number of people who find reasons where that might not be the case. Certainly, Bruce Harrell is not as widely and broadly both known and maligned as Andrew Cuomo in probably the media capital of the United States, being the governor there. Those scandals - very, very high profile - reported on by their very vast media ecosystem for a long time. Although lots of people know Bruce Harrell, still a lot of people don't - and his controversies, I don't think are as well known by the broader public. We'll see if that changes. We'll see if that morphs. But I do think there is, both in terms of the coalition that Mamdani was able to put together - that that is instructive and kind of reflective of Seattle - and also in just, the articulation of a positive vision really matters. And it wasn't centered on what's wrong with the city, or what's going bad, or what people dislike. It was more about loving the city and wanting to do the best for it. And I think lots of people really like that vibe. And as much as people like to think so - I'm sitting here hosting a show called Hacks & Wonks - we can get as wonky as we want to, but politics is mostly about vibes when it comes down to it. And I think Mamdani won there. What did you think?

[00:06:04] David Kroman: Yeah, I think that's right. And Katie Wilson is trying to replicate that. She had this video where she was talking about how much it costs to buy a slice of pizza, and it was echoing of a similar video that Mamdani did about chicken over rice. So she is sort of trying to take the same approach, which is - well, okay, I'll back up. I think maybe in the past where progressives got in a little bit of trouble is they were seen as sort of being a little too high-minded about their goals and not focusing as intensely as they could have on people's day-to-day concerns. And I do think that is where they maybe lost some momentum in '21 and '23, as they were sort of seen as the group of people that was pushing for ideological goals around policing or public safety, while maybe taking their eye off of what people wanted on a day-to-day basis and what people really needed. I think progressives now are trying to re- claim that mantle. And Katie Wilson has been really specific about that - writing op-eds to that effect, saying the left needs to focus more on what people are feeling every day. And I think she's trying to take that approach in her campaign - really focusing on affordability, and the cost of food, and the cost of rent. And in that respect, it really is a similar campaign to what Mamdani was running, which is intensely focused on very specific concerns of New Yorkers. Where I think they differ is Mamdani really had those soundbite policies that I think you could debate all day long - and people have and will - whether or not they're realistic or not. But they were politically salient. This is - I'm going to freeze your rent. Free buses. I'm going to make the $10 chicken over rice cost $8. You know, these are really specific talking points that he could hang his hat on. Katie is not quite going to that extent. And I think she's a policy wonk - she understands Seattle politics as well as anybody does, and I think is genuinely a quite nuanced person. The question is whether that nuance comes through in a race like Seattle. And to your point, there are not as many opportunities for her to get out in front of media as there are in New York City. Nor are there as many outlets hammering on Bruce Harrell, for example.

And so, again, I think the environment is there for an uprising, sort of anti-establishment campaign in Seattle. But I will say also - I think Andrew Cuomo didn't really take that seriously. And I'm not sure that he took Mamdani that seriously until the end. I will say that Bruce Harrell is clearly taking Katie Wilson's campaign quite seriously. I think he has put in a lot of work to peel off progressive backers. And we talked about this last time I was on the show - I mean, you can point to labor support, you can point to Pramila Jayapal and Teresa Mosqueda and Claudia Balducci endorsing Bruce Harrell. And then - I know we'll talk about it more later - but this B&O tax proposal that he's doing with Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck - they will deny that that has any sort of connection to Katie Wilson. I think that's a tough case to make. I think it pretty clearly has something to do with the fact that we're in an election year. And so I do think Bruce Harrell is taking Katie Wilson more seriously than Andrew Cuomo took Mamdani seriously. So again, back to the point, the environment is there for a populist uprising - whether or not that manifests itself in Seattle's elections, I wouldn't bank on it. I wouldn't totally count it out. But I don't think that's a guarantee.

[00:09:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're spot on with that. One thing that I did notice - one of Andrew Cuomo's super PAC donors, investor Mark Gorton, said he's likely going to end up backing Mamdani after backing Andrew Cuomo. And he said that's because the support Mamdani had gotten from Brad Lander, who he said he ranked first - they, like we said, are using ranked choice voting. But his quote was - I feel like people misunderstood my $250,000 for Cuomo for real enthusiasm. It was basically - Oh, looks like Cuomo's coming back. We don't want to be shut out. Let's try and get on his good side. He goes on to say - That's kind of how things work with Cuomo. It's a sad political pragmatism. I wish we lived in a world where those sorts of things were not useful things to do. And I found that really interesting, particularly following conversations this past week with a number of people, elected officials endorsing entities - and more than a couple of them after these New York results feeling nervous about endorsements that they had made of the incumbent. And wondering if, especially after these New York results, thinking maybe the signs that we have seen in the past couple elections in Seattle are really reflective of a movement and they're kind of missing the boat and they're kind of feeling vulnerable - that they're looking out of touch - and them wrestling with that. And I think this is causing a lot of people who play that go-along-to-get-along game - there's lots of conversations that happen about some entities' seeming preferences for access-based politics or, hey, they feel like this is really about this is how you build a relationship - through endorsements or through donations. And if they're going to win, that's how you get access so you just got to do it. And you hope through that you're able to help sway them. But it's kind of like a price of doing business - a lot of people take that as. And that's a very cynical thing. Lots of people do not like that. But that is a reality that a number of people and entities feel that. And this is making a number of them question that and be wondering - should I be getting on the Katie Wilson train, specifically now, before it looks like it's passed me by? So I thought that was another interesting dynamic, following that New York City race, here in Seattle. We'll see how this plays out - still a long way to go, but some really interesting dynamics and elements in this race.

Now I do want to talk about a story that you wrote about. The Seattle Mayor and Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck proposing a potential rewrite of the City's business taxes. And this is a bit of a different direction than Bruce Harrell initially signaled that he might go. But what are they proposing and how did they arrive here?

[00:12:26] David Kroman: Yeah, so the proposal is basically - so right now, if you're a business in Seattle, you have to pay basically 22 cents for every $100 that you bring in over $100,000. This is gross revenue, it's not income - which is an important distinction. This proposal bumps that number from $100,000 to $2 million, and then simultaneously raises the rates on what businesses are paying over $2 million. So the idea is it kind of gives relief to the majority of Seattle businesses - they estimate that three-quarters will not pay any business tax anymore after this and that 90% will pay less. But for those that do have to pay, it will be about a 50% greater burden than what they pay right now. The idea is they're trying to have this win-win-win situation where they close their deficit gap - or most of their deficit gap - with this money, while also providing relief to small businesses across the city. The reason the gross versus net income piece is important is because that 10% is going to include super high-expense, low-margin businesses that people love and appreciate - like grocery stores and restaurants. And we've seen this in the past when the Seattle City Council has proposed - I think mostly of the 2018 head tax debate - where that was going to be on gross receipts and Uwajamiya came out against it. And everybody loves Uwajamaya. And so that makes it kind of politically tricky to do these kinds of tax proposals. But certainly notable that this is the first time - I would say, in some ways, this is kind of the most like bold. I hate the word bold, but I'm going to use it - bold proposal from Bruce Harrell. This is a pretty controversial thing that immediately got some pretty heavy pushback from allies of Bruce Harrell, from Downtown Seattle Association. I think this is probably the most he has bucked his own backers for proposing something in a way that I can't really think of for the first three and a half years of his term. So it's major from that perspective. My question is whether it'll even get to the ballot because it has to go through the Seattle City Council to get there, and they're going to get pretty intensely lobbied by business in the city.

[00:14:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with your assessment there. I do think this is the boldest proposal that we have seen from Bruce Harrell - in opposition to a lot of his donors, a lot of his endorsers and backers. And I do think this is a reflection of his feeling pressure, the same kind of pressure that the people we were just talking about - feeling like they may not be aligned with the electorate. This electorate has made it so clear so many times, I think, that they do prefer more progressive taxation, that they do feel like small businesses are paying their fair share, but big businesses aren't. And so it's just really interesting that a lot of people feel how they feel with Bruce Harrell, but we do want to see this from our elected officials. We do want to see them listening and responding to the public. And I think public pressure has brought him here. And I do think it is another kind of victory for the continual lobbying, and voting is not the only thing you can do to influence your elected officials. I think we're seeing a lot of that working again here in Seattle. I agree with you that this is going to have a tough, tough path through the Seattle City Council. Certainly, I think many members of the Council are demonstrably to Bruce Harrell's right when it comes to issues of taxation. And Sara Nelson has been pretty clear in opposing a lot of this. Have you had a chance to speak to any of the councilmembers or anyone else about their thoughts on this yet?

[00:16:22] David Kroman: I haven't had a census of this. I think it's notable that Rob Saka was at the press conference - he is somebody who you would think perhaps could be a tough vote to get. So that's one that Bruce Harrell has in his back pocket. Of course, he has Rinck. I have to think Strauss probably supports this. And then there's a question about maybe Hollingsworth and then whoever they choose to replace Moore. So it's not an impossible task, but particularly - Nelson came out with a statement late yesterday - it didn't make our story. But basically saying - We'll take a close look at this. This was not a support statement. I think that it was implied that this will get some fairly intense scrutiny before the Seattle City Council. I think the argument that backers are going to make is - Look, you don't have to be the one supporting this. All we're asking you to do is send this to the ballot. So you're not voting in favor of this proposal, you're just voting in favor of allowing people to say Yes or No on it.

I will say that I think the most politically weak that Harrell has looked in his time as mayor was with the social housing vote in February. He offered his support to the 1B option, which was the don't-raise-taxes-to-fund-social-housing option. His face was kind of plastered over all of the materials opposing 1A. I know that his office and political team were frustrated that they became the face of that opposition because then it was pretty resoundingly in favor of the new taxes option. And suddenly Bruce Harrell looked pretty out of step. And in fact, that is what spurred Katie Wilson to get into this race. And so Harrell's team right now is saying that - No, this is not a political calculation, it's just that we really have hit the end of the road of what we can do to fix our budget. I think that is probably true to an extent. They don't have $240 million to close the deficit, so they would have to make pretty significant cuts without new revenue. But I think it is also proposed directly in the context of that February ballot, where he looked really out of step all of a sudden with Seattle's electorate. And I think he's trying to get back in line. It is worth noting, I suppose - I don't have any indication of how big of a role this played. It is worth noting that Councilmember Rinck and Harrell have the same political consultant - in Christian Sinderman, who also is representing somebody who is running against Sara Nelson. There is clearly some political stuff happening here, but I think it would be foolish to totally discount the kind of practical piece here, which is that Bruce Harrell does not have a lot of options when it comes to the budget.

[00:19:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think you're wise to bring up that practical aspect, in that they have run out of other options. And a lot was talked about of the budget deficit that they addressed last year, but notably they didn't address the structural issue. There were a lot of kind of one-time allocations of money to cover the gap, but not doing anything to bring in continual revenue moving forward that would address the continual deficit moving forward. So that's how we find ourselves in this situation yet again, where they're facing a massive deficit. So this would move to be a structural fix, to be continual revenue that would address the continual gap that currently exists without anything to fill it. So I do think that those are necessary, it's wise to look at this. Certainly, Katie Wilson took the opportunity to point out that she was part of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup that was convened a few years back to explore a number of progressive revenue options for the City of Seattle - this was one of them that they identified. She pointed out that she would have been in favor of moving ahead with this earlier and that it was a need. But I do think it is wise and a good response to the public that they are looking at this now. And I'm looking forward to the conversation that the Council has on this. I think the residents are looking forward to the opportunity to vote on this, particularly evidenced by that February vote that we were talking about. And the vote this past November for Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who won so handily, talking about the need for progressive taxation. So seems reflective of where the electorate is currently at.

I also want to talk about this week - news that the Seattle City Council approved new technology to help SPD track fleeing cars. What is this? How do they say it would help? And what are the implications here?

[00:21:10] David Kroman: These are basically little GPS launchers that they would install into the front of their car. The Seattle Police Department already has approval to use GPS trackers, though they have to, as of now, get a warrant from a judge to use them. This is basically new technology that will - and so they can shoot them from the front of their cars, they stick to a car, and then they can track that. They don't have to necessarily get a warrant to use it if there is reasonable suspicion, so in a traffic stop or something - they think somebody might leave or run away, they can launch these GPS trackers. I put this into the broader context of technology in policing these days, including, say, traffic enforcement cameras and just the increasingly automated pieces of law enforcement, which is - I think a lot of people see technology as a means to improve the efficiency of the police department while cutting down on face-to-face interactions. The idea of this is we know that there has been a lot of scrutiny and conversation around police pursuits in particular, because there's some data out there showing that pursuits that begin with basically low-level traffic infractions can often lead to injury or death to civilians and people who are just kind of in the way of these pursuits. And so some question about whether or not it's actually worth engaging in a pursuit - there was a law that rolled back pursuits in 2021, and then it was kind of... reinstated a bit in 2024. But I think the argument here is that these GPS trackers are a means to follow somebody without actually following them, and therefore they are safer.

Of course, anytime there is new surveillance or tracking technology brought to the Seattle Police Department, there's questions about that. Seattle has a Surveillance Ordinance, which requires that all these technologies go through pretty intense review. This one is interesting, though, because it didn't go through that level of review because the city had already approved GPS trackers. They're saying that this is just kind of an add-on to that, and so it didn't quite get the same level of scrutiny - to people's frustration. And, you know, as the ACLU of Washington points out - because it doesn't require a warrant, there's not quite the same level of guardrails on this as there are on some other pieces of technology. It's pretty easy for a police officer to say that they had reasonable suspicion, whereas it's not very easy to get a warrant. And so certainly this opens up more avenues for tracking of the Seattle Police Department. It's just the question is - how it's used, and if it is worth it if it does, in fact, cut down on police pursuits. Big question about that - these things have shown to not actually be particularly effective in Seattle's weather, or the Northwest weather - but we'll see.

[00:23:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. An interesting addendum in your article is they're citing pretty decent success rates in other cities, but said that that rate was lower in this region because of the rainier weather - that those GPS trackers that they essentially shoot at a vehicle and it sticks to it have a harder time adhering in the rain. And I believe you reported that the batteries on those, they said, last around eight hours. And then I guess they're supposed to go dead after that? Will be curious to see how that is actually tracked and audited. Is that a firm eight hours? Could they start using longer batteries? I don't know if that was explored at all, but curious. But I do think it's also part of an acknowledgement that, as many advocates have said for a long time, police pursuits are really dangerous to the broader community and more dangerous to people who are not the person being pursued - whether it's bystanders, pedestrians, other drivers. But those injuries occur far more often, including to officers, than they do to the person being pursued. So will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Also want to talk about license plate readers - have been proliferating in Washington, concerning a lot of people about ICE overreach through data sharing. Amy Sundberg with The Urbanist reported on this, but wanted to get an overview of what's happening here? And why are people concerned about the interaction with ICE?

[00:25:28] David Kroman: Seattle and the police department are supposed to not do any sort of information sharing with ICE. The policies are pretty explicit, including administrative warrants and things like that. I think the concern here is the third party question, which is - where does this information end up when it's not in the hands of the City of Seattle? And it seems like, as far as I can glean, that there's some indication that that information has ended up in the hands of the federal government before. The question always - when it comes to surveillance is not what the city is willing to, or the company that holds this data is willing to do - it's more about what they have to do when there's, say, a subpoena or a warrant or something like that. And I think that is the question that people have with this license plate reader stuff is - what happens when the people who hold this data are demanded to turn it over? And I think there's questions about that.

[00:26:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I do think there are questions about that. And, given that there is a question that this data can be compelled, that they can be forced to turn it over - should they be collecting it in the first place? Is the benefit of collecting this information outweighing the potential risks and consequences of everybody's information being swept up? These license plate readers are pretty ubiquitous. They're capturing license plate information from everyone who has license plates on their cars on the road, essentially. And is that level of surveillance and access worth it? Or are the consequences not? What are the benefits that we're getting from this broad license plate reader technology?

[00:27:08] David Kroman: Yeah, I think it's back to the thing I was saying about technology - the argument being technology kind of acts as a force multiplier at a time when police departments don't have the staff that they used to. This debate often kind of gets the most tense when there's something specific in question. I'm thinking of when there was the hit and run near the West Seattle Bridge a couple years ago - that killed that man and somebody ran away and there were traffic cameras nearby, but the laws didn't allow the police department to access them. And that kind of set off this whole - When is it worth it? When is it not? I won't pretend to fully understand exactly the use case for license plate readers at all time. I think the argument, though, is - it helps in investigations, frankly.

[00:27:52] Crystal Fincher: I agree with you. I do think it's trickiest when a case does come up where it's like - Ah, that information could definitely be helpful. I think a lot of people are asking - are there more cases where we're finding the opposite, where it could actually be harmful to people in the community should that information be shared? I think it's a question that will continue to be ongoing. I think more people are paying attention to this issue - than perhaps were a year or two ago - after they've been clued into the consequences that a lot of people have been warning about that we're now seeing play out most frequently on the federal level, particularly with these ICE raids and disappearings that we're seeing of people on the street that really have a lot of people concerned.

Also want to cover this week, Seattle signed off on some big digital billboards. Some people are saying this is not a big deal. Some people are saying this is a bad move. What did they approve and what are they saying the benefits will be?

[00:29:03] David Kroman: So they basically granted approval to the Downtown Seattle Association to install these billboards and then eventually some other neighborhood industry groups. The billboards are, I mean, at their most simple - well, they call them kiosks. At their most kind of simple, they are billboards. They flash advertisements, generate money, and then most of that money goes back to the company, IKE Smart City, and then a little over a million dollars a year goes back to the Downtown Seattle Association, which the legislation requires that they then use to further improve downtown Seattle. So in that sense, the financial relationship is pretty simple. Downtown Seattle Association and particularly Council President Sara Nelson say there are more uses than just billboards to these things. They are interactive, you can get restaurant recommendations, and use Wi-Fi, and call 911. But I think at the end of the day, they are really billboards and that is kind of what their benefit is.

[00:30:01] Crystal Fincher: So this is essentially approving the Downtown Seattle Association's ability to have billboards across downtown for now and potentially different associations throughout the city in the future. How have they addressed the concern that - okay, if you're saying this is going to be good for the city, good for Seattle, why are you funneling this money through a private group? Why isn't the City doing this itself and keeping the revenue itself, instead of allowing the revenue to go to a private group?

[00:30:36] David Kroman: Yeah, I think that's one concern. I would say - zooming out a little bit - I think there are three concerns, some bigger than others. The first one was around surveillance - and we were just talking about technology. What kind of surveillance capabilities do these things have? In a lot of places, they have security cameras that police and federal officials perhaps could access. The ones that Seattle is buying will not have that, so the idea there is to kind of cut down on those surveillance concerns. Though, again, the ACLU of Washington has raised some issues there. The other piece I think is really just around aesthetics, which is Seattle does not give away public right of way to private use - hardly ever. The last time they did that was the Pronto Bike Share, but that of course wasn't about advertising - that was about bikes. You're putting bike docks around so that people can use them. And so this has the potential to open the door to fairly dramatic changes to Seattle's streetscape, which is that you are selling public space essentially for private use. And I think that just kind of turns people off. There's already concerns about Seattle being kind of Epcot Center-like - this sterile, digital tech hub. And the fear is that this kind of adds to that. And then yes, there's that other question of this particular relationship. I think it's unrealistic to expect that the City of Seattle or Downtown Seattle Association are going to develop these sorts of things on their own. But the money is being funneled through the Downtown Seattle Association, which is not a government entity. I think the Downtown Seattle Association has about as much - I don't know if power is the right word - but sway in City Hall right now as they ever have. They have a very friendly - well, with the exception perhaps occasionally of the mayor - but they have a very friendly City Council to them. And so this City Council fundamentally trusts and appreciates what the Downtown Seattle Association does and so is okay with the money going through to them. I think the argument in favor of them has always been - These look fine, they're not going to be super noticeable, they're going to be helpful, and it's a good source of money for us that we can hire people to clean up downtown.

[00:32:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that really fairly sums up what the debate around them was going in.

Also want to talk about another decision that was recently made - Seattle City Council has banned the controversial rent-setting software RealPage. This was a decision that had previously been delayed, but they took action. What does this mean and what will this do?

[00:33:06] David Kroman: Yeah, it's slightly broader even than RealPage, though RealPage is really the one that they're targeting here - which is it makes it so that private landlords cannot use these algorithmic platforms, namely RealPage, that rely on some combination of public and more importantly for the purposes of this legislation, private data to recommend rent rates. The argument is that if this were just scraping what was publicly available and repackaging it and making a recommendation, that would be one thing. But the fact that they are pulling from information that the general public does not have access to, essentially makes it amount to collusion The thing that came up a few times in City Council meetings was it's a modern day equivalent of landlords all sitting around together in a smoky room deciding how much rent to charge, and therefore is anti-competitive behavior because it's basically creating one central source that they're all pulling from rather than creating a competitive environment that might be more likely to drive down prices. Seattle is by no means alone in this. The state Attorney General has looked into these platforms and the Biden Department of Justice had brought a case against this. The state had considered a bill banning them statewide, but it didn't actually pass. But that is what this City bill is modeled after. The tough thing about it is it's really hard to parse out the effect of RealPage and these algorithmic platforms. When rent goes up, is it because there was some collusion or is it just because rent has been going up and there aren't enough apartments? It's hard to say. The RealPage people, of course, say this is not collusion. This is just a service that we're providing. They even argue that some landlords reject the recommendations and charge less or whatever it might be. So I think it was an easy win for the City Council. It had broad support, both among progressives and more moderate folks. Passed pretty easily. It was about the quickest piece of legislation I've ever seen in Seattle City Hall. It almost passed in a week. There was a delay, but I think that in some ways this is a controversial piece of legislation on a broad scale - within Seattle, it was extremely not controversial.

[00:35:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're spot on with that. I do want to get to talk to our final thing today. You wrote a really great article covering Seattle's affordable housing industry and the crisis they're facing - and what implications that may have for the city of Seattle. So walk us through the story. Walk us through the issue. Why are affordable housing providers facing challenges? What does that mean to people in the community and what are people talking about doing about it?

[00:35:46] David Kroman: Yeah, this was a story that I did with Greg Kim, my colleague. And we have been hearing for a little while that affordable housing providers in particular have been having a really hard time making their financial model work anymore. And that was true for all kinds of affordable housing - for-profit affordable housing providers who were providing maybe 80%, 60% AMI buildings down to Seattle Housing Authority, which is providing housing to quite low-income people. All of them were reporting really difficult financial situations. The reason it became more real to me is that we actually started seeing several affordable housing providers sell or transfer buildings away, which is a really rare thing for them to do - because if you're an affordable housing provider and you get into this business, your goal is to accumulate buildings and provide more units. So if you are dumping units, that is not a great sign for the financial health of your organization - and we were seeing that in some real number. And so that spurred us to look into this. And at its simplest, the problem is it is more expensive to maintain affordable housing and in a lot of cases build affordable housing. And there is less money coming in through rent - that is really the math equation that doesn't quite add up. So insurance costs are much, much higher. Maintenance costs have gone way up since the pandemic. Security concerns have gone way up. And then at the same time, frankly, the data shows that rent is just not what it was. A lot of buildings are reporting 50% non-payment of rent, which is pretty high. And despite maybe what our impression is of affordable housing buildings, they do rely on rent payments. It is not a fully subsidized model. These buildings still rely most heavily on rent payments. And so when those are not coming in, combined with the higher operating costs, the financial picture just gets really difficult. And the striking thing about this is it is a unanimous thing in the affordable housing space. If you talk to any affordable housing provider, they will tell you almost exactly the same thing. And that is what is really striking - is that this is a system-wide issue that needs to be addressed. And back to the B&O tax proposal at the beginning - that was explicitly cited as part of the reason they're doing this, because they understand that the city is going to probably have to step in here and provide more support, either logistically, operationally, or financially.

[00:38:09] Crystal Fincher: So what are the affordable housing providers and others saying are the needed solutions to this? What are they saying will help and what are the consequences of them not getting help?

[00:38:22] David Kroman: This is where it gets a little more nuanced and there's just not quite as much agreement in the space. There are a number of affordable housing providers who have placed the blame almost entirely on Seattle's rent regulations and landlord-tenant regulations, particularly kind of restrictions on evictions and how much screening certain landlords can do. Their argument is that that makes it hard for them to kick out people who are not paying rent and bar people who might be sort of "problem" tenants from living in their buildings. So there's a number that have really hammered on this as saying that this is what we need to do. Others are not so sure that that is really the problem. I think there is some question about the kind of affordable housing that Seattle is building - whether or not it is, in fact, the most needed and is filling the greatest space and therefore demand is perhaps actually not as high as it could be otherwise. Then there are just really complicated things around interest rates and construction costs. So it's a big hairy picture that is not unanimously agreed upon. As far as what needs to happen going forward - I think in the short term, we're probably going to see more financial help. But I do think that there's going to be a pretty broad reevaluation of how Seattle builds affordable housing and who that affordable housing is serving.

[00:39:38] Crystal Fincher: Do we have a ballpark idea about how many renters this is potentially impacting? How many renters are these affordable housing providers saying they're serving? And if these buildings are sold, who could that impact and how?

[00:39:54] David Kroman: Yeah, I think the impact right now is not super broad. Some of those buildings that are being sold need to remain affordable, so whoever buys them has to keep them affordable. That is not true for all of them - there is going to be some small loss of affordable housing buildings in Seattle. But I think it's more kind of a concern about where this goes going forward. I think the feeling is that enough have kind of hung on okay up to this point. But the concern is that if it goes on much longer, that we will see more and more buildings actually close and the number of affordable housing units actually go offline. I think, too, the other piece is just the harder it is for affordable housing buildings, the more support they demand from the City of Seattle, and then the more the City of Seattle is spending on helping them stay afloat and on the buildings that already exist - that, of course, is less money that they have to spend on new buildings

[00:40:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it seems like this could be kind of facing that same issue that Seattle does with the budget - that there certainly is a potential for, and looks like there's some momentum behind or intention behind one-time bailouts, some assistance money. But this is really a structural problem, it sounds like - with just increased costs of building and operation fundamentally that are a major part of this problem that are ongoing. That will either require continuing funds of revenue, where people are feeling more certain that those are not coming from the federal level. So if they are, they're going to have to come from the state or local level. And so aside from some percentage of a new potential B&O tax structure, potentially JumpStart funds if they aren't diverted - is there any long-term structural solution to this being discussed by anyone?

[00:41:44] David Kroman: Yeah, like you said, the question now is - does Seattle and the state just need to permanently support these buildings? And that isn't a great option because, like we talked about, that means less money for new buildings. I think, again, there is some sense that maybe Seattle has been overbuilding a certain kind of affordable housing, and maybe they should perhaps spend more on fewer buildings, but target them at, say, multifamily housing or lower income than some of the ones that are being built now. That might result in fewer affordable housing units total, but the kinds that are more likely to be self-sustaining long-term and filling a need that is perhaps higher in the city. But I think there are a lot of questions and they haven't come up with answers yet.

[00:42:31] Crystal Fincher: What are the kinds of units that some people are suggesting have been overbuilt?

[00:42:36] David Kroman: Specifically, the studio apartment building that is targeted for 80%, 60% AMI. And that's partially because there's been so much new market rate supply that's come onto the market. There's perhaps not actually much demand for those buildings. Some providers are struggling with not being able to fill their units entirely. So the incentive structure right now is built around those kind of studio apartments and much less around the multifamily housing. And I suppose that's where the social housing developer could come into play because they have kind of made that same argument - that the model is not producing multifamily affordable housing for people. So it would be interesting to see if that shift happens sometimes in the next few years.

[00:43:20] Crystal Fincher: And so this is also part of the conversation about - kind of under the umbrella of renter protections, as you touched on, some are saying that they don't feel like Seattle's renter protection rules and laws are currently helping them, that they feel like they may be hurting them in that instance. Although I know other people are saying that the courts have been a challenge, but that's more about the backlog in the courts and not necessarily the current policies, especially now that the pandemic-related moratoriums are up. Where is the range of opinion on that that you're currently hearing?

[00:44:01] David Kroman: Yeah, the range is broad. On the one hand, there's this lawsuit from one affordable housing providers that basically exclusively blame Seattle's laws for causing all these problems. I think if you polled everybody, I think the feeling would be - We don't love these laws, but the problem has gotten bigger than them. To your point, if you look at the number of eviction filings, they are quite high, actually. So clearly Seattle's rules are not banning those. And it's hard to know how much the screening rules that are restricted actually make a difference. So I think there used to be more kind of push from affordable housing providers to change some of these than there were. But I think there is large acknowledgement that the problems run deeper than just Seattle's landlord-tenant regulations.

[00:44:50] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it certainly appears that way. Well, appreciate you and Greg Kim covering that story. It's certainly one where people have a lot of ranges of opinions on what the answers should be and what may help. But this is a problem that Seattle is going to have to contend with, so the more familiar people can get with the perspectives and impacts involved here, I think the better for everyone in the long term. So appreciate your coverage of that.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 27th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman. You can follow David on Bluesky at @KromanDavid. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. You can follow me at Bluesky 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, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources and articles referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time and listen to that new Pixel Grip album.