Week in Review: June 28, 2024 - with Rian Watt

Upthegrove Pledges 'Transformational Change' in Bid for Lands Commissioner from Hacks & Wonks

“WA Democratic Party will send ceasefire letters to Biden, party leadership” by Scott Greenstone from KUOW

“WA Dems call for cease-fire in Gaza war, end to military aid to Israel” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times

“The Everett Herald lays off nearly half its newsroom staff” by Emerson Drewes from The Seattle Times

“Seattle campaign to fund social housing submits signatures” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Seattle Public Schools delays campus closure list, considering neighborhood patrols, ID badges, and clear backpacks in response to Garfield deadly shooting” by jseattle from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog

“Families won't know which Seattle schools will close until fall” by Sami West from KUOW

“Seattle Council’s 500-Block Sidewalk Expansion Proposal May Be Infeasible” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist

“Seattle Nice: Is This the "Do-Nothing" Council?” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

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 this week, Dave Upthegrove, former legislator, current King County Councilmember, and candidate for Commissioner of Public Lands, joined me for an in-depth interview to discuss his campaign. 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: Senior Advisor at The Urbanist and Executive Director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, Rian Watt.

[00:01:24] Rian Watt: It's great to be back.

[00:01:26] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back - excited to talk with you about the news of the week. And we'll start with news that the Washington State Democrats, who just wrapped up their state convention, passed a ceasefire resolution. What did this say and what does this mean?

[00:01:42] Rian Watt: Well, the first thing I should say here is that although I work for The Urbanist and for the Economic Opportunity Institute, here I'm just sharing my personal opinions - just probably worth saying right up at the top. I think the first thing that this ceasefire resolution says is that this issue clearly isn't going away. I think there was a sense in some quarters that - last October, when the situation in the Middle East became so much at the forefront of our news that it would be a big deal for a couple of weeks and then people would mostly move on. And I think it is clear, more than nine months later, that that hasn't happened. I think the substantive question is - Will this ceasefire resolution have an impact on U.S. policy with respect to Israel and with respect to Palestine? And I think the answer to that question depends clearly on how much the Biden administration feels that the sentiment that has really been growing among a portion of the Democratic Party base - that the U.S.'s support for the state of Israel is not in alignment with their values - is going to have an effect on this November's election. And that really is, to me, a kind of unknowable question - I don't know how the Biden administration is thinking about that, and I don't know to what degree it will have an impact. I think clearly for a certain portion of the base, this issue matters a lot. They are horrified by what they're seeing in Gaza. They're horrified by the fact that the U.S. is supporting Israel with arms. And it matters to them - whether this will be enough to swing the election in general, I think, is really not clear. I think there are other issues on the ballot. I think it is fairly safe to say that it will not swing the election in Washington state, which I think is almost certain to go to President Biden.

[00:03:26] Crystal Fincher: I agree it's not likely to swing the election in the presidential race against Biden. But I do think this may have impacts in the state, potentially when it comes to turnout. There have been indications that turnout could be an issue, that there seems to be - whether you want to call it malaise, dissatisfaction among the base - and there's speculation as to why, or if it's real. I think that there are actually some real substantive issues that do need to be addressed, and there are a lot of close races coming up. What we're seeing here is that this view is representative of the Democratic base - this is what the Democratic Party of Washington believes - and the people who show up to knock on doors, to educate people, to do the work of turning out the base to vote for candidates, believe en masse. And so if candidates are not in alignment with that, what is that going to mean? What is that going to impact in terms of enthusiasm, volunteers, turnout? I think that remains to be seen. And just the response - whether there is a response or any modification to the approach that folks are taking in the federal delegation. We'll see.

[00:04:42] Rian Watt: In general, elections are ripe for takes, which is good for shows like this and people like me. But they're ripe for takes because they are so incredibly complex. And it is relatively straightforward to make a case that any one thing matters because in a broad sense, all of them matter. There will be voters who vote on the basis of Gaza and Israel this fall. And there will be voters who vote on the base of inflation, or on the basis of believing President Biden is too old, or that we are facing a threat to democracy from the return of Trump to office. And there'll be people who vote through a combination of all of those things that even they themselves can't tease out in their heads. And so while I think it's certainly true that there is an enthusiasm problem for the president among the Democratic Party, I think it's really hard to assign it to any one thing. If the president wins, it'll be because a lot of things came together to put him in a position to win. If the president loses, the same will be true, which is an unsatisfying answer if you want to direct responsibility in any one direction. But I think is fundamentally true that we have no real way of assessing what drives these things, particularly in advance.

[00:05:45] Crystal Fincher: I think there are some ways to assess potentially, but I absolutely think you're right that in a close race, there's no one reason why you win or lose. It's always a number of reasons. And in close races, they all matter. And modifying one or two of them - taking those out of the equation as problems - can be the difference between winning and losing. Not to say that this would be that difference there. And really, for me, I do think the general voters' opinions are more varied and wide-ranging. Certainly, issues surrounding people's impressions of the economy in a wide perspective, and their own personal finances and confidence about their own future, I think, is definitely one of those elements. But I do want to at least hope it's on people's radars. There is an infrastructure to campaigns and elections, and it takes a lot of people to turn out the amount of voters necessary to win races. And the ground game - that effort of people talking to their neighbors and engaging in these issues, making sure people understand and are motivated to vote - turning people out takes people and takes work. And more than any other group, it's the folks who show up at that convention who are doing that work. And so one of my concerns this entire time has been - the people who do the work of campaigning, the people who are getting out the vote - if this is a lingering issue there, which its inclusion at the state convention may suggest, could be one of those several factors that in the end you could look back on and say - Well, that had something to do with it, maybe.

[00:07:28] Rian Watt: I think you're absolutely right. And I think one thing you said that is really important is that from the Biden campaign's perspective, they know that this will be a close election. They don't know which of a few issues will be critical to them. And so signals like this one that say that a certain proportion of the most active part of the base are deeply concerned about this particular issue should be heard by the Biden administration. And I hope we'll have an impact on how they think about this issue substantively.

[00:07:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it also must be said that in our national conversations and the majority of media, we spend a lot of time talking about the presidential race. There is so much more on the ballot. Besides that, we've got critical initiatives on the ballot here in Washington state. We've got statewide races that we're voting for. Sometimes I see discussions about people making a choice to vote or not vote purely based on the presidential race. And I would just say that there is so much more on the ballot. There's so much more that's impactful besides presidential race. We generally don't talk about federal politics on this podcast because it is so impactful what happens on a local level. So I also hope people really understand and engage in these state and local elections, particularly this year in Washington, because those are going to be really impactful to day-to-day life here in Washington state.

[00:08:44] Rian Watt: That's right. If you like public education, if you like long-term care that allows us to take care of those who we love, if you like trying to do our part to mitigate the impacts of climate change and slow the rise in global temperatures, then this is an important election in Washington state, regardless of what's happening at the national level.

[00:09:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also want to talk about news this week impacting the media landscape and how well or not the public can be informed in Washington state. The Everett Herald announced that they were laying off half of their staff. And then things took an even worse turn, in that they seemingly unpublished a story about it, which went against traditional journalistic ethics and expectations - leading to a worker strike and a lot of consternation across the state. Walk us through what happened.

[00:09:36] Rian Watt: The Everett Herald, like many media publications around the state and around the country, has really struggled in a context in which the advertising model that sustained media for much of the last century has really had the rug pulled out from under it, with the rise of different advertising models that don't rely on putting non-targeted ads in print or online publications at relatively high costs. And so The Herald was in an unsustainable financial position. What is a little bit different about this story is that the publisher of The Herald, the owner of The Herald, seems to be making some pretty disingenuous statements about what happened here and what the implications for readers will be. I think there was a quote in the story covering this issue saying that he expected no change would be noticeable from the reader's perspective. And I think common sense tells us that when you lay off half your staff, that is just not going to be the case.

I think it's really hard to know what the path forward is for local news in a context where the market solution that had been in place for the last hundred years simply won't work anymore. I think that local news is such a critical function for a thriving democracy - that it's really important that we start to explore public funding sources for what I think is ultimately a public good. And I know those conversations are underway in Seattle and in King County. And I think the reason it's a public good to have local news is that local government is really the form of government where everyday people have the most ability to impact what happens and where choices have the most direct impact on people's lives. And when we put ourselves in a position, as we have, where people aren't in a position to know the basic facts about what their local governments are doing, where we don't have full-time reporters covering the schools, covering city councils, covering local boards and commissions - then we put ourselves in a position where tremendous amounts of money, tremendously consequential decisions happen without any real ability for folks to weigh in on what they want for their communities. And it's a really sad day for Everett, but it's not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last unless we figure out a way to build up the local news infrastructure again. And that's why shows like this and our local news landscape in Seattle is so important to preserve.

[00:12:03] Crystal Fincher: It's so important. It's really critical. I'm confident we're seeing the results of the media consolidation, closing of particularly local outlets - what impact that's having on our local communities. There used to be routine, regular coverage, reporters dedicated to every City Council meeting, every public schools meeting - in a variety of cities, not just the few major metropolitan cities in the state - what was happening with public officials across the board, connecting how that impacted the local community. And certainly for me - I'm a political consultant, I work in politics, on campaigns - the average level of voter familiarity with local officials, local policy, anything that's happening not on the federal level is lower than it used to be. Certainly. And I think it's because there's a lot less coverage. How are they supposed to find out that information? Certainly when it comes to elections for candidates - lacking a record, lacking coverage of how elected officials have voted, what they've said, what they've stood for, what they've done and haven't done - is missing, is not there. And so we're trying to have an informed public make decisions and there is nothing to inform them - there's no record taken. And there's no one examining, there's no one vetting, questioning these officials before they're in office or while they're in office. And I think that has a direct impact on how accountable elected officials feel to the public that they're serving, on how transparent they feel like they have to be, and how comfortable they are flouting rules of transparency, how comfortable they are ignoring ethics, norms, and following those guidelines. I think the escalation of violations, of a lack of transparency, of even a lack of familiarity of what their responsibilities are in their position is related to a lack of coverage and just the absence of local media. We're feeling it.

[00:14:11] Rian Watt: Absolutely. I think that there's something also somewhere between naivete and cynicism on the part of news conglomerate ownership or publishers of some of these places that are operating under the implicit assumption that reporting on something like a city council or a school board is as simple as - Oh, having an AI listen to the transcript and report what was said. What is important is not just what was said, but the context into which it was said. We know, and listeners of the show will know because they are plugged into local politics, that the issues that these jurisdictions face are complex, and they require an understanding of what came before. And the real strength that a good beat reporter has is that they're not just in the room for the meeting on Tuesday night. They were there the previous Tuesday night, the Tuesday night before that, and the one five years before. They know how issues have developed. They know if this is the 1st time or the 10th time that something is coming before a particular body. And they can tell readers that in a way that readers can understand and can help readers decide how their elected officials and how those who are appointed to serve on their behalf are indeed serving them. That's something that can't be replaced. And we see how critical it is when we see folks like Ryan Packer from The Urbanist, who has been a guest on this show before. Or Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola, who's been a guest on this show before - the gift that those two reporters and a number of others in our city have is that they are in the room even when no one else is. And they're able to bring to their readers a sense of context and perspectives that is not going to be replaced easily.

[00:15:43] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and very concerning. Do want to talk about news of a potential initiative that's going to appear on the City of Seattle ballot - Initiative 137, to fund Seattle's social housing developer that was established by a vote of the people of Seattle last year. This is an initiative to fund it and move forward. They turned in signatures this week. Walk us through what got us here.

[00:16:11] Rian Watt: This is the second step in the two-step process to create and then fund a social housing developer for Seattle. And the reason we need a social housing developer is that we need more housing in the city. You and I spoke a few weeks ago - when we talked in detail about housing - about the crisis that is our lack of housing production in this city. And to solve that crisis, we're going to need to make investments in housing across the board - in market rate housing, in deeply affordable housing, and in forms of social housing like the one proposed by the developer that are available to people of all incomes. So the initiative that was passed in 2023 created the developer and allocated some limited funds to set up the initial infrastructure for the organization. But because of the single subject rule for City of Seattle initiatives, which say that initiatives have to have a single subject, it didn't include a funding source. So now we're in a position where the group behind these initiatives - called House Our Neighbors - has collected signatures to put on the ballot a funding source for the social housing developer to actually acquire or build the social housing.

And the particular funding source that they've identified is a payroll tax on really high earners. So, if this initiative is passed, companies would have to pay 5% on every dollar paid to an employee after $1 million. So the good news is, if you're making less than a million dollars, this is free for you and your employer. If you're making more than $1 million - first of all, congratulations. And second of all, every dollar earned after $1 million would be taxed at 5%. So if someone's earning $1.1 million, the company would pay a 5% tax on $100K of that salary, or $5,000. $1.1 million salary, $5,000 tax. The real question here, now that the signatures have been collected, is whether this proposal will actually be on the November ballot at all. City Council has a few options here - they can place the initiative on the ballot and let it go directly to the voters. Or they can propose an alternative to go alongside it, which is what they did with, for example, the ranked choice voting proposal that we took on a couple of years ago, where City Council said - Okay, we're going to put this on the ballot, but we're going to put our own proposal alongside it and have voters choose between them. That is the circumstance in which we're in now, where City Council is deciding which path they're going to take.

[00:18:28] Crystal Fincher: That seems like that would be really audacious. And certainly after the Council has been pretty harshly rebuked by the public and taken heat in the media about challenges with how they've presented existing legislation, with polling showing that Sara Nelson and Tanya Woo are upside down in their approval ratings for not being aligned with Seattle voters. This was something that was passed by Seattle voters - that was just passed. And they would potentially say - But never mind, we would like to change it, we would like to do an alternative. How do you think that would fly?

[00:19:04] Rian Watt: Well, I think that the most likely option here is that Council tries to take whatever path they can to move this initiative off of the November ballot when turnout will be, I think, higher than in a likely February special election. In fact, I feel quite confident in saying turnout in November will be higher than a February special election. And they'll do that if it's their judgment that high turnout will be likely to pass this payroll tax. The Chamber of Commerce has already expressed concern - we know that there's a close relationship between Chamber leadership and Council leadership at the moment. And so I think we can count on this Council to do whatever they can to make sure that this funding doesn't get before Seattle voters. 37,000 Seattle voters, I believe is the number, have already signed a petition saying that they'd like this to be on the ballot. Voters really resoundingly endorsed the creation of the social housing developer in 2023. And so I think the City Council is going to be in the minority if they try to stand in the way here. And that's a shame because I think a more forward-thinking City Council could see this as an opportunity for Seattle to be a leader globally on this issue. There is no reason why this City Council couldn't say - You know what? Yes. We need more housing across the city. We believe that the city can do big things. We are going to be there to support the social housing developer in being the most successful version of itself that it can be. We're going to get it the money it needs to do its work, and we are going to put everything we can behind this as a tool - one of many - to address our housing crisis. That would be a win for the city. That would put the city on the map. I don't think that they're going to take that route, but it's an option that they have.

[00:20:47] Crystal Fincher: Why do you think Seattle voters opted to support an initiative that particularly established social housing, as opposed to the existing kind of wider affordable housing, subsidized housing landscape?

[00:21:02] Rian Watt: Well, I think voters support that as well. I think the reason that social housing was on the ballot was due to the really effective organizing of House Our Neighbors and its allies - they've proven themselves to be a really organized and effective group in getting this particular issue on the ballot. But I don't think that there is a big split in public opinion between deeply affordable subsidized housing and social housing. I think voters in the city understand that housing is too expensive and that we need to take a huge range of approaches in order to solve that problem - and their support of the social housing initiative is an example of that.

[00:21:36] Crystal Fincher: I think you're right. I think there is absolutely support across the board. And I think Seattle voters said we absolutely need subsidized housing that's particularly targeted towards those most in need, those with the lowest incomes. And we recognize that we need more housing of all types at a scale and a scope that goes beyond what public subsidizing currently funds and can provide. Particularly as we're having these conversations about what's necessary in the Comprehensive Plan - the amount of population that we need to accommodate in order to prevent further skyrocketing of housing prices - saying we need to diversify the opportunities available to add this housing, to support this housing. And for a wide variety - we need housing for those at the lowest income levels, we need housing for middle income professionals, we need housing for teachers and nurses and pharmacists and all across the board. And those are the people who've been driven out of Seattle because of price and will continue to be unless we take more steps to do this. I do think it speaks very well of the residents of Seattle that they have already taken steps and feel like this is the next step available. Will be interesting to see when this does land on the ballot, what action the council does take.

Also want to talk about news this week that we may not be hearing for quite some time any more details about what schools the school district is considering closing in Seattle. Walk us through this, please.

[00:23:10] Rian Watt: I think the first thing to talk about here is that the school district is proposing closing 20 elementary schools across the city - in an effort, they say, to reduce costs because they don't have enough money. And so the basic claim being made by the school district is that closing these schools will save money. That is a claim that they have found it remarkably difficult to substantiate, in part because previous school closures in previous decades didn't have quite the financial impacts that they were claimed to have at the time that the closures were announced. What school closures do have as an impact is tremendous disruptions to the lives of children who are in school and to their families - who find their routines disrupted, who find their learning growth changed, who find their networks of community and friendship adjusted when a particular school is closed. It's something at the center of a community or a neighborhood that goes away. And so I think it's important that although this conversation is happening within a financial frame, where the question that the school district is considering is - Will this make a difference to our financial situation? The impacts are not only financial, they're about community. And I think it's really clear from decades of research on school closures that this is not a decision that should be taken lightly.

But there is fundamentally a financial problem at stake for the school district, and there's two elements to it. Element number one is that the state simply doesn't spend nearly as much as it should on education. And part of the reason for that is that we have this upside-down tax code that means that most of the tools that normal states would use to raise revenue, like an income tax, are not available to our legislators. And so they're forced into revenue sources that are hard to raise, that don't raise as much revenue - and that has led to significant underinvestment at the state level in public education. And so the fundamental problem that needs to be solved here is really at the state level - there's only so much that Seattle and Seattle Public Schools can do on their own. In the short term, there's also a dynamic happening within Seattle, which has to do with declining enrollment. We've seen that after previous school closures, there were significant declines in enrollment as folks left the district or went to private schools. There's no really good reason to think that that wouldn't happen again this time. But there's also a broader trend of declining enrollment in Seattle that, for me, has a lot to do with how expensive it is to raise a family in this city. It is really difficult to find housing that fits families of more than two people and is less than a million dollars and a single-family detached home. And that means that Seattle is increasingly a place where it's not really possible to raise children in an affordable way. And that means that folks are leaving the city and that means declining enrollment, which under our current school funding formula means less money for the Seattle Public Schools. So there's a lot going on here. This issue is very complex. But as you say, we're now in a position where we know that the district wants to close schools. We don't know which ones they want to close, and they would very much like us to stop asking questions about that.

[00:26:12] Crystal Fincher: Certainly they have talked about that declining enrollment - it's absolutely a problem - they will lose funding. Is that what has created this hole?

[00:26:21] Rian Watt: In part, but certainly not in whole, and it's not the main issue. The main issue, I think, is the way that the state chooses to fund public education - the fact that it under-invests. And that under-investment means that we have to create a whole series of structures that make it particularly difficult for Seattle Public Schools, but make it difficult for school districts across the state, to maintain operations in a context where the vast majority of their funding does come from the state. We saw this this week when Marysville announced that they are not going to be able to meet their obligations and need to change the financial arrangements that they have with the state - that's a path that is difficult to imagine Seattle going down, but may be necessary in the next couple of years.

[00:27:01] Crystal Fincher: Well, certainly a challenge and continues the uncertainty for Seattle Public Schools parents and families. We'll continue to follow this as we go on.

Also want to talk about this week - sidewalks in Seattle and the Seattle City Council's plan, or what they thought was a plan, to potentially add a lot of new sidewalks to the City. What are they considering and what is happening?

[00:27:30] Rian Watt: Well, I think you can file this whole story under - governing is hard to do. The plan, which is really a statement by Transportation Chair Saka that we should build 500 blocks of new sidewalks within the next five years, is to do that. The problem is that we have really only been able to build about 30 to as many as 48 blocks of sidewalk a year since 2015, when the Move Seattle Levy was passed. And so building 500 blocks of new sidewalks - while an admirable goal, we need to build far many more than that - would represent a significant increase in our ability to do delivery of sidewalk construction. And it's not entirely clear that there's the funding available to make that happen. So we're in a situation where the goal is a good one - though I think we can go even further than that - but this council hasn't really backed it up with additional funding to make it happen. I think that one of the things that this council is finding is that it is very, very difficult to deliver on the things that voters want without raising more money and then allocating that money to do it. And they have a challenge wherein they have gotten themselves fairly committed to not spending big on City programs because they were going to go down this path of a City audit to understand where every dollar was being spent, every cent was being spent. And then they're simultaneously finding that the City and the communities that make the City up want new sidewalks, they want investments in safe transportation, they want investments in public transit, they want investments in community programs. And those things cost money. And so the current levy draft doesn't put us in a position to deliver on the promises that even this Council wants to make.

And so they're going to have to make a choice - are we going to increase the amount of funding that we allocate to these programs? Or are we going to make promises that we know we can't deliver on? Although Saka's proposal would double the amount of levy funding going towards this, levy dollars are only about half of how we pay for new sidewalks. There's also about 30% that comes from the City's school traffic zone cameras. There's about 10.5% coming from other grants, and then about 7% coming from real estate excise taxes. If folks are interested in the details of sidewalk construction, I strongly recommend that they check out my colleague at The Urbanist, Ryan Packer's article on this particular issue. But just looking at a bigger picture here, I think, again, you can file it under this new Council discovering that City government is maybe a little bit more complex than the story that they had been telling voters when they were elected, and that getting things done requires a little bit more weedsy knowledge than maybe they had expected.

[00:30:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that kind of leads into the next thing we wanted to discuss - these councilmembers have now been on the job for six months, and they actually have not accomplished much at all. And certainly when you compare it to prior Seattle City Councils, other city councils right now across the state - they have accomplished much less, they've passed much less legislation than most other councils. And it seems to be directly related to the fact that they're still getting up to speed, figuring out what the job is, and figuring out how the City works. And that has an impact on how they're able to serve the city and what they're able to get done. What kind of impact have you seen?

[00:31:00] Rian Watt: Well, it's hard to really see much impact at all because, as you said, they simply haven't gotten as much done as previous Councils. I think - and don't quote me on the exact numbers - this Council has so far only passed two council-promulgated bills since they took office in January. That compares to, I think, 24 that were passed by the Council that began in January of 2020. That is a big difference in the amount of actual legislating that has gotten done. And I think should be a pretty big surprise to folks who voted for this Council on the theory that they had a plan for the city that was going to turn it around - their words not mine - and that they were ready to go from Day One. That clearly has not been the case. And so on the one hand, there's a problem of - this Council hasn't delivered much. But on the other, there's a problem of the things that they are working on are, I think, wildly out of step with what voters in Seattle want. And even more than that, what the voters who sent this Council into office want. I think that, despite my personal views being different than what this Council wants, it's pretty clear that they were sent into office to reduce the number of tents visible in the city. Notice I'm not saying reduce homelessness, I'm saying reduce the number of tents. And to hire more cops. That's what they were sent here to do. And what they have instead taken on is reducing pay for low-wage workers in the course of their fight to reduce pay for food delivery workers, and stripping funding from community development projects that would build community and build wealth in Seattle's neighborhoods. I don't think that any of their voters sent them to City Council in order to lower pay for workers and take funds away from community. And yet that is what they've chosen to take on. And I think that that is a very odd choice politically. And also - and much more importantly - it's the wrong choice substantively for what Seattle wants right now.

[00:32:50] Crystal Fincher: Certainly does seem to be out of step. And now we're in a discussion with the citywide City Council position - Position 8 - that was vacated by a prior councilmember, Teresa Mosqueda, who was elected to King County Council. Now there's this election that we're having. Tanya Woo was appointed to the seat - she's now up for election, facing challengers. And so here we are again, talking with a number of candidates saying what they plan to do. How can we do a better job of vetting whether they're actually equipped to do what they're saying they're going to do?

[00:33:26] Rian Watt: I think this partially gets back to the question of local media that we talked about earlier - I think there's a tremendous role for local media to play in giving voters the information that they need to assess candidates. But I also would encourage folks - and perhaps not folks who listen to this show, who are, I think, deeply informed about what's going on - I would encourage folks to recognize that things are not quite as simple as folks make them sound in campaigns. I think a lot of these City councilmembers have been quite personally surprised by the fact that when they got to City Council, there wasn't the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse that they thought that there might be in City spending. That the programs that we are spending on right now are the programs that survived years of Councils trying to cut programs that are inefficient, that aren't a good use of taxpayer money. The things we've got left are things that really matter to people - and so there's not a lot of meat on that bone. And if you rule out from a starting place raising more money by taxing the wealthiest in our city, then you've got yourself into a bit of a pickle. And that is exactly the circumstance that this Council has gotten themselves into, where they ran on the premise that there was a lot that we can be cutting spending on. They've found that there actually isn't - in fact, we need to spend more on community. They've claimed that they were going to hire more police officers - whether you think that's a good idea or not, I think it's very likely that they're going to end their term with fewer police officers than there were when they started, particularly once they get their retro pay and then have the opportunity to leave, which I expect many police officers will do. And so we're in a position where the Council is now having to reckon with the fact that they asked for power, they've got it, and they don't know what to do with it.

[00:35:01] Crystal Fincher: In addition to that, they asked for power, but they were not specific at all with what they planned to do with it. I think one of the major challenges that led to this issue of inaction is that they didn't offer any substantive plans and they weren't pressed on specific details. Okay, so you say you're going to hire more officers. How are you going to do that? They haven't been able to do this for a long time. What makes you think there's going to be a difference? Okay, your answer is providing more money. Is there any evidence that that has been successful? Has the attempts to do that exact thing in the City of Seattle worked before? What's the plan if that goes slower than you think? They haven't been pressed on any kind of contingency plan, on how rigorous that plan actually is - does it stand up to just basic facts and scrutiny on what they plan to do? Hey, you're planning on using this funding source. That doesn't cover it all. Are there any other funding sources? You're going to be dealing with the budget. If you're not going to raise revenue, what are you going to cut? And not - We need to see and we need to explore. There have been years of Councils and staff exploring. There are boatloads of reports and evaluations and studies and audits available. Knowing that, what do you think of that information? What are the plans?

We have to do a better job of demanding more detail, more specifics. The bar has to be higher for those who are running for office and saying - I will make a difference, I'm planning to make a change. We need to hear more about what their plans are. We need to be able to ask questions about them. And they should welcome that. They should welcome the questions, and they should welcome collaboration, they should welcome input. These should be public conversations. These should be questions asked by reporters. Councilmembers and candidates should be accountable in speaking with reporters here. I think it's a big problem when we don't know beyond a few buzzwords or a couple taglines - You know, it's great. We're going to crack down on public safety. How exactly? With what money exactly? Okay, we're going to arrest a lot of people. We don't have any place to put them. How are you going to do that? It's going to cost more. We have a budget deficit. What are you cutting to accomplish that? Those kinds of questions, I think we need to do a better job of exploring and expecting candidates to provide some substantive plans that are based in the reality of governing in the City.

[00:37:33] Rian Watt: Yes, absolutely. And then we should expect and hold a high standard for basic levels of curiosity and hard work that we should expect of our City councilmembers. If you are coming into a job like Seattle City Councilmember, you are going to have things to learn, no matter how prepared you are. It's a very complicated job. There's a lot of issues to focus on - each one of them is deeply complex. That's the expectation for sure. But what you do with that is sort of up to you. I would expect that our City councilmembers should be spending as much time as they can diving deeply into the weeds of these policy areas, trying to understand before they act. You might even say trying to understand before they choose to run for office and while they're running for office, not learning on the job and sort of openly stating on the dais that they haven't explored deeply these issues that matter so much to so many of us. It's been really, really disappointing to see that our City Council includes so many folks who clearly are still learning the very basics of what their job is and what the City is responsible for. We deserve a lot better than that.

[00:38:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And the City has very pressing and urgent challenges that need to be addressed, and it's been hindering them. We will continue to follow their attempts to get up to speed and what they plan to continue doing.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 28th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is Senior Advisor at The Urbanist and the Executive Director of the Economic Opportunity Institute, Rian Watt. You can find Rian at @rianwatt, that's R-I-A-N-W-A-T-T on all platforms. You can follow Hacks & Wonks and me on just about all platforms - Hacks & Wonks at @HacksWonks, me at @finchfrii, F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of the Friday week-in-review and the Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. And if you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.