April 18, 2025 • 42 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Ryan Packer discuss:
😟 Poll: people are plugged in/worried
🫰 No wealth tax = everyone else pays
🛣️ Transpo budget overview
🤷 Workers’ comp upgrade debacle
🪪 KC AFIS levy pros & cons
🚸 Tacoma Streets Initiative II
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Ryan Packer at @typewriteralley.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:21):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show,Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and
Urbanist reporter Amy Sundberg joinedme to discuss the purpose of Seattle
(00:43):
City Council's new Select Committee onFederal Administration and Policy Changes
and the challenges Seattle faces fromthe Trump administration's second term.
Today, we are continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome to the program as a week-in-reviewco-host for the first time, friend of
the show, today's co-host (01:05):
contributing editor for The Urbanist, covering
transportation, land use, public space,traffic safety, and obscure community
meetings, and doing the best work outthere at those things, Ryan Packer.
Welcome!
Thanks so much for having me, Crystal.
Excited to have you.
(01:26):
Well, we definitely have some thingsto discuss this week, starting with
a new Cascade Elway poll that seemsto indicate that surprisingly,
a lot of people are plugged in.
And unsurprisingly, they're worried.
What did this poll say generally?
(01:47):
Basically, it said, a majority ofWashingtonians are really upset about
what's happening in the other Washingtonand want Democrats to do stuff about it.
It's pretty clear that flooding thezone, as the Trump administration's
tactics have been consistentlyreferred to, is having an effect.
It's a negative one.
People are not happywith what is happening.
(02:07):
A lot of people are nothappy with what's happening.
Is this something that's generallythe same across all demographics?
Are there some where they're superplugged in and super unhappy,
and others that are happy?
Is this pretty universal?
You have a classic partisan divide,where a lot of Republicans in
(02:29):
Washington are perfectly fine withwhat's happening, although I think
you're seeing that negative perceptioncreep across the entire spectrum.
I think it's not a super surprisingresult in terms of - when you basically
try and dismantle the federal government,people have a pretty negative reaction.
I thought one thing that was interestingabout it was when you drill down into
(02:50):
what people are actually talking about,there was no one topic that really took
over people's attention when it comes tothe Trump administration - like Signal
Gate was only a 5% response rate andthere was nothing that was really high.
It was just like Trump dominating theentire story, but no one individual
element was actually breaking through.
(03:12):
Absolutely.
Now, it should be noted that this pollwas in the field from March 27th to 31st.
So this is before a number of therecent notable news items - the
volatility in the stock market, someof the tariff activity, the severity
of the disappearings to El Salvador- that are making big headlines now.
(03:37):
This is pre-those events.
But even before that - that arecapturing a lot of news attention
now - people were tuned in.
Maybe not to anything specific,but the vibes are bad, generally.
And getting worse, I thinkthis poll seems to reveal.
Yeah.
And the other takeaway is peopleare paying attention to national
(03:59):
news - local news, not so much.
I think there was around 10% of people whosaid that they had been following state
politics, which is a little depressingfor me as a local state reporter.
But I think it's not super surprising,because those things happening on the
national level - they are literallyflooding the zone, as I said, and so
they're taking over and it's reallyhard to actually be able to pay
(04:21):
attention to everything right now.
Very hard.
Like you, I don't find itsurprising that people are not
very tuned in to local news.
I do hope that people see this asan opportunity - whether it's local
news outlets, people who talk aboutnews, or just people talking to their
friends and family - that drawing thoseconnections to how things are impacting
(04:46):
them and their local communities,we're seeing impacts far and wide.
We just talked about here inWashington state - the impact of
ICE deportations or ICE raids thatwe're having here, border activity.
The impact that the tariff actionsare having on our local economy
that's so heavily dependent on trade.
(05:07):
Two out of every five jobs in Washingtonare dependent or impacted by trade.
To impacts in healthcare - ValleyMedical Center had to lay
off over 100 people already.
Other healthcare systems aroundthe area are talking about how
proposed cuts to Medicaid andelsewhere are jeopardizing them.
Impacts to Head Start, publiceducation, our universities.
(05:31):
Just far and wide, there are impactsfelt in local communities on the ground.
I think part of that was also underscoredby the turnout of the Hands Off protests
across the country, across the state- not just in big cities, but in suburbs,
small cities, both blue and red areas.
That people are figuring out thatthere are people caring in their
(05:55):
community, there are people impactedin their community, that they're
not the only ones paying attention.
And I think that started to fuelmore people tuning in and trying
to make sense of what's happening,especially since it's so confusing.
Another thing I found notablewas just where people say they're
getting their news information from.
What did the poll say about that?
(06:17):
It confirmed the long-standing trendthat people are not really getting their
news from print and traditional media.
The number one source of news wasjust a general online news bucket.
We can assume that not all of thatis straight news, a lot of that is
commentary, a lot of that is social media.
Social media, I think, was a littlebit below online news when it
comes to where people are gettingtheir news from in that poll.
(06:39):
But kind of a grab bag - I think there'sno straight media consumption anymore.
It's all just kind of a big soupthat people dip into and try
and figure out what's happening.
Yeah, and that was really interesting.
And I hope people dig into this- we'll link to the actual poll
and to some write-ups on the pollin our resources on the website.
(07:01):
But like you were saying - 52%online news sites, 47% talking with
friends and relatives, 45% gettingtheir news from social media.
And then you get down to - 42% nationaltelevision network news, 38% local
television network news, 35% cable news,25% podcasts, 24% public television or
(07:24):
radio, then down to 19% print newspapersand magazines, 16% radio talk shows, and
9% organizations that people belong to.
So a whole smattering - thinkkind of reflects our increasingly
siloed news and media environment,where people are not predominantly
(07:45):
turning to news for their news.
They're getting them filteredthrough other ways and with a
lot of other context around it.
I don't know if you guys have all beenon social media lately, but almost all of
the sites - you're getting a whole sideof nonsense with the information you're
seeking or what you're going on there for.
(08:06):
So even the context around theinformation is influencing what people
are seeing and how they're digesting it.
So this is really interesting, but peopleare tuned in, and so it's important to
continue to talk about this, especiallywith the number two source being
talking with friends and relatives.
People listening to Hacks & Wonks areright in the center of the group of
(08:32):
people who can be influential talkingabout how things that we see in the
news are impacting us here in ourcommunity and impacting people every day,
helping friends and family understandand make sense of what's going on.
Also want to talk aboutaction in the Legislature.
There are a number of things happeningas we move closer to the end of the
(08:55):
session, as we get into the nitty grittyof some negotiations, getting to the
final shapes of some budget proposals.
So I guess starting out, wanting to talkabout the budget and where we have been
is Democrats in the House and Senate havebeen working on their budget proposals.
With some heavy-handed guidance bythe governor - saying that the wealth
(09:18):
tax that they had previously proposedwas not going to fly with him, he said
he would not sign a budget that hadthat in there, and that they needed
to go back to the drawing board.
And it looks like legislativeDemocrats did do that.
So what have they now proposed forrevenue in this budget package?
(09:39):
So we have about 10 days left to approve afinal state budget for the next two years.
Like you said, the wealth tax hadbeen kind of the central element
keeping that budget together, ensuringthat there weren't devastating
cuts across state government.
Wealth tax is seen as really risky.
It's a tax not just on what's in yourbank account, but the unrealized assets
(10:03):
and paintings and all that stuff.
And so the governor basically didn'twant to have his budget built around
a risky revenue source, but theother options are going back to
the same revenue sources that we'vebeen depending on for a long time.
And so with the wealth tax removedfrom the budget, the other options
(10:25):
that they're going to are basicallya tiered capital gains tax.
So we already passed the capital gainstax a couple of years ago - we're going
back and making it easier to ensure thatthe even ultra-wealthy people in the state
are paying even more in capital gains tax.
And we're doing that with the estate tax.
And we're doing that withadditional taxes on businesses.
(10:46):
But also going to the property tax capand looking at whether property taxpayers
are going to ultimately end up payinga little bit more for state services.
I think overall, as we look at this,it really identifies what the stakes
of not having a wealth tax are.
And how much more broadly and widelypeople and businesses have to be taxed
(11:13):
if we are not taxing the ultra-wealthy.
And the whole conversation about aregressive tax, or where people in the
middle and the bottom pay a much higherpercentage of their income than people
at the very top of the income scale, andalso just looking at what that forces.
A lot of times you'll hear - Well,Washington has no income tax.
(11:34):
It's great.
Well, it's great for the super wealthy,but it's not great for most other people.
Because then you look at this smorgasbordof taxes here, which does seem like
a better alternative than austerityand the massive cuts to services
and programs - but they're so broadin the absence of more progressive
(11:57):
or equitably distributed taxation.
And so businesses are paying, propertyowners are going to be paying more,
large companies with high payrollsare going to be paying more.
It is just so broad that everyoneelse has to make up to a much greater
degree on the lower end, the absence ofequitable taxation for the ultra-wealthy.
(12:23):
And so we're talking about thiswide range of taxes, fees that go up
and other areas - where they aren'tofficially a tax, but we've seen
fees raising in lots of other areas.
These are the types of thingsthat are there because there is
no income tax, or there becausewe don't have a progressive tax.
This is what a regressivetax system looks like.
(12:46):
And even though it seems when youfirst hear it - There is no income tax.
Everything is great, right?
You're not paying any taxes.
All of these things stack up andadd up massively for everyone
else but the super wealthy.
Those are the terms of this debate,really - and we don't get into this
nitty gritty, but we're seeing it playout in these budget proposals now about
(13:09):
how many more people and businessesare affected when we don't do the
thing that most other states are doing.
Yeah, I think my takeaway hereis - obviously, building the
entire budget around a brandnew wealth tax is pretty risky.
But are we going to just drop the issue?
Is it going to just completelyfall by the wayside?
(13:30):
Are we going to actually have thedebate, the legal test - actually get the
confirmation that this is a path forward?
Or is it just going to become somethingthat was floated and went away?
Absolutely.
Now, I do want to talk aboutthe transportation budget.
We've talked about the top-linebudget there, but we have
a transportation budget.
(13:51):
We've talked about ita lot over the years.
It's very impactful in our everyday lives.
And we've seen some changes inthis budget here that, frankly, are
pretty concerning to a lot of people.
Can you give us the rundown of theevolution of our transportation budget
this session, and what issues they'recurrently trying to work through?
(14:12):
So when you bring up the statebudget, most people mean the operating
budget, which pays for state services.
But the transportation budget is awhole separate thing and often doesn't
really get a lot of scrutiny inOlympia, especially from the media.
In terms of what's happening now,you kind of have to go back to 25
years ago and how we've always beentreating transportation budgets and
(14:35):
transportation packages in general,which - the transportation package is the
big suite of projects that legislatorscan take home to their districts.
For two and a half decades, we havebeen relying on increases in the gas
tax to essentially pay for all theshiny new highway projects that we
wanted to build around the state.
(14:56):
The consistent construction throughTacoma is a high-profile example
of what those projects look like.
But we've always relied on - we bumpup the gas tax, we bond against that,
we go into debt for that revenue andlimp along, consistently underfunding
the actual maintenance of all these newfacilities, the hundreds of miles of
(15:19):
state highways and bridges that we have.
And so in 2022, we had the Move AheadWashington Transportation package, which
we thought was breaking the cycle ofgoing into debt to fund highway projects.
It didn't include a gas tax increase.
It included Climate Commitment Actrevenue, which is funding green
transportation - some good projectsin there - and then figuring out how
(15:41):
to raise revenue in some other waysthat weren't a gas tax increase.
Because up to that point - right now,12% of our transportation budget in
Washington goes toward debt, whichis actually more than the entire
budget for the state ferry system.
And so we thought we had broken thatcycle - we were heading into an era
(16:01):
of more multimodal transportation,investing in transit, not prioritizing
highway expansion as much.
But two things happened since then,which is cost increases on the
projects we'd already said we wanted tobuild, like I-405 and the Puget Sound
Gateway down in South King County,those cost increases skyrocketed.
(16:25):
And gas tax revenue coming out ofthe pandemic continues to decline.
And so lawmakers were faced with ahuge budget hole to fill this year.
The House and the Senate tooktwo different approaches.
The Senate tried to basically doeverything - raising the gas tax,
raising a bunch of fees, and includeda bunch of really bizarre revenue
(16:49):
options, including a e-bike tax.
And the idea that we would chargepublic transit vehicles to not
only use our roadways, but to usetoll facilities in Washington.
And basically, they're trying to doall of the above - fund the highway
expansion projects, but also fund goodprojects like multimodal bike paths and
(17:11):
transit projects, as well as preservationand maintenance of our state highways.
The House budget was a little moreconservative, but it still prioritized
getting the highway projects that were inthe pipeline over the finish line - before
investing in anything really different orneeded in terms of what we need to achieve
(17:32):
our mobility goals or our climate goals.
Well, and so this is really interesting.
I think questions that I've heard fromjust people in general conversations
are - one, that factoid about we're payingmore in debt than the entire budget of
the ferry system is kind of eye-popping.
But beyond that, looking at the additionalmoney needed to cover cost overruns,
(17:55):
increased cost projections - what isbehind the increase in cost projections?
Are we just horrible atdetermining what costs are?
Or are they things like - becausethese projects have such a long time
horizon that things like inflationand unexpected price increases
are what's behind the increase?
(18:18):
Mostly, I think we're pretty goodat projecting costs in normal times.
We just are not really in normal times.
And so obviously see this elsewherein things like Sound Transit's
budget, where West Seattle Link is $3billion over what we thought it was.
And so it is partially and in large part,due to inflation of these materials.
(18:40):
Obviously, the act of construction ishighly dependent on the cost of the
actual goods that you need to do the work.
But another factor is the fact thatthere are very few contractors in
Washington state who are available todo a $10 billion project over 10 years.
We basically have two or three bigcontractors - the 520 Bridge project
(19:04):
is going from one into another when itcomes to its project elements right now.
And the fact that things like SoundTransit are also happening is bidding
up the price when you have Sound Transitcompeting against the state to figure
out how to move forward on a hugeproject, it's like - Well, there's only
so much workforce, so you're kind ofcompeting against yourself ultimately.
(19:28):
So, in this situation, where costsare increasing and gas tax revenue,
which is funded a lot previously, isdecreasing - is there any other choice
but to look at fees in differentareas and have they chosen the best
kinds of fees for this situation?
Like I said, they're tryingto pull from everywhere - to
(19:51):
a lot of people's frustration.
The Senate transportation budgetis really trying to ensure that
every type of road user pays.
But transportation advocates willpoint out that that's backwards, and
that asking transit riders via theirtransit agencies to pay a little bit
more for roads that they're basicallyensuring remain open for other people
(20:12):
by being on a bus is backwards.
And so the question isn't really - Are therevenue sources equitable or regressive?
The question is - What isthe money going toward?
And so, particularly with theSenate budget, we're going to spend
$2.5 billion to make these highwayprojects get across the finish line.
(20:34):
We're going to set aside another billiondollars to get some more started,
including I-5 down at Nisqually River - aproject that absolutely needs to happen
- we need to ensure that I-5 doesn'tflood and completely get destroyed.
But we don't need to add another lane,which is going to have climate impacts,
it's going to have cost impacts,it's going to have lots of impacts.
(20:57):
And so the question is whatwe're using the money for.
And other states are continuing to pivottoward taking a look at their highway
projects - what the impacts are, whetherthey are the best use of investment.
But Washington is still in denial aboutwhether pouring billions of dollars into
(21:18):
a marginal increase in the capacity ofthe state highway network is a good idea.
Well, we've heard for some decadespreviously that we really need additional
lanes because traffic is reallybad and it needs to be made better.
How have those additional lanes proven sofar in helping traffic, in easing traffic?
(21:41):
You look at the growth in Washington'seconomy over the past two decades - we've
had double-digit increases in ourstate GDP and our job growth, and we've
expanded the highway network by 2%.
So I don't think there's aconnection between needing to
expand the highway network andactually creating a strong economy.
(22:04):
And that's ultimately me echoingthe sentiments of our outgoing
State Transportation Chief, RogerMillar - talked about this a lot.
The one thing that Mr. Millar would alwaysbring up is the fact that expanding the
highway system isn't as important asmaking sure that it remains reliable.
And so that's really the thing Icontinue to look at in terms of
(22:24):
our state transportation budget.
As I look at it, even there - we'vehad some highway widening projects,
some that we've seen in the PugetSound on both I-5 and I-405.
And as we have learned later on, despitehow those projects were initially
sold - at this capacity, adding lanesdoesn't reduce traffic anyway, as we see
(22:49):
when stuck in traffic on our freeways.
So it just seems like we're spendinga lot of money on outdated and
disproven ideas and hopes and wishesthat don't come to fruition, that
somehow then get used to justifyadditional spending of that same kind.
(23:10):
And everybody is going toincreasingly pay for it.
The other thing that I notice hereis - as you talked about, they're
trying to get everyone to pay andsay everyone needs to pay in here.
But as we see, there are things thathave more positive impacts or that
have less of an impact on the roadmaintenance needed, how much wear and
(23:30):
tear they create by being on the road,and how efficiently people are moved.
So things like transit move so many morepeople efficiently that they effectively
reduce traffic, they reduce emissions.
And so those are things that are a netpositive for all the things that we're
trying to do - that they actually reducebudgets because they reduce the type of
(23:54):
maintenance and mitigation needed forthe impacts of vehicles on the road.
And so those things that lessenthe impact, that lessen the
expenditures needed - youtypically want to incentivize.
We get that when it comes to business.
We're having a debate in the budgetabout whether Boeing should be given
(24:14):
an exemption from some of thesenew taxes that are being proposed.
With some peoplesaying - This is business.
We obviously want to incentivize newjobs and making sure that we don't
inhibit hiring or inhibit growthand the health of our economy.
When other people are saying, especiallyif there are no firm targets or any
(24:37):
accountability to actually producingthose jobs, that - Hey, that doesn't work.
But there's an underlying assumptionthat those are the things we want
to incentivize, so that's why we'reproposing not taxing them further.
So it's surprising to see a lot ofpeople who very much get that in the
business realm, not understand that inthe transportation realm, which also has
(24:59):
a great impact on our economy overall.
To say those things that are reducingtraffic, that are reducing emissions,
that are reducing wear and tear on theroads, and the need for very expensive
maintenance - are things that we actuallydon't want to add an additional cost to.
The things that do come with a lot ofadditional costs that require public
(25:21):
spending to mitigate and to live with arethe things that we should be focusing on
getting revenue to recoup those costs.
But that doesn't seem to be the waywe approach the transportation budget.
No, it's not.
And I think the lack of scrutinyon the transportation budget opens
(25:41):
it up for a lot of deal-makingin terms of getting projects done
in different parts of the state.
But we continue to try and set asidethe climate impacts of these projects.
But the thing that I continue to lookat is the fact that we are headed
toward a disaster when it comes to howold our existing infrastructure is.
(26:02):
When you look at the number of bridgesin the state that we have, most of
them are getting really, quite old.
There was recently a bridge over intoMount Rainier that had to close because
of maintenance impacts - is probably nevergoing to get fixed because of the cost.
In 2020, we had 69 bridges aroundPuget Sound region that were in poor
(26:24):
condition, and now that's at 88.
So it's going up, and we're not eventalking about the local needs for roads.
When you're talking about the statetransportation budget, it's treated as
totally separate, but the maintenancebacklog for the county and state roads
in Puget Sound has gone from 6.1 billionto 9.2 billion in just three years.
(26:47):
And so we continue to look at theshiny new infrastructure, but we're
not really figuring out what's goingto happen when all these things need
to be replaced at the same time.
Not looking forward to that.
Well, I do want to continueto pay attention to this as we
(27:07):
move to the end of this session.
You can stay tuned to Hacks & Wonksto get those updates each week.
This isn't directly related tothe budget discussion, but it is.
One piece of news that came out this week- well-written story, but really irritated
me - was the story by Paul Roberts andShauna Sowersby in The Seattle Times.
(27:31):
Headline - after 10 years and $31million, the Washington workers'
compensation upgrade has little to show.
And man, that's just the beginningof the irritating and upsetting
things to read about this situation.
Can you give us a breakdownof what has happened here?
Sure.
(27:52):
So the workers' compensationclaim system at the state level
has been due for an upgrade.
We have spent $31 million on thatupgrade over the past 10 years,
with nothing to show for it.
And apparently, the agency needs another$18 million requested in the next budget
to continue to work on this program.
(28:13):
Lawmakers are kind of scratchingtheir heads and wondering
what is happening here.
Absolutely wonderingwhat is happening here.
And this is part of an overallupgrade, an overhaul of their system
that pays for and manages claimsfrom people who have been injured.
So not at all saying that thisis a simple, easy upgrade, but
(28:37):
it is disheartening to see $31million so far result in nothing.
And when you get into the detailof what happened here, it's more
nothing than it sounds like initially.
The plan for modernization of thisprogram started in 2015, with an initial
cost estimate of $283 million in total.
(29:01):
Now that is a lot of money - don'tknow whether that's in line or out
of line, it certainly was foundto be acceptable at the time.
That was in 2015.
In 2020, the project was paused - therewere already lots of delays, complaints
of things not happening well.
There are whistleblower complaintssaying that the department
(29:23):
wasn't being cooperative,leaders weren't really tuned in.
In 2021, the state Chief InformationOfficer concluded that L&I lacked the
"'foundational governance structures,processes, and practices' to manage
such a large and complex project andstepped up their oversight of the
upgrade." The agency was accused ofnot leaning in, saying, "Most of the
(29:49):
'leadership team is not energized bythis work' and 'is not leaning in (to)
provide support or remove roadblocks."Another quote here, "Team members are
polite; little is said during meetings.
When challenging (or) difficultstatements are made, team members largely
ignore them rather than pushing backor voicing a difference of opinion."
That turnover was really high inthis project - unusually high - and
(30:11):
that tough decisions were delayed infavor of just additional planning.
As recently as this past October, areport by a quality assurance contractor
urged "a comprehensive project resetfocused on reaching Executive Leadership
alignment on the Project's path forward."That's like consultant speak saying
that the leadership of L&I from thetop-down is not really on board with or
(30:37):
aligned with this project, and that'swhy it's experiencing so many problems.
And so this money was really essentiallyjust wasted from identifiable causes that
don't really seem to have been fixed.
Because the cherry on top of this wholething is that the head of L&I, Director
(31:00):
Joel Sacks, was just reappointed byGovernor Bob Ferguson to his fourth term.
And according to this reporting,"according to several lawmakers and
project Insiders, Sacks continues toenjoy good relations with legislative
leaders." So someone who was pinpointed ashaving a role in this issue - certainly,
(31:21):
having a major role in helping to definewhy there's reason to believe it's on
a better path now - is not being askedthose questions, is not being asked to
answer those questions, doesn't seemlike they're being held accountable.
And I don't know why we shouldexpect any kind of a different
result than what we've already seen.
This does not inspire a lot of confidenceand really is a frustrating thing to be
(31:44):
looking at - that we're $31 million inthe hole, that we've got another $250
million-ish more to spend, and we'resupposed to have confidence that that's
all going to be spent wonderfully andright - after this is what we've seen.
How do you see this?
Reading the story, my main takeaway was- it's such a familiar dynamic across all
(32:10):
state and local government, Which is thatwe don't have the capacity to do these
big projects ourselves, and so we haveto rely on these third-party consultants.
It looks like L&I doesn't even have thecapacity to manage its consultants well.
And so that's like awhole different level.
But across - I cover transitand transportation a lot, and
(32:32):
so I see this dynamic play outover and over and over again.
Local governments don't havethe capacity to design projects.
They have to go to consultants.
And so they're beholden towhat those consultants charge.
They're beholden to those consultantsto do the actual work to get these
projects across the finish line.
And so my takeaway from the story wasthat we have these continued complaints
(32:56):
around what we'll call blue stategovernance - progressives who have a
big vision but aren't able to implement.
And a lot of that's because our statecapacity has been completely hollowed out.
There's another story this week abouthow our co-president, Elon Musk, is
going to eliminate the IRS Direct File.
That's an example of a government agencythat actually was able to do this work
(33:18):
in-house and create a great product.
Obviously, they can't let that stand,and so they have to eliminate it.
But we just aren't able to dothis at the local level anymore.
Well, and it's frustrating becausethis has a meaningful impact.
We saw an announcement early on inGovernor Bob Ferguson's term saying
that he was canceling a contract toreplace some carpet, I think it was.
(33:42):
And I think it was like $70,000, and hewas doing that to show he was serious
about this budget situation that we're in,this deficit - and pinching every penny.
He's the executive of the state.
This is one of his departments.
And $31 million is not a little bit ofmoney here, certainly compared to $70,000.
And it just feels like this deservesmore scrutiny and accountability than
(34:08):
the carpeting contractor who - theyand their employees are out of work
and stuff like this is just happening.
And it doesn't seem like there'sreally the urgency in getting at why
this happened and actually solvingthat problem, addressing those issues,
demanding accountability and answers fromthe people getting paid to provide that.
(34:33):
Just pretty frustrating.
And some of those - we talked abouta week before last - issues of just
governance and competence there, andmanagement through implementation.
And this is another example of thatwhere we've really got to tighten up in
these areas, or else they're going tobe exploited and used as justification
(34:56):
to say - Oh, this and all the governancethat comes with it is bad, and here we go.
Got to tighten this up.
I do want to talk abouta few other things.
One, we do have special elections comingup on April 22nd - this coming Tuesday
- those ballots are going to be due.
Want to make sure that we update alittle bit on the conversation last
(35:20):
week about the King County AutomatedFingerprint Identification System, or
AFIS, measure that people are seeing ontheir ballots that are in their mailboxes.
Check your mail if you haven'talready - a ballot should be in there.
If you don't have a ballot,call to get a replacement.
But on there is - for mostpeople, certainly from the county
perspective - just one item.
(35:41):
And that's whether to separatelyfund - to use a levy renewal - to
continue to fund the fingerprintidentification system used by law
enforcement agencies across the county.
There have been some varyingopinions on why people should vote
Yes, why people should vote No.
(36:03):
Some of them we covered last week.
Why people should vote Yes - it'sa fingerprint identification
system, it's already in place.
If the money isn't there, then if thislevy doesn't succeed, then the money
will be found somewhere else - probablyfrom the general fund, necessitating cuts
in other areas in order to pay for thiswhich is concerning to a lot of people.
(36:27):
So just keep going with theway things are going - from
proponents who say support it.
And then those who are in favor ofvoting No on this, saying that - One,
it's more money to a budget that alreadymakes up a majority percentage of most
of these municipal and county budgets.
We spend usually more of the generalfund on public safety than anything else.
(36:51):
Questioning why this is not alreadypart of a general fund expenditure?
Why is this separate spending, ifthis is something that is necessary,
fairly routine, it's not some newfangled technology now - why isn't
this already part of the budget?
Why are you asking us to putthis on a ballot and have it
(37:12):
compete with funding that is notalready part of the general fund?
And then concerns about data sharingfrom this - an additional type of
surveillance, that people who are notconvicted of crimes could be fingerprinted
and can have that data shared.
Now, this data isn't shared in any waythat existing data isn't already shared.
(37:35):
This doesn't appear to beallowing any new kind of sharing,
any different kind of sharing.
The concern is that - already - otheragencies from the state and the
state shares with a federal database.
So that potentially other entities,whether it be state or federal, could
have access to this information - whichis raising a lot more eyebrows than it
(37:58):
was even previously, given the type ofactions that are being taken federally.
Especially when it comes to immigrationenforcement and deportations and what
we're seeing there, with a lack of dueprocess currently - and being concerned
that this could feed more into that.
So I've heard those arguments frompeople who are saying, Vote No.
(38:19):
So those are the types of issues thatpeople are weighing with this, and
that may not have been explained muchin the levy information breakdown,
or in some news coverage overall.
The Burner, the new outlet, did a podcastepisode where they talked about this also.
But really interesting to tryand hunt down this information
(38:41):
to at least let people know whatit is that they're voting on.
I think the fact that it's the only thingon a lot of people's ballot is really
getting a lot of people's attention.
But this ultimately goes back tothe same issues we were talking
about with the state budget.
We've had a 1% cap on property taxlevy increases for 20 years now,
(39:02):
and it is the same root issue - whenthe county needs to be able to go
to the voters to raise revenue.
And so this is a very self-containedlittle program that's able to ensure
that the county doesn't need to gointo its general fund, like you said,
and cut other services to ensure thatthe fingerprint programming continues.
(39:26):
Also on ballots in Tacoma and PierceCounty is a Transformative Streets
Initiative that they'll be voting onin this April 22nd special election.
What will this initiative do?
It's basically going to make the FirstStreets Initiative levy that the voters
(39:47):
in Tacoma passed in 2015, permanent.
That levy was pretty focused onresidential street maintenance, making
sure that the potholes on the residentialstreets in Tacoma were taken care of.
But this levy goes further.
It's more ambitious.
It's more focused on safety.
And so it's going to repave a lot ofstreets, but while it's doing that,
(40:09):
it's going to bring safety upgrades.
It's also going to includebike boulevards and Vision Zero
treatments across the entire city.
And so it's a big leap forwardfor how Tacoma funds its streets.
Obviously, cities like Seattlehave a pretty big budget for street
safety programs, but Tacoma - thethird largest city in the state
(40:32):
- their Vision Zero budget is lessthan a million dollars a year.
And so this would be a big leapforward for how they're able to
fund these very needed improvements.
Absolutely - so that'sgoing to be important.
And road maintenance has been a huge issuein Tacoma - over the years, that has been
very popular, but also certainly recently.
(40:54):
We've seen the demand by residents anda responsiveness by the city council
to address some of the pedestriansafety issues and infrastructure issues
that help that stuff - certainly,a lot of people are eager to
see this pass for that reason.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 18th, 2025.
(41:15):
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today wascontributing editor for The Urbanist,
covering transportation, land use,public space, traffic safety, and
obscure community meetings - you shouldnot miss their coverage at all - Ryan
Packer, thank you for joining us today.
(41:36):
Thanks so much for having me.
You can find Ryan onBluesky at @typewriteralley.
You can find Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me there at @finchfrii.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - I use theOvercast app - just type "Hacks
and Wonks" into the search bar.
(41:56):
Be sure to subscribe to thepodcast to get the full versions
of our Friday week-in-reviewshows and our midweek topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, leave a review whereveryou listen - it really helps us out.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
(42:17):
Thanks for tuning in - we'lltalk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm your host, Crystal Fincher.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:21):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
If you missed our Tuesday topical show,Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and
Urbanist reporter Amy Sundberg joinedme to discuss the purpose of Seattle
(00:43):
City Council's new Select Committee onFederal Administration and Policy Changes
and the challenges Seattle faces fromthe Trump administration's second term.
Today, we are continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome to the program as a week-in-reviewco-host for the first time, friend of
the show, today's co-host (01:05):
contributing editor for The Urbanist, covering
transportation, land use, public space,traffic safety, and obscure community
meetings, and doing the best work outthere at those things, Ryan Packer.
Welcome!
Thanks so much for having me, Crystal.
Excited to have you.
(01:26):
Well, we definitely have some thingsto discuss this week, starting with
a new Cascade Elway poll that seemsto indicate that surprisingly,
a lot of people are plugged in.
And unsurprisingly, they're worried.
What did this poll say generally?
(01:47):
Basically, it said, a majority ofWashingtonians are really upset about
what's happening in the other Washingtonand want Democrats to do stuff about it.
It's pretty clear that flooding thezone, as the Trump administration's
tactics have been consistentlyreferred to, is having an effect.
It's a negative one.
People are not happywith what is happening.
(02:07):
A lot of people are nothappy with what's happening.
Is this something that's generallythe same across all demographics?
Are there some where they're superplugged in and super unhappy,
and others that are happy?
Is this pretty universal?
You have a classic partisan divide,where a lot of Republicans in
(02:29):
Washington are perfectly fine withwhat's happening, although I think
you're seeing that negative perceptioncreep across the entire spectrum.
I think it's not a super surprisingresult in terms of - when you basically
try and dismantle the federal government,people have a pretty negative reaction.
I thought one thing that was interestingabout it was when you drill down into
(02:50):
what people are actually talking about,there was no one topic that really took
over people's attention when it comes tothe Trump administration - like Signal
Gate was only a 5% response rate andthere was nothing that was really high.
It was just like Trump dominating theentire story, but no one individual
element was actually breaking through.
(03:12):
Absolutely.
Now, it should be noted that this pollwas in the field from March 27th to 31st.
So this is before a number of therecent notable news items - the
volatility in the stock market, someof the tariff activity, the severity
of the disappearings to El Salvador- that are making big headlines now.
(03:37):
This is pre-those events.
But even before that - that arecapturing a lot of news attention
now - people were tuned in.
Maybe not to anything specific,but the vibes are bad, generally.
And getting worse, I thinkthis poll seems to reveal.
Yeah.
And the other takeaway is peopleare paying attention to national
(03:59):
news - local news, not so much.
I think there was around 10% of people whosaid that they had been following state
politics, which is a little depressingfor me as a local state reporter.
But I think it's not super surprising,because those things happening on the
national level - they are literallyflooding the zone, as I said, and so
they're taking over and it's reallyhard to actually be able to pay
(04:21):
attention to everything right now.
Very hard.
Like you, I don't find itsurprising that people are not
very tuned in to local news.
I do hope that people see this asan opportunity - whether it's local
news outlets, people who talk aboutnews, or just people talking to their
friends and family - that drawing thoseconnections to how things are impacting
(04:46):
them and their local communities,we're seeing impacts far and wide.
We just talked about here inWashington state - the impact of
ICE deportations or ICE raids thatwe're having here, border activity.
The impact that the tariff actionsare having on our local economy
that's so heavily dependent on trade.
(05:07):
Two out of every five jobs in Washingtonare dependent or impacted by trade.
To impacts in healthcare - ValleyMedical Center had to lay
off over 100 people already.
Other healthcare systems aroundthe area are talking about how
proposed cuts to Medicaid andelsewhere are jeopardizing them.
Impacts to Head Start, publiceducation, our universities.
(05:31):
Just far and wide, there are impactsfelt in local communities on the ground.
I think part of that was also underscoredby the turnout of the Hands Off protests
across the country, across the state- not just in big cities, but in suburbs,
small cities, both blue and red areas.
That people are figuring out thatthere are people caring in their
(05:55):
community, there are people impactedin their community, that they're
not the only ones paying attention.
And I think that started to fuelmore people tuning in and trying
to make sense of what's happening,especially since it's so confusing.
Another thing I found notablewas just where people say they're
getting their news information from.
What did the poll say about that?
(06:17):
It confirmed the long-standing trendthat people are not really getting their
news from print and traditional media.
The number one source of news wasjust a general online news bucket.
We can assume that not all of thatis straight news, a lot of that is
commentary, a lot of that is social media.
Social media, I think, was a littlebit below online news when it
comes to where people are gettingtheir news from in that poll.
(06:39):
But kind of a grab bag - I think there'sno straight media consumption anymore.
It's all just kind of a big soupthat people dip into and try
and figure out what's happening.
Yeah, and that was really interesting.
And I hope people dig into this- we'll link to the actual poll
and to some write-ups on the pollin our resources on the website.
(07:01):
But like you were saying - 52%online news sites, 47% talking with
friends and relatives, 45% gettingtheir news from social media.
And then you get down to - 42% nationaltelevision network news, 38% local
television network news, 35% cable news,25% podcasts, 24% public television or
(07:24):
radio, then down to 19% print newspapersand magazines, 16% radio talk shows, and
9% organizations that people belong to.
So a whole smattering - thinkkind of reflects our increasingly
siloed news and media environment,where people are not predominantly
(07:45):
turning to news for their news.
They're getting them filteredthrough other ways and with a
lot of other context around it.
I don't know if you guys have all beenon social media lately, but almost all of
the sites - you're getting a whole sideof nonsense with the information you're
seeking or what you're going on there for.
(08:06):
So even the context around theinformation is influencing what people
are seeing and how they're digesting it.
So this is really interesting, but peopleare tuned in, and so it's important to
continue to talk about this, especiallywith the number two source being
talking with friends and relatives.
People listening to Hacks & Wonks areright in the center of the group of
(08:32):
people who can be influential talkingabout how things that we see in the
news are impacting us here in ourcommunity and impacting people every day,
helping friends and family understandand make sense of what's going on.
Also want to talk aboutaction in the Legislature.
There are a number of things happeningas we move closer to the end of the
(08:55):
session, as we get into the nitty grittyof some negotiations, getting to the
final shapes of some budget proposals.
So I guess starting out, wanting to talkabout the budget and where we have been
is Democrats in the House and Senate havebeen working on their budget proposals.
With some heavy-handed guidance bythe governor - saying that the wealth
(09:18):
tax that they had previously proposedwas not going to fly with him, he said
he would not sign a budget that hadthat in there, and that they needed
to go back to the drawing board.
And it looks like legislativeDemocrats did do that.
So what have they now proposed forrevenue in this budget package?
(09:39):
So we have about 10 days left to approve afinal state budget for the next two years.
Like you said, the wealth tax hadbeen kind of the central element
keeping that budget together, ensuringthat there weren't devastating
cuts across state government.
Wealth tax is seen as really risky.
It's a tax not just on what's in yourbank account, but the unrealized assets
(10:03):
and paintings and all that stuff.
And so the governor basically didn'twant to have his budget built around
a risky revenue source, but theother options are going back to
the same revenue sources that we'vebeen depending on for a long time.
And so with the wealth tax removedfrom the budget, the other options
(10:25):
that they're going to are basicallya tiered capital gains tax.
So we already passed the capital gainstax a couple of years ago - we're going
back and making it easier to ensure thatthe even ultra-wealthy people in the state
are paying even more in capital gains tax.
And we're doing that with the estate tax.
And we're doing that withadditional taxes on businesses.
(10:46):
But also going to the property tax capand looking at whether property taxpayers
are going to ultimately end up payinga little bit more for state services.
I think overall, as we look at this,it really identifies what the stakes
of not having a wealth tax are.
And how much more broadly and widelypeople and businesses have to be taxed
(11:13):
if we are not taxing the ultra-wealthy.
And the whole conversation about aregressive tax, or where people in the
middle and the bottom pay a much higherpercentage of their income than people
at the very top of the income scale, andalso just looking at what that forces.
A lot of times you'll hear - Well,Washington has no income tax.
(11:34):
It's great.
Well, it's great for the super wealthy,but it's not great for most other people.
Because then you look at this smorgasbordof taxes here, which does seem like
a better alternative than austerityand the massive cuts to services
and programs - but they're so broadin the absence of more progressive
(11:57):
or equitably distributed taxation.
And so businesses are paying, propertyowners are going to be paying more,
large companies with high payrollsare going to be paying more.
It is just so broad that everyoneelse has to make up to a much greater
degree on the lower end, the absence ofequitable taxation for the ultra-wealthy.
(12:23):
And so we're talking about thiswide range of taxes, fees that go up
and other areas - where they aren'tofficially a tax, but we've seen
fees raising in lots of other areas.
These are the types of thingsthat are there because there is
no income tax, or there becausewe don't have a progressive tax.
This is what a regressivetax system looks like.
(12:46):
And even though it seems when youfirst hear it - There is no income tax.
Everything is great, right?
You're not paying any taxes.
All of these things stack up andadd up massively for everyone
else but the super wealthy.
Those are the terms of this debate,really - and we don't get into this
nitty gritty, but we're seeing it playout in these budget proposals now about
(13:09):
how many more people and businessesare affected when we don't do the
thing that most other states are doing.
Yeah, I think my takeaway hereis - obviously, building the
entire budget around a brandnew wealth tax is pretty risky.
But are we going to just drop the issue?
Is it going to just completelyfall by the wayside?
(13:30):
Are we going to actually have thedebate, the legal test - actually get the
confirmation that this is a path forward?
Or is it just going to become somethingthat was floated and went away?
Absolutely.
Now, I do want to talk aboutthe transportation budget.
We've talked about the top-linebudget there, but we have
a transportation budget.
(13:51):
We've talked about ita lot over the years.
It's very impactful in our everyday lives.
And we've seen some changes inthis budget here that, frankly, are
pretty concerning to a lot of people.
Can you give us the rundown of theevolution of our transportation budget
this session, and what issues they'recurrently trying to work through?
(14:12):
So when you bring up the statebudget, most people mean the operating
budget, which pays for state services.
But the transportation budget is awhole separate thing and often doesn't
really get a lot of scrutiny inOlympia, especially from the media.
In terms of what's happening now,you kind of have to go back to 25
years ago and how we've always beentreating transportation budgets and
(14:35):
transportation packages in general,which - the transportation package is the
big suite of projects that legislatorscan take home to their districts.
For two and a half decades, we havebeen relying on increases in the gas
tax to essentially pay for all theshiny new highway projects that we
wanted to build around the state.
(14:56):
The consistent construction throughTacoma is a high-profile example
of what those projects look like.
But we've always relied on - we bumpup the gas tax, we bond against that,
we go into debt for that revenue andlimp along, consistently underfunding
the actual maintenance of all these newfacilities, the hundreds of miles of
(15:19):
state highways and bridges that we have.
And so in 2022, we had the Move AheadWashington Transportation package, which
we thought was breaking the cycle ofgoing into debt to fund highway projects.
It didn't include a gas tax increase.
It included Climate Commitment Actrevenue, which is funding green
transportation - some good projectsin there - and then figuring out how
(15:41):
to raise revenue in some other waysthat weren't a gas tax increase.
Because up to that point - right now,12% of our transportation budget in
Washington goes toward debt, whichis actually more than the entire
budget for the state ferry system.
And so we thought we had broken thatcycle - we were heading into an era
(16:01):
of more multimodal transportation,investing in transit, not prioritizing
highway expansion as much.
But two things happened since then,which is cost increases on the
projects we'd already said we wanted tobuild, like I-405 and the Puget Sound
Gateway down in South King County,those cost increases skyrocketed.
(16:25):
And gas tax revenue coming out ofthe pandemic continues to decline.
And so lawmakers were faced with ahuge budget hole to fill this year.
The House and the Senate tooktwo different approaches.
The Senate tried to basically doeverything - raising the gas tax,
raising a bunch of fees, and includeda bunch of really bizarre revenue
(16:49):
options, including a e-bike tax.
And the idea that we would chargepublic transit vehicles to not
only use our roadways, but to usetoll facilities in Washington.
And basically, they're trying to doall of the above - fund the highway
expansion projects, but also fund goodprojects like multimodal bike paths and
(17:11):
transit projects, as well as preservationand maintenance of our state highways.
The House budget was a little moreconservative, but it still prioritized
getting the highway projects that were inthe pipeline over the finish line - before
investing in anything really different orneeded in terms of what we need to achieve
(17:32):
our mobility goals or our climate goals.
Well, and so this is really interesting.
I think questions that I've heard fromjust people in general conversations
are - one, that factoid about we're payingmore in debt than the entire budget of
the ferry system is kind of eye-popping.
But beyond that, looking at the additionalmoney needed to cover cost overruns,
(17:55):
increased cost projections - what isbehind the increase in cost projections?
Are we just horrible atdetermining what costs are?
Or are they things like - becausethese projects have such a long time
horizon that things like inflationand unexpected price increases
are what's behind the increase?
(18:18):
Mostly, I think we're pretty goodat projecting costs in normal times.
We just are not really in normal times.
And so obviously see this elsewherein things like Sound Transit's
budget, where West Seattle Link is $3billion over what we thought it was.
And so it is partially and in large part,due to inflation of these materials.
(18:40):
Obviously, the act of construction ishighly dependent on the cost of the
actual goods that you need to do the work.
But another factor is the fact thatthere are very few contractors in
Washington state who are available todo a $10 billion project over 10 years.
We basically have two or three bigcontractors - the 520 Bridge project
(19:04):
is going from one into another when itcomes to its project elements right now.
And the fact that things like SoundTransit are also happening is bidding
up the price when you have Sound Transitcompeting against the state to figure
out how to move forward on a hugeproject, it's like - Well, there's only
so much workforce, so you're kind ofcompeting against yourself ultimately.
(19:28):
So, in this situation, where costsare increasing and gas tax revenue,
which is funded a lot previously, isdecreasing - is there any other choice
but to look at fees in differentareas and have they chosen the best
kinds of fees for this situation?
Like I said, they're tryingto pull from everywhere - to
(19:51):
a lot of people's frustration.
The Senate transportation budgetis really trying to ensure that
every type of road user pays.
But transportation advocates willpoint out that that's backwards, and
that asking transit riders via theirtransit agencies to pay a little bit
more for roads that they're basicallyensuring remain open for other people
(20:12):
by being on a bus is backwards.
And so the question isn't really - Are therevenue sources equitable or regressive?
The question is - What isthe money going toward?
And so, particularly with theSenate budget, we're going to spend
$2.5 billion to make these highwayprojects get across the finish line.
(20:34):
We're going to set aside another billiondollars to get some more started,
including I-5 down at Nisqually River - aproject that absolutely needs to happen
- we need to ensure that I-5 doesn'tflood and completely get destroyed.
But we don't need to add another lane,which is going to have climate impacts,
it's going to have cost impacts,it's going to have lots of impacts.
(20:57):
And so the question is whatwe're using the money for.
And other states are continuing to pivottoward taking a look at their highway
projects - what the impacts are, whetherthey are the best use of investment.
But Washington is still in denial aboutwhether pouring billions of dollars into
(21:18):
a marginal increase in the capacity ofthe state highway network is a good idea.
Well, we've heard for some decadespreviously that we really need additional
lanes because traffic is reallybad and it needs to be made better.
How have those additional lanes proven sofar in helping traffic, in easing traffic?
(21:41):
You look at the growth in Washington'seconomy over the past two decades - we've
had double-digit increases in ourstate GDP and our job growth, and we've
expanded the highway network by 2%.
So I don't think there's aconnection between needing to
expand the highway network andactually creating a strong economy.
(22:04):
And that's ultimately me echoingthe sentiments of our outgoing
State Transportation Chief, RogerMillar - talked about this a lot.
The one thing that Mr. Millar would alwaysbring up is the fact that expanding the
highway system isn't as important asmaking sure that it remains reliable.
And so that's really the thing Icontinue to look at in terms of
(22:24):
our state transportation budget.
As I look at it, even there - we'vehad some highway widening projects,
some that we've seen in the PugetSound on both I-5 and I-405.
And as we have learned later on, despitehow those projects were initially
sold - at this capacity, adding lanesdoesn't reduce traffic anyway, as we see
(22:49):
when stuck in traffic on our freeways.
So it just seems like we're spendinga lot of money on outdated and
disproven ideas and hopes and wishesthat don't come to fruition, that
somehow then get used to justifyadditional spending of that same kind.
(23:10):
And everybody is going toincreasingly pay for it.
The other thing that I notice hereis - as you talked about, they're
trying to get everyone to pay andsay everyone needs to pay in here.
But as we see, there are things thathave more positive impacts or that
have less of an impact on the roadmaintenance needed, how much wear and
(23:30):
tear they create by being on the road,and how efficiently people are moved.
So things like transit move so many morepeople efficiently that they effectively
reduce traffic, they reduce emissions.
And so those are things that are a netpositive for all the things that we're
trying to do - that they actually reducebudgets because they reduce the type of
(23:54):
maintenance and mitigation needed forthe impacts of vehicles on the road.
And so those things that lessenthe impact, that lessen the
expenditures needed - youtypically want to incentivize.
We get that when it comes to business.
We're having a debate in the budgetabout whether Boeing should be given
(24:14):
an exemption from some of thesenew taxes that are being proposed.
With some peoplesaying - This is business.
We obviously want to incentivize newjobs and making sure that we don't
inhibit hiring or inhibit growthand the health of our economy.
When other people are saying, especiallyif there are no firm targets or any
(24:37):
accountability to actually producingthose jobs, that - Hey, that doesn't work.
But there's an underlying assumptionthat those are the things we want
to incentivize, so that's why we'reproposing not taxing them further.
So it's surprising to see a lot ofpeople who very much get that in the
business realm, not understand that inthe transportation realm, which also has
(24:59):
a great impact on our economy overall.
To say those things that are reducingtraffic, that are reducing emissions,
that are reducing wear and tear on theroads, and the need for very expensive
maintenance - are things that we actuallydon't want to add an additional cost to.
The things that do come with a lot ofadditional costs that require public
(25:21):
spending to mitigate and to live with arethe things that we should be focusing on
getting revenue to recoup those costs.
But that doesn't seem to be the waywe approach the transportation budget.
No, it's not.
And I think the lack of scrutinyon the transportation budget opens
(25:41):
it up for a lot of deal-makingin terms of getting projects done
in different parts of the state.
But we continue to try and set asidethe climate impacts of these projects.
But the thing that I continue to lookat is the fact that we are headed
toward a disaster when it comes to howold our existing infrastructure is.
(26:02):
When you look at the number of bridgesin the state that we have, most of
them are getting really, quite old.
There was recently a bridge over intoMount Rainier that had to close because
of maintenance impacts - is probably nevergoing to get fixed because of the cost.
In 2020, we had 69 bridges aroundPuget Sound region that were in poor
(26:24):
condition, and now that's at 88.
So it's going up, and we're not eventalking about the local needs for roads.
When you're talking about the statetransportation budget, it's treated as
totally separate, but the maintenancebacklog for the county and state roads
in Puget Sound has gone from 6.1 billionto 9.2 billion in just three years.
(26:47):
And so we continue to look at theshiny new infrastructure, but we're
not really figuring out what's goingto happen when all these things need
to be replaced at the same time.
Not looking forward to that.
Well, I do want to continueto pay attention to this as we
(27:07):
move to the end of this session.
You can stay tuned to Hacks & Wonksto get those updates each week.
This isn't directly related tothe budget discussion, but it is.
One piece of news that came out this week- well-written story, but really irritated
me - was the story by Paul Roberts andShauna Sowersby in The Seattle Times.
(27:31):
Headline - after 10 years and $31million, the Washington workers'
compensation upgrade has little to show.
And man, that's just the beginningof the irritating and upsetting
things to read about this situation.
Can you give us a breakdownof what has happened here?
Sure.
(27:52):
So the workers' compensationclaim system at the state level
has been due for an upgrade.
We have spent $31 million on thatupgrade over the past 10 years,
with nothing to show for it.
And apparently, the agency needs another$18 million requested in the next budget
to continue to work on this program.
(28:13):
Lawmakers are kind of scratchingtheir heads and wondering
what is happening here.
Absolutely wonderingwhat is happening here.
And this is part of an overallupgrade, an overhaul of their system
that pays for and manages claimsfrom people who have been injured.
So not at all saying that thisis a simple, easy upgrade, but
(28:37):
it is disheartening to see $31million so far result in nothing.
And when you get into the detailof what happened here, it's more
nothing than it sounds like initially.
The plan for modernization of thisprogram started in 2015, with an initial
cost estimate of $283 million in total.
(29:01):
Now that is a lot of money - don'tknow whether that's in line or out
of line, it certainly was foundto be acceptable at the time.
That was in 2015.
In 2020, the project was paused - therewere already lots of delays, complaints
of things not happening well.
There are whistleblower complaintssaying that the department
(29:23):
wasn't being cooperative,leaders weren't really tuned in.
In 2021, the state Chief InformationOfficer concluded that L&I lacked the
"'foundational governance structures,processes, and practices' to manage
such a large and complex project andstepped up their oversight of the
upgrade." The agency was accused ofnot leaning in, saying, "Most of the
(29:49):
'leadership team is not energized bythis work' and 'is not leaning in (to)
provide support or remove roadblocks."Another quote here, "Team members are
polite; little is said during meetings.
When challenging (or) difficultstatements are made, team members largely
ignore them rather than pushing backor voicing a difference of opinion."
That turnover was really high inthis project - unusually high - and
(30:11):
that tough decisions were delayed infavor of just additional planning.
As recently as this past October, areport by a quality assurance contractor
urged "a comprehensive project resetfocused on reaching Executive Leadership
alignment on the Project's path forward."That's like consultant speak saying
that the leadership of L&I from thetop-down is not really on board with or
(30:37):
aligned with this project, and that'swhy it's experiencing so many problems.
And so this money was really essentiallyjust wasted from identifiable causes that
don't really seem to have been fixed.
Because the cherry on top of this wholething is that the head of L&I, Director
(31:00):
Joel Sacks, was just reappointed byGovernor Bob Ferguson to his fourth term.
And according to this reporting,"according to several lawmakers and
project Insiders, Sacks continues toenjoy good relations with legislative
leaders." So someone who was pinpointed ashaving a role in this issue - certainly,
(31:21):
having a major role in helping to definewhy there's reason to believe it's on
a better path now - is not being askedthose questions, is not being asked to
answer those questions, doesn't seemlike they're being held accountable.
And I don't know why we shouldexpect any kind of a different
result than what we've already seen.
This does not inspire a lot of confidenceand really is a frustrating thing to be
(31:44):
looking at - that we're $31 million inthe hole, that we've got another $250
million-ish more to spend, and we'resupposed to have confidence that that's
all going to be spent wonderfully andright - after this is what we've seen.
How do you see this?
Reading the story, my main takeaway was- it's such a familiar dynamic across all
(32:10):
state and local government, Which is thatwe don't have the capacity to do these
big projects ourselves, and so we haveto rely on these third-party consultants.
It looks like L&I doesn't even have thecapacity to manage its consultants well.
And so that's like awhole different level.
But across - I cover transitand transportation a lot, and
(32:32):
so I see this dynamic play outover and over and over again.
Local governments don't havethe capacity to design projects.
They have to go to consultants.
And so they're beholden towhat those consultants charge.
They're beholden to those consultantsto do the actual work to get these
projects across the finish line.
And so my takeaway from the story wasthat we have these continued complaints
(32:56):
around what we'll call blue stategovernance - progressives who have a
big vision but aren't able to implement.
And a lot of that's because our statecapacity has been completely hollowed out.
There's another story this week abouthow our co-president, Elon Musk, is
going to eliminate the IRS Direct File.
That's an example of a government agencythat actually was able to do this work
(33:18):
in-house and create a great product.
Obviously, they can't let that stand,and so they have to eliminate it.
But we just aren't able to dothis at the local level anymore.
Well, and it's frustrating becausethis has a meaningful impact.
We saw an announcement early on inGovernor Bob Ferguson's term saying
that he was canceling a contract toreplace some carpet, I think it was.
(33:42):
And I think it was like $70,000, and hewas doing that to show he was serious
about this budget situation that we're in,this deficit - and pinching every penny.
He's the executive of the state.
This is one of his departments.
And $31 million is not a little bit ofmoney here, certainly compared to $70,000.
And it just feels like this deservesmore scrutiny and accountability than
(34:08):
the carpeting contractor who - theyand their employees are out of work
and stuff like this is just happening.
And it doesn't seem like there'sreally the urgency in getting at why
this happened and actually solvingthat problem, addressing those issues,
demanding accountability and answers fromthe people getting paid to provide that.
(34:33):
Just pretty frustrating.
And some of those - we talked abouta week before last - issues of just
governance and competence there, andmanagement through implementation.
And this is another example of thatwhere we've really got to tighten up in
these areas, or else they're going tobe exploited and used as justification
(34:56):
to say - Oh, this and all the governancethat comes with it is bad, and here we go.
Got to tighten this up.
I do want to talk abouta few other things.
One, we do have special elections comingup on April 22nd - this coming Tuesday
- those ballots are going to be due.
Want to make sure that we update alittle bit on the conversation last
(35:20):
week about the King County AutomatedFingerprint Identification System, or
AFIS, measure that people are seeing ontheir ballots that are in their mailboxes.
Check your mail if you haven'talready - a ballot should be in there.
If you don't have a ballot,call to get a replacement.
But on there is - for mostpeople, certainly from the county
perspective - just one item.
(35:41):
And that's whether to separatelyfund - to use a levy renewal - to
continue to fund the fingerprintidentification system used by law
enforcement agencies across the county.
There have been some varyingopinions on why people should vote
Yes, why people should vote No.
(36:03):
Some of them we covered last week.
Why people should vote Yes - it'sa fingerprint identification
system, it's already in place.
If the money isn't there, then if thislevy doesn't succeed, then the money
will be found somewhere else - probablyfrom the general fund, necessitating cuts
in other areas in order to pay for thiswhich is concerning to a lot of people.
(36:27):
So just keep going with theway things are going - from
proponents who say support it.
And then those who are in favor ofvoting No on this, saying that - One,
it's more money to a budget that alreadymakes up a majority percentage of most
of these municipal and county budgets.
We spend usually more of the generalfund on public safety than anything else.
(36:51):
Questioning why this is not alreadypart of a general fund expenditure?
Why is this separate spending, ifthis is something that is necessary,
fairly routine, it's not some newfangled technology now - why isn't
this already part of the budget?
Why are you asking us to putthis on a ballot and have it
(37:12):
compete with funding that is notalready part of the general fund?
And then concerns about data sharingfrom this - an additional type of
surveillance, that people who are notconvicted of crimes could be fingerprinted
and can have that data shared.
Now, this data isn't shared in any waythat existing data isn't already shared.
(37:35):
This doesn't appear to beallowing any new kind of sharing,
any different kind of sharing.
The concern is that - already - otheragencies from the state and the
state shares with a federal database.
So that potentially other entities,whether it be state or federal, could
have access to this information - whichis raising a lot more eyebrows than it
(37:58):
was even previously, given the type ofactions that are being taken federally.
Especially when it comes to immigrationenforcement and deportations and what
we're seeing there, with a lack of dueprocess currently - and being concerned
that this could feed more into that.
So I've heard those arguments frompeople who are saying, Vote No.
(38:19):
So those are the types of issues thatpeople are weighing with this, and
that may not have been explained muchin the levy information breakdown,
or in some news coverage overall.
The Burner, the new outlet, did a podcastepisode where they talked about this also.
But really interesting to tryand hunt down this information
(38:41):
to at least let people know whatit is that they're voting on.
I think the fact that it's the only thingon a lot of people's ballot is really
getting a lot of people's attention.
But this ultimately goes back tothe same issues we were talking
about with the state budget.
We've had a 1% cap on property taxlevy increases for 20 years now,
(39:02):
and it is the same root issue - whenthe county needs to be able to go
to the voters to raise revenue.
And so this is a very self-containedlittle program that's able to ensure
that the county doesn't need to gointo its general fund, like you said,
and cut other services to ensure thatthe fingerprint programming continues.
(39:26):
Also on ballots in Tacoma and PierceCounty is a Transformative Streets
Initiative that they'll be voting onin this April 22nd special election.
What will this initiative do?
It's basically going to make the FirstStreets Initiative levy that the voters
(39:47):
in Tacoma passed in 2015, permanent.
That levy was pretty focused onresidential street maintenance, making
sure that the potholes on the residentialstreets in Tacoma were taken care of.
But this levy goes further.
It's more ambitious.
It's more focused on safety.
And so it's going to repave a lot ofstreets, but while it's doing that,
(40:09):
it's going to bring safety upgrades.
It's also going to includebike boulevards and Vision Zero
treatments across the entire city.
And so it's a big leap forwardfor how Tacoma funds its streets.
Obviously, cities like Seattlehave a pretty big budget for street
safety programs, but Tacoma - thethird largest city in the state
(40:32):
- their Vision Zero budget is lessthan a million dollars a year.
And so this would be a big leapforward for how they're able to
fund these very needed improvements.
Absolutely - so that'sgoing to be important.
And road maintenance has been a huge issuein Tacoma - over the years, that has been
very popular, but also certainly recently.
(40:54):
We've seen the demand by residents anda responsiveness by the city council
to address some of the pedestriansafety issues and infrastructure issues
that help that stuff - certainly,a lot of people are eager to
see this pass for that reason.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 18th, 2025.
(41:15):
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today wascontributing editor for The Urbanist,
covering transportation, land use,public space, traffic safety, and
obscure community meetings - you shouldnot miss their coverage at all - Ryan
Packer, thank you for joining us today.
(41:36):
Thanks so much for having me.
You can find Ryan onBluesky at @typewriteralley.
You can find Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can find me there at @finchfrii.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - I use theOvercast app - just type "Hacks
and Wonks" into the search bar.
(41:56):
Be sure to subscribe to thepodcast to get the full versions
of our Friday week-in-reviewshows and our midweek topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, leave a review whereveryou listen - it really helps us out.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
(42:17):
Thanks for tuning in - we'lltalk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com