April 25, 2025 • 38 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Donna Blankinship discuss:
💔 State Senator Bill Ramos
🗳️ April ballot results
💵 Seattle Democracy Vouchers
📚 Seattle Education Levy expanded
🧑⚖️ Spokane homeless initiative struck down
📈 Sharp increase in homelessness
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. Find today’s co-host, Donna Blankinship on Substack at Civics for Adults and Bluesky at @dgblankinship.
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,I chatted with Seattle City Attorney
candidate Nathan Rouse about his visionfor reforming the office through the
lens of his public defender experience,his criticism of incumbent Republican
(00:45):
Ann Davison's approach, and his proposalof alternative solutions focused
on addressing root causes of crime.
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 for the firsttime, friend of the show and today's
co-host (01:02):
former news editor at Cascade PBS and publisher of the Civics for Adults
newsletter on Substack, Donna Blankinship.
Welcome!
Thank you.
Nice to be here - thanks for inviting me.
Great to have you here.
Now, just mentioned you're the publisherof the Civics for Adults newsletter.
Can you tell us a bit about thatnewsletter and what your goal is there?
(01:25):
So I'm semi-retired now and Iwanted to pursue a passion project,
which is helping educate voters andnon-voters about how our government
works - because I am hopeful that thatwork will lead to more voter turnout.
Absolutely.
Well, that is certainly a noble endeavor.
(01:46):
And we can use a ton of that,a ton more of that these days.
Well, starting with the news of theweek - unfortunate news, really sad news
- that state Senator Bill Ramos passedaway unexpectedly this past weekend.
What are some of the reflectionsyou've seen about Senator Ramos,
and what have people been saying?
(02:09):
Well, I've noticed howpersonal the reflections were.
I didn't know him personally,but he seemed to be the kind of
lawmaker that people connectedwith on a person-to-person level.
He seemed to be very effective.
He was in the Legislature for along time, which makes him someone
that people listen to - apparently,his constituents liked him a lot.
(02:32):
Well, certainly, he had - afterthree terms in the House, he just
recently joined the state Senate.
He is from the state 5th LegislativeDistrict, which includes Issaquah.
He actually passed away whileon a trail run - just 69 years
old - so certainly unexpected.
He was married to King CountyCouncilmember Sarah Perry, so we
(02:56):
certainly send our condolences to herand just a really, really tough time.
But he was a member of the LatinoDemocratic Caucus, served in the
U.S. Forest Service, Federal TransitAdministration, and on the Issaquah City
Council before joining the Legislature.
So a lifetime of public service.
Lifetime of public service, and was alongtime leader of Dance All Night in
(03:20):
the Cascade Foothills, where he taughtballroom, salsa, and swing dancing.
The Washington State Standard andJake Goldstein-Street wrote a great
article covering what a lot of peoplehad to say and remembering his life.
Tributes poured in all throughoutthe weekend and since - from members
(03:41):
of Congress, Governor Bob Ferguson.
Ferguson said he just saw Ramos and Perrya week ago at an event, saying - 'It was
a typical conversation with them - bighugs, wide smiles, and lots of laughter.
I will so miss him.' Laurie Jinkins,Speaker of the House, said Ramos worked
on legislation 'to ensure more effective,accountable, and equitable government
(04:03):
for all people in Washington.' Saying'he was a tireless champion for improving
our transportation system, makingour communities safer, and protecting
Washington's natural resources and outdoorspaces.' And he died on a trail run, and
Sarah Perry had said that that was typicalof him - to connect with nature and to
try and get out and reconnect that way.
(04:26):
And so just really sad to hear about that.
He's survived by Perry and histwo adult children, Max and Maya.
And so just pass along ourcondolences for all of his colleagues.
The King County Council has 30 days toappoint a replacement for Ramos in the
Legislature from a list of candidates thatthe 5th District Democrats will provide.
(04:51):
So just sad to see, and we certainlyshare in passing along our condolences.
Yes, indeed - yes.
I want to talk about a few differentnotes and news about items that
have been or will be on the ballot.
Just talking about some ballot initiativesthat we covered last week and the week
(05:13):
before - a King County special electionand a City of Tacoma special election.
For King County voters, in just aone-issue ballot in April - which a
number of people thought was eithercurious or ill-advised, depending on who
you speak to - King County voters passedthe AFIS, the Automated Fingerprint
(05:36):
identification System, continuingfunding for that in King County.
Looks like currently, it has justshy of about 60% of the vote.
Pretty expected vote - this had beena continuing levy that was just up
for renewal across the county, was notan organized opposition against it.
And so even in a low turnoutelection, just kind of
(05:59):
continuing as things had been.
Any thoughts on this that you saw?
Well, I wanted to comment on thelow turnout election because there's
a lot of talk in Washington andother places that we might want to
consider switching to having fewerelections so that turnout is better.
The argument against that has beenthat it makes the ballot really
(06:21):
long, but we all opened thatballot and saw one item on there.
And that just seems - I don'tknow - wasteful, I guess.
It does seem wasteful - to me, also.
I know I heard a lot of other people that- particularly when we're talking about
budget challenges with the county - andso thought that it was an odd choice.
(06:44):
At least seems like it would have madesense to put this on - perhaps - the
August ballot that was already going to becoming, that would have other candidates
and potentially measures on there.
So I hope we don't see much more of this.
As you talked about, there has beena movement gaining traction to move
to even-year elections that wouldconsolidate the elections that we have,
(07:07):
move those to higher turnout elections.
And some people with that say- Well, that advantages Democrats.
And that is not the case across the board-
No, it advantages voters, I think.
It absolutely advantages voters.
And really, it advantages what thepopular sentiment generally leans to.
(07:28):
So in blue areas, you're going to seehigher turnout elections trend blue.
In red areas, you're going to seehigher turnout elections trend red.
We saw across the country higherturnout elections trend slightly
red - this past election, we'vecertainly seen that in the past.
So it's really not an issue of does itadvantage a particular party or another.
(07:48):
It is about - can more voters participatein making their voices heard and in
shaping the policy for their communities?
Right.
And voter turnout is somethingthat's really important.
Because we want the majority of peopleto tell us what they think about
policies and who represents them.
(08:11):
And Washington state has rules about whenelections can be, depending on what it's
for - but those rules can be changed andit really is important for more people.
And also, I would say that people whodon't vote very often - when they get
a ballot they're not expecting, areprobably just letting it sit there.
(08:32):
And it's really not that hardto vote in Washington - the
ballot arrives in your mailbox.
But it would be good to have itso that it arrives less often.
I certainly agree with that.
And one area where it looks like a lowturnout election may have influenced
an outcome is in the City of Tacomarenewal of their street maintenance
(08:56):
levy - which had been slightly expandedto include some Vision Zero goals,
given some of the really high profileincidences of traffic violence that
they've experienced in recent years.
This measure failed.
If you have paid attention to Tacoma, youknow that street maintenance has been a
hot issue, and pothole repair has been ahot issue for - geez, the past 15+ years.
(09:21):
But it seems like a big challengewas - this was a very, very low
turnout election in the city.
A lot of people just didn't know that thiswas on the ballot, that nowadays a lot of
people do not check their mail every day.
I don't.
Sometimes, not every week.
So much comes online.
And so this was justunexpected for a lot of people.
(09:45):
The ballot language sometimes can bereally thick and hard to understand.
And so in the absence of significantcampaigns to educate voters - which
there was not here - people justdon't know, people aren't plugged in.
And so it looks like this will end upvery narrowly failing - reaching 48%, 49%.
(10:05):
But they're going to have toregroup and decide what to do.
But as this stands, there's kindof a cliff of funding ending for
road maintenance and for trafficsafety measures there in Tacoma.
So it'll be interesting tosee what happens from here.
Do you know if the Tacoma ballotwas just one issue as well?
It was.
(10:25):
And it's just such a strange time of year.
It's like - maybe we'd see a schoollevy right now, but I don't think so.
Well, let me amend that.
City of Tacoma - yes.
There were also some individualdistricts in the county, in the same
way that there were some individualdistricts in King County that may
(10:45):
have passed their own measures.
So they're-
Like water district or something or-
Water districts, and there were someschool levies throughout the state
that were on there - so it dependson people's local jurisdictions.
But for the majority of people, there wasjust one ballot measure on their ballot.
And generally, when it's a schoollevy - we're a lot more aware
of it and paying more attention.
(11:07):
At least I think I am, andI think a lot of people are.
Yeah, and a lot of times it's easierto communicate those - because parents
are looking for information from theschool, from the district, there's a
direct line of communication there.
Where here - just generalinformation - it becomes a bit tougher.
Also want to talk about a coupleof items that will come to
(11:30):
our ballots here pretty soon.
One, the Seattle DemocracyVoucher renewal is set to appear
on the August ballot this year.
Can you talk a little bit about whatDemocracy Vouchers are and the difference
people have said that they've made?
Yeah, so Democracy Vouchers are away to get more citizens involved
(11:52):
in supporting their elections.
And it's a Seattle project - hasn'tbeen duplicated in very many places
across the country, it's beenan interesting experiment here.
The goal was to democratize electionsby giving candidates an ability to
get money directly from citizens,even if they don't have their own
(12:13):
personal dollars to contribute.
And they have found that morepeople participate in the
financial part of elections.
But also, one of the other goals wasto get more people to run for office.
And I don't know the latestdata, but I do know that a lot of
(12:33):
people run for office in Seattle.
And it's not just the usual suspectswho have corporate or family
wealth - it's all kinds of people.
And I think Democracy Vouchershave made a difference there.
For those who don't know how theywork, you can hand a voucher - which
we get in the mail - to a candidate.
You can assign it to them online.
(12:56):
Candidates can even come to your doorand ask you for a voucher or at an event.
So it's really grassroots and interesting.
I don't know why other municipalitieshaven't adopted this idea,
but it's kind of cool, though.
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
Other municipalities areworking on that idea right now.
Basically, every resident of Seattlewho's a U.S. citizen or Green Card
(13:19):
holder gets four $25 vouchers thatthey can choose to give to any
candidate who signs up for the program.
It's been a long-standing challenge- elections are really expensive.
Problem number one - they'revery, very expensive to run.
And just - there was a thought a decadeback, 15, 20 years back, where - Oh,
(13:40):
social media is here, and that's going tocompletely democratize campaigns itself.
It's going to make it free tocommunicate directly with people.
We see what's happened with there - youessentially have to pay to boost
your message digitally anyway.
And so reaching large amounts ofpeople costs a lot of money - hiring
campaign staff, field programs, gettingyour word out through advertisements
(14:05):
- both digital, mail, ads - it is areally, really expensive thing, in
the hundreds of thousands of dollarsfor major cities, including Seattle.
And that was just out ofreach for a lot of people.
And advantages people who alreadyare coming from wealth or money,
have a lot of wealthy friends, orwho are being supported by usually
wealthy corporate interests.
(14:28):
And that really narrowed the pool ofwho was able to run and the type of
representation that we were getting.
There are a lot of sittingcouncilmembers and people who've run
for office who credit the DemocracyVoucher program for enabling their
candidacy and fueling their run.
Dan Strauss has said that that enabled himto not accept what he called "problematic
(14:52):
contributions," saying that it allowedhim more independence, essentially, to
run, to focus on representing the peopleinstead of representing corporate donors
who he would need to get funding from.
So it functions as a measure ofaccountability to voters, helps to
even the playing field financially- that's certainly the goal.
(15:13):
And hearing from virtually all ofthe councilmembers on the Seattle
City Council, saying that it's avaluable program that should continue.
And they opted to put thatrenewal on the August ballot.
So all Seattle voters aregoing to be voting on that
coming up in a few months here.
And it's been verypopular, been successful.
(15:34):
It's going to be funded at a slightlyhigher level because of both the
popularity of the program and its higherutilization among candidates, and the
number of candidates who are usingthat - so slightly higher renewal amount.
I also think - you know thatsaying about buy-in, right?
So as a voter, when you vote for someone,you feel like they're your person.
(15:57):
But if you not just vote for them, butyou also support their candidacy - even
if it's public mone -, that's oneother way that you feel like that's
your person who's representing you.
And I think that's very powerful.
Yeah, I absolutely agree.
So we'll be seeing that.
And also, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell isproposing renewing the Seattle Education
(16:22):
Levy, but doubling it to $1.3 billion.
Now, this Seattle Education Levy - it'snot a levy from the district, it's a
levy from the city that provides a lotof wraparound services for the district.
Can you talk a little bit about whatthis would provide, and why Mayor Harrell
felt it important to expand this levy?
(16:44):
Well, part of the expansion is itjust costs more to run preschools
and do wraparound services.
Salaries are more expensive - allkinds of costs have gone up since
the last time it was renewed.
Seattle has a preschool program that'sa subsidized preschool - that's in
addition to what the state does.
(17:04):
And it's not just for the lowest incomefamilies - medium income families
can get access to those preschool.
Almost every research study that'sdone says that quality preschool
makes a huge difference in a child'sability to succeed later in life.
And frankly, these days,preschool is hugely expensive.
(17:26):
And parents - sometimes it's achoice between working and putting
your kid in preschool, becauseyou can't afford to do both.
Also, the wraparound services thatyou were talking about - everybody
agrees that schools are not providingall of the mental health support.
It came out of a time when mayorswere being encouraged to take a bigger
(17:52):
role in education, that cities thriveif their education systems are good.
And Seattle wants to have a world-classeducation system, and it keeps
trying and trying to get there.
So it's helpful, this extra money.
And Seattle voters really arehappy to vote Yes on spending tax
(18:15):
money on things that they believein - and people believe in education.
People absolutely believein education in Seattle.
Most voters in Seattle are happy tofund services that they find value in.
Voters at the highest end of theincome and wealth ladder are least
likely to do that, but most otherSeattle voters do support that.
(18:39):
And you talked about how expensivechildcare is now, and how important
funding for preschool and someof those wraparound services are.
Childcare is now more expensivethan in-state college tuition, which
is just - I was talking to someonewho is a new dad not that long
(18:59):
ago, who's plugged in, a wonky guy.
And he's like - You know, I had heardthat talking point that childcare
was more expensive than tuition.
But he's paying over $3,000a month for childcare costs.
And it is just
- I don't know how a lotof people are doing it.
(19:20):
And really, a lot of people arereally struggling to do it and having
to make some really tough decisionsthat are having major impacts on
their economic mobility, on theirprofessional and job advancement options.
So it's just a real challenge.
But this is more than - certainly,the bulk goes to young children.
There's also a significant amountspent on Seattle graduates going to
(19:43):
community college and trying to fundthe first two years of community college
and prepare people for readiness, so-
And that's been a verysuccessful program as well.
It really has.
And so looking at doubling down onthis - with Mayor Harrell saying,
particularly with cuts coming from thefederal administration, that this is a
(20:05):
really important time to not only doubledown on this, but make sure that we
don't go backwards in these areas that,as you said, have been showing a lot of
success and a major return on investment.
So Mayor Harrell has branded this theEvery Child Ready proposal, saying that
it'll usher in transformative investmentsthat'll make Seattle one of the best
(20:25):
cities in the nation to start and raisea family, supporting our children from
cradle to classroom - into college andbeyond - toward successful careers.
And, you know, I've not been shyabout criticizing areas where I may
disagree with Mayor Harrell, but Ithink this is right on the money.
It's a great investmentwhere we get a great return.
(20:47):
And doubling down on thisis the right thing to do.
I'm happy to see it.
Me too.
I also want to talk about a significantWashington Supreme Court decision striking
down a Spokane homelessness initiative.
What happened here andwhy was it struck down?
So this is very complicated, and it'swhy I value newspapers to explain
(21:12):
stuff like this to me because justreading the case is really complicated.
So apparently, citizens in Spokanewanted to crack down on homelessness.
And so they passed an initiativesaying the city needed to get
people off the streets - it'smuch more complicated than that.
And a lot of initiatives end up inthe Supreme Court to decide whether
(21:35):
they are constitutional or not.
And if I remember correctly, thiscase was struck down because of
the way the initiative was worded.
And also because - citizens canvoice their opinion in initiatives in
certain ways, but not in other ways.
(21:57):
I'm trying to explain thisin plain English, but like I
said - it's really complicated.
Well, it's interesting.
So in this, Spokane voters approvedan initiative to ban camping
within a thousand feet of parks,schools, and licensed daycares.
And so you could be issueda citation if you did that.
And the Supreme Court essentially saidthat - according to our Washington
(22:18):
Constitution, voters can passinitiatives that deal with policy,
that make legislative changes.
But it is actually unconstitutionalto pass initiatives that deal
with administrative changes.
Kind of the difference between layingout a broad policy goal versus how
(22:39):
you enforce that specific goal.
So the Supreme Court essentially said- This wasn't a change in policy, this was
about how to enforce an existing policy.
And that's the area that you can'tget into - if you're changing a
policy, if you're establishinga new policy, that's permitted.
But what they said is - This wasa law that was already on the
(23:00):
books, they had already decidedon essentially what the policy was
on the approach to homelessness.
This was more on how to manage withinbounds that were already established.
Right.
So the citizens were trying to be thelawmakers instead of the policy deciders.
Yeah.
Or essentially - of the executives,of the staff there - as opposed to the
(23:25):
legislators stepping in to that role.
And so it's not like the GrantsPass decision, or the Supreme Court
ruling overturning that, which wasmore about - Hey, this policy is not
in-bounds constitutionally, or is.
This is more - You can't do it this way.
If a city could - essentially, itcould be argued that a city council
(23:47):
could decide to do this, but itcan't be done via initiative.
And so it's interesting because there wereother cities considering doing similar
things to this - have heard similar thingskicked around in some King County cities.
But this really gives some clarityand narrows the scope about what
is possible in citizen initiatives,both when it comes to dealing with
(24:12):
homelessness and any other issue.
We know that you can't havean initiative that covers more
than one subject - as we've seenseveral of those get overturned.
But here's another bound that is areminder that you have to craft your
initiatives carefully to make surethat they're constitutional - not
only with our federal constitution,but with our state constitution.
(24:35):
And if there's a question about that,they're going to be taken to court.
Right.
And the Supreme Court in Washington hasdone a really good job of - in as plain
English as they can - explaining what'sokay and what isn't okay in initiatives.
And I appreciate that.
It's actually pretty funto read their rulings.
(24:56):
I'm one of those people thatlove to read U.S. Supreme Court
rulings - whether I agree with themor not, they're usually interesting
the way that they cover the topic.
You learn a lot from them.
You definitely do.
And you can watch SupremeCourt proceedings in our
Temple of Justice on TVW.
And TVW - kind of our state's ownC-SPAN-type channel - that really
(25:20):
gives you an eye into right now, thelegislative session that's going on,
a lot of information about what'shappening in State departments, and
also our Washington Supreme Court.
And you can go there in person as well.
When the Supreme Court was debatingthe McCleary decision, I brought my
daughter with me when I was coveringthat case because it was education.
(25:44):
And I wanted her to have an opportunityto see that court in action.
And I knew that they always hadan interesting conversation.
It was very cool.
I just remember her - she had tosit on the floor because there
weren't enough seats in the room,but we got to be in the room.
So that was cool.
Absolutely.
Our Washington Supreme Court does areally admirable job - especially in
(26:07):
comparison to a lot of other states - ofmaking the court accessible, decisions
accessible, and really trying to helpeducate the public about the importance
and impact of the judicial system overall.
We have previously talked toJustices Mary Yu, Justice Whitener,
as well as our newest SupremeCourt justice, Justice Mungia.
(26:30):
And we had previously spokenwith Justice González also.
So a number who have just been interestedin communicating with the public,
making the court accessible, helpingpeople understand and access the court.
So I deeply appreciate that.
I also want to talk about some potentialconsequences from this legislative
session, as they are wrapping up budgetnegotiations - which Democrats in the
(26:54):
Legislature said have wrapped up andthey will announce what looks to be
the final budget as early as Friday,the day that you're hearing this.
We're actually recording this on Thursday.
But as some pretty significant cuts loom,the latest count shows there's a sharp
increase in homelessness and that someprograms that have been very helpful
(27:19):
in reducing homelessness and gettingpeople housed are on the chopping block.
What's happening hereand what may be affected?
So I am only following thelegislature these days as a
regular citizen, not as a reporter.
So I keep up as best as I can.
But there are cuts being considered.
(27:41):
There's a really successful programthat was allowing encampments on State
Department of Transportation land- temporary for the most part, but it
made a difference for a lot of people.
And that program seems to be going away,or at least being severely reduced.
(28:01):
So that's a major program that is paidfor by the state - the right-of-way
program, which was started under GovernorInslee - and had been really successful.
And one of the things, when rollingout that program, is they took a very
intentional, service-based approach.
So it was not just a sweep that bulldozesbelongings and forces people out of
(28:25):
one area, most often displacing them toanother area - but doesn't get people
into shelter or housing or anything - it'sessentially just you can't be here and
we're going to take everything that youhave and trash it if you try to stay.
To one, connecting people with services.
So it was run by Purpose.
Dignity.
(28:46):
Action.
which created a program called Co-LEAD,which provided temporary lodging and tried
to connect people to permanent housing.
And so they had resolved 23 encampments,moved 479 people into housing since
2022 - with more than two-thirdsof those people still being housed.
(29:07):
And that's one major metric thata lot of people pay attention
to - Is this just a temporary thing?
People are provided some temporaryshelter, but it's not making a difference
in getting people permanently housed andthey're just returning to the street?
Or are they really beingconnected to permanent housing?
Providing the extra level of connectionand service, and really working through
(29:29):
that had shown to be successful inmoving a much higher percentage of people
than average into permanent housing.
That number certainly pales incomparison to the number of people
who were unhoused, but it was onestate program looking to do that.
And others were looking to replicate it,but funding has been in short supply.
(29:51):
And this is at a time where we just gotthe numbers from the 2024 Point in Time
count, which is an usually annual countthat is required by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development,showing that this year, there were
almost 17,000 - they counted 16,868people in the Point in Time count - 26%
(30:15):
higher than the number of individualsliving in homelessness in 2022.
So significant increase, particularlyat a time where we have almost every
elected official saying that homelessnessis a top priority, certainly paying lip
service to saying they've taken action.
There have been different approaches.
In the city of Seattle, thatapproach has largely been a
(30:37):
sweep-not-connected-to-services approach.
And it looks like at this point in time,the numbers are moving in the wrong
direction instead of the right direction.
Now, the lack of, or the absence ofaffordable housing is the biggest
metric correlated with homelessness.
So as we see housing prices continueto escalate, it can be anticipated
(31:01):
and expected that we're goingto see those numbers going up.
And that's certainly a continuingdynamic in the city of Seattle
and around King County.
Interestingly, unsheltered and shelteredkey findings - they broke down available
shelter beds by King County sub-region,and then broke down how many homeless
(31:22):
people there are per available bed.
In North King County, thereare almost 10 people - 9.6 for
each individual available bed.
So, for every one person that has accessto a bed, nine others are without any
option for shelter or housing there.
(31:43):
By far the worst - yeah, by far the worst.
And Southeast is the secondworst, and it's much smaller
- it's two people per bed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And the rest are right around2 - 1.9 for South King County,
Seattle Metro, and East King County.
1.5 for Snoqualmie Valley.
And what's just striking is that alot of times in conversations about
(32:06):
homelessness, there's an assumptionthat - People wanted to get inside.
If they wanted shelter,there's shelter available.
And what numbers like this continueto make plain is that - man,
shelter is in short supply.
There's literally, best case scenario,about half of what's actually needed.
So in these conversations aboutfrontline enforcement and should we
(32:29):
create more zones where people are notallowed to camp or be - I don't know
how we divorce that conversation fromproviding available places for people
to go, if we're saying it's illegalfor people to not be in certain places.
And right now, we are woefullyshort and need - looking, like
(32:49):
here, 8,000 more beds easy, just tobe at a breakeven point right now.
And this number continues togo up, which means that that
need will continue to go up.
So there's a lot of work to do, but itreally seems like we need to make sure
and hold elected officials accountablefor dealing with the need for shelter.
(33:13):
At a time when the federal governmentis cutting money going everywhere
for all the important things.
And then you hear people are alwaystalking about - What about this city?
There's not homeless people on thestreets in this city, or that city.
Well, those are the cities that actuallyprovide a place for people to go.
There's a direct connection, like yousaid, between available shelter - and
(33:37):
not just temporary shelter, butpermanent shelter - for people.
People either have a right to shelterin this country, or they don't.
And apparently they don't.
Yeah.
And interestingly, in this- there's an article from Erica
Barnett about cuts looming.
As you said, federal cuts arehappening and need to be backfilled
(34:01):
- but also because of county budgetwoes and state budget woes.
And the options that have or have notbeen utilized to address those - there
are further shortfalls in funding andcuts in funding that look to be coming.
And they're basically saying - Unlessthere is more funding added, the King
(34:23):
County Regional Homelessness Authorityis looking at losing a lot of money.
And the services that they're ableto provide - already not enough
for the amount of demand outthere - are going to recede further.
And one potential budget tool that waspotentially an increase in the amount
of property taxes that the county isable to levy, which is capped at 1%.
(34:49):
1% increase.
Yep, 1% increase.
There were conversations aboutpotentially bumping that up to 3%.
Those died, so that does not look likeit's going to be a potential lever.
And it is not looking particularlypromising for what's going to be
unveiled tomorrow, that they're goingto be backfilling in some of these cuts.
(35:09):
And it doesn't look like the county isponying up much more, according to Dwight
Dively, the King County Budget Director.
Interestingly, King County CouncilmemberTeresa Mosqueda suggested another option.
Since funding is lacking at the county,state, and federal level, the King County
Regional Homelessness Authority could beempowered with its own taxing authority.
(35:33):
The King County Council and the regionexplicitly decided not to do that
before - when established previously,and made that decision explicit in 2019.
But Councilmember Mosquedanoted - they didn't just stand up
a regional homelessness authority,they stood up a funding mechanism
through voter-approved tax measures.
We did not add the ability forKCRHA to have taxing authority, and
(35:57):
I think that was a misstep then.
So there's potentially an option forproviding the King County Regional
Homelessness Authority with itsown taxing authority - I'm sure
that would be a lively and probablycontentious conversation and debate.
But we really have to decidewhat our priorities are here.
(36:19):
And if we say that homelessness is anemergency, it's a crisis, it's a priority,
and that's not backed up by funding - Idon't see how that's consistent.
Well, my hot take is - we haveseparate taxes to support our
stadiums, our athletic facilities.
This seems like a much higher priorityto me than whether the Mariners
(36:41):
have a beautiful stadium to play in.
I would agree with you there.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 25th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today is formernews editor at Cascade PBS - also on
(37:02):
Substack, where her newsletter is calledCivics for Adults - Donna Blankinship.
Donna, how can people signup for your newsletter?
Well, just Google "Civics for Adultson Substack" and you'll find it.
Absolutely.
We can also put a link in the show notes.
You can find Donna onBluesky @dgblankinship.
(37:23):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky @HacksAndWonks, and
you can find me at @finchfrii.
We'll throw all of thatin the show notes also.
You catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed - next
(37:45):
week, we have another SeattleCity Attorney candidate teed up.
So if you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
And you can get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in this showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - we'll talk to you next
(38:11):
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,I chatted with Seattle City Attorney
candidate Nathan Rouse about his visionfor reforming the office through the
lens of his public defender experience,his criticism of incumbent Republican
(00:45):
Ann Davison's approach, and his proposalof alternative solutions focused
on addressing root causes of crime.
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 for the firsttime, friend of the show and today's
co-host (01:02):
former news editor at Cascade PBS and publisher of the Civics for Adults
newsletter on Substack, Donna Blankinship.
Welcome!
Thank you.
Nice to be here - thanks for inviting me.
Great to have you here.
Now, just mentioned you're the publisherof the Civics for Adults newsletter.
Can you tell us a bit about thatnewsletter and what your goal is there?
(01:25):
So I'm semi-retired now and Iwanted to pursue a passion project,
which is helping educate voters andnon-voters about how our government
works - because I am hopeful that thatwork will lead to more voter turnout.
Absolutely.
Well, that is certainly a noble endeavor.
(01:46):
And we can use a ton of that,a ton more of that these days.
Well, starting with the news of theweek - unfortunate news, really sad news
- that state Senator Bill Ramos passedaway unexpectedly this past weekend.
What are some of the reflectionsyou've seen about Senator Ramos,
and what have people been saying?
(02:09):
Well, I've noticed howpersonal the reflections were.
I didn't know him personally,but he seemed to be the kind of
lawmaker that people connectedwith on a person-to-person level.
He seemed to be very effective.
He was in the Legislature for along time, which makes him someone
that people listen to - apparently,his constituents liked him a lot.
(02:32):
Well, certainly, he had - afterthree terms in the House, he just
recently joined the state Senate.
He is from the state 5th LegislativeDistrict, which includes Issaquah.
He actually passed away whileon a trail run - just 69 years
old - so certainly unexpected.
He was married to King CountyCouncilmember Sarah Perry, so we
(02:56):
certainly send our condolences to herand just a really, really tough time.
But he was a member of the LatinoDemocratic Caucus, served in the
U.S. Forest Service, Federal TransitAdministration, and on the Issaquah City
Council before joining the Legislature.
So a lifetime of public service.
Lifetime of public service, and was alongtime leader of Dance All Night in
(03:20):
the Cascade Foothills, where he taughtballroom, salsa, and swing dancing.
The Washington State Standard andJake Goldstein-Street wrote a great
article covering what a lot of peoplehad to say and remembering his life.
Tributes poured in all throughoutthe weekend and since - from members
(03:41):
of Congress, Governor Bob Ferguson.
Ferguson said he just saw Ramos and Perrya week ago at an event, saying - 'It was
a typical conversation with them - bighugs, wide smiles, and lots of laughter.
I will so miss him.' Laurie Jinkins,Speaker of the House, said Ramos worked
on legislation 'to ensure more effective,accountable, and equitable government
(04:03):
for all people in Washington.' Saying'he was a tireless champion for improving
our transportation system, makingour communities safer, and protecting
Washington's natural resources and outdoorspaces.' And he died on a trail run, and
Sarah Perry had said that that was typicalof him - to connect with nature and to
try and get out and reconnect that way.
(04:26):
And so just really sad to hear about that.
He's survived by Perry and histwo adult children, Max and Maya.
And so just pass along ourcondolences for all of his colleagues.
The King County Council has 30 days toappoint a replacement for Ramos in the
Legislature from a list of candidates thatthe 5th District Democrats will provide.
(04:51):
So just sad to see, and we certainlyshare in passing along our condolences.
Yes, indeed - yes.
I want to talk about a few differentnotes and news about items that
have been or will be on the ballot.
Just talking about some ballot initiativesthat we covered last week and the week
(05:13):
before - a King County special electionand a City of Tacoma special election.
For King County voters, in just aone-issue ballot in April - which a
number of people thought was eithercurious or ill-advised, depending on who
you speak to - King County voters passedthe AFIS, the Automated Fingerprint
(05:36):
identification System, continuingfunding for that in King County.
Looks like currently, it has justshy of about 60% of the vote.
Pretty expected vote - this had beena continuing levy that was just up
for renewal across the county, was notan organized opposition against it.
And so even in a low turnoutelection, just kind of
(05:59):
continuing as things had been.
Any thoughts on this that you saw?
Well, I wanted to comment on thelow turnout election because there's
a lot of talk in Washington andother places that we might want to
consider switching to having fewerelections so that turnout is better.
The argument against that has beenthat it makes the ballot really
(06:21):
long, but we all opened thatballot and saw one item on there.
And that just seems - I don'tknow - wasteful, I guess.
It does seem wasteful - to me, also.
I know I heard a lot of other people that- particularly when we're talking about
budget challenges with the county - andso thought that it was an odd choice.
(06:44):
At least seems like it would have madesense to put this on - perhaps - the
August ballot that was already going to becoming, that would have other candidates
and potentially measures on there.
So I hope we don't see much more of this.
As you talked about, there has beena movement gaining traction to move
to even-year elections that wouldconsolidate the elections that we have,
(07:07):
move those to higher turnout elections.
And some people with that say- Well, that advantages Democrats.
And that is not the case across the board-
No, it advantages voters, I think.
It absolutely advantages voters.
And really, it advantages what thepopular sentiment generally leans to.
(07:28):
So in blue areas, you're going to seehigher turnout elections trend blue.
In red areas, you're going to seehigher turnout elections trend red.
We saw across the country higherturnout elections trend slightly
red - this past election, we'vecertainly seen that in the past.
So it's really not an issue of does itadvantage a particular party or another.
(07:48):
It is about - can more voters participatein making their voices heard and in
shaping the policy for their communities?
Right.
And voter turnout is somethingthat's really important.
Because we want the majority of peopleto tell us what they think about
policies and who represents them.
(08:11):
And Washington state has rules about whenelections can be, depending on what it's
for - but those rules can be changed andit really is important for more people.
And also, I would say that people whodon't vote very often - when they get
a ballot they're not expecting, areprobably just letting it sit there.
(08:32):
And it's really not that hardto vote in Washington - the
ballot arrives in your mailbox.
But it would be good to have itso that it arrives less often.
I certainly agree with that.
And one area where it looks like a lowturnout election may have influenced
an outcome is in the City of Tacomarenewal of their street maintenance
(08:56):
levy - which had been slightly expandedto include some Vision Zero goals,
given some of the really high profileincidences of traffic violence that
they've experienced in recent years.
This measure failed.
If you have paid attention to Tacoma, youknow that street maintenance has been a
hot issue, and pothole repair has been ahot issue for - geez, the past 15+ years.
(09:21):
But it seems like a big challengewas - this was a very, very low
turnout election in the city.
A lot of people just didn't know that thiswas on the ballot, that nowadays a lot of
people do not check their mail every day.
I don't.
Sometimes, not every week.
So much comes online.
And so this was justunexpected for a lot of people.
(09:45):
The ballot language sometimes can bereally thick and hard to understand.
And so in the absence of significantcampaigns to educate voters - which
there was not here - people justdon't know, people aren't plugged in.
And so it looks like this will end upvery narrowly failing - reaching 48%, 49%.
(10:05):
But they're going to have toregroup and decide what to do.
But as this stands, there's kindof a cliff of funding ending for
road maintenance and for trafficsafety measures there in Tacoma.
So it'll be interesting tosee what happens from here.
Do you know if the Tacoma ballotwas just one issue as well?
It was.
(10:25):
And it's just such a strange time of year.
It's like - maybe we'd see a schoollevy right now, but I don't think so.
Well, let me amend that.
City of Tacoma - yes.
There were also some individualdistricts in the county, in the same
way that there were some individualdistricts in King County that may
(10:45):
have passed their own measures.
So they're-
Like water district or something or-
Water districts, and there were someschool levies throughout the state
that were on there - so it dependson people's local jurisdictions.
But for the majority of people, there wasjust one ballot measure on their ballot.
And generally, when it's a schoollevy - we're a lot more aware
of it and paying more attention.
(11:07):
At least I think I am, andI think a lot of people are.
Yeah, and a lot of times it's easierto communicate those - because parents
are looking for information from theschool, from the district, there's a
direct line of communication there.
Where here - just generalinformation - it becomes a bit tougher.
Also want to talk about a coupleof items that will come to
(11:30):
our ballots here pretty soon.
One, the Seattle DemocracyVoucher renewal is set to appear
on the August ballot this year.
Can you talk a little bit about whatDemocracy Vouchers are and the difference
people have said that they've made?
Yeah, so Democracy Vouchers are away to get more citizens involved
(11:52):
in supporting their elections.
And it's a Seattle project - hasn'tbeen duplicated in very many places
across the country, it's beenan interesting experiment here.
The goal was to democratize electionsby giving candidates an ability to
get money directly from citizens,even if they don't have their own
(12:13):
personal dollars to contribute.
And they have found that morepeople participate in the
financial part of elections.
But also, one of the other goals wasto get more people to run for office.
And I don't know the latestdata, but I do know that a lot of
(12:33):
people run for office in Seattle.
And it's not just the usual suspectswho have corporate or family
wealth - it's all kinds of people.
And I think Democracy Vouchershave made a difference there.
For those who don't know how theywork, you can hand a voucher - which
we get in the mail - to a candidate.
You can assign it to them online.
(12:56):
Candidates can even come to your doorand ask you for a voucher or at an event.
So it's really grassroots and interesting.
I don't know why other municipalitieshaven't adopted this idea,
but it's kind of cool, though.
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
Other municipalities areworking on that idea right now.
Basically, every resident of Seattlewho's a U.S. citizen or Green Card
(13:19):
holder gets four $25 vouchers thatthey can choose to give to any
candidate who signs up for the program.
It's been a long-standing challenge- elections are really expensive.
Problem number one - they'revery, very expensive to run.
And just - there was a thought a decadeback, 15, 20 years back, where - Oh,
(13:40):
social media is here, and that's going tocompletely democratize campaigns itself.
It's going to make it free tocommunicate directly with people.
We see what's happened with there - youessentially have to pay to boost
your message digitally anyway.
And so reaching large amounts ofpeople costs a lot of money - hiring
campaign staff, field programs, gettingyour word out through advertisements
(14:05):
- both digital, mail, ads - it is areally, really expensive thing, in
the hundreds of thousands of dollarsfor major cities, including Seattle.
And that was just out ofreach for a lot of people.
And advantages people who alreadyare coming from wealth or money,
have a lot of wealthy friends, orwho are being supported by usually
wealthy corporate interests.
(14:28):
And that really narrowed the pool ofwho was able to run and the type of
representation that we were getting.
There are a lot of sittingcouncilmembers and people who've run
for office who credit the DemocracyVoucher program for enabling their
candidacy and fueling their run.
Dan Strauss has said that that enabled himto not accept what he called "problematic
(14:52):
contributions," saying that it allowedhim more independence, essentially, to
run, to focus on representing the peopleinstead of representing corporate donors
who he would need to get funding from.
So it functions as a measure ofaccountability to voters, helps to
even the playing field financially- that's certainly the goal.
(15:13):
And hearing from virtually all ofthe councilmembers on the Seattle
City Council, saying that it's avaluable program that should continue.
And they opted to put thatrenewal on the August ballot.
So all Seattle voters aregoing to be voting on that
coming up in a few months here.
And it's been verypopular, been successful.
(15:34):
It's going to be funded at a slightlyhigher level because of both the
popularity of the program and its higherutilization among candidates, and the
number of candidates who are usingthat - so slightly higher renewal amount.
I also think - you know thatsaying about buy-in, right?
So as a voter, when you vote for someone,you feel like they're your person.
(15:57):
But if you not just vote for them, butyou also support their candidacy - even
if it's public mone -, that's oneother way that you feel like that's
your person who's representing you.
And I think that's very powerful.
Yeah, I absolutely agree.
So we'll be seeing that.
And also, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell isproposing renewing the Seattle Education
(16:22):
Levy, but doubling it to $1.3 billion.
Now, this Seattle Education Levy - it'snot a levy from the district, it's a
levy from the city that provides a lotof wraparound services for the district.
Can you talk a little bit about whatthis would provide, and why Mayor Harrell
felt it important to expand this levy?
(16:44):
Well, part of the expansion is itjust costs more to run preschools
and do wraparound services.
Salaries are more expensive - allkinds of costs have gone up since
the last time it was renewed.
Seattle has a preschool program that'sa subsidized preschool - that's in
addition to what the state does.
(17:04):
And it's not just for the lowest incomefamilies - medium income families
can get access to those preschool.
Almost every research study that'sdone says that quality preschool
makes a huge difference in a child'sability to succeed later in life.
And frankly, these days,preschool is hugely expensive.
(17:26):
And parents - sometimes it's achoice between working and putting
your kid in preschool, becauseyou can't afford to do both.
Also, the wraparound services thatyou were talking about - everybody
agrees that schools are not providingall of the mental health support.
It came out of a time when mayorswere being encouraged to take a bigger
(17:52):
role in education, that cities thriveif their education systems are good.
And Seattle wants to have a world-classeducation system, and it keeps
trying and trying to get there.
So it's helpful, this extra money.
And Seattle voters really arehappy to vote Yes on spending tax
(18:15):
money on things that they believein - and people believe in education.
People absolutely believein education in Seattle.
Most voters in Seattle are happy tofund services that they find value in.
Voters at the highest end of theincome and wealth ladder are least
likely to do that, but most otherSeattle voters do support that.
(18:39):
And you talked about how expensivechildcare is now, and how important
funding for preschool and someof those wraparound services are.
Childcare is now more expensivethan in-state college tuition, which
is just - I was talking to someonewho is a new dad not that long
(18:59):
ago, who's plugged in, a wonky guy.
And he's like - You know, I had heardthat talking point that childcare
was more expensive than tuition.
But he's paying over $3,000a month for childcare costs.
And it is just
- I don't know how a lotof people are doing it.
(19:20):
And really, a lot of people arereally struggling to do it and having
to make some really tough decisionsthat are having major impacts on
their economic mobility, on theirprofessional and job advancement options.
So it's just a real challenge.
But this is more than - certainly,the bulk goes to young children.
There's also a significant amountspent on Seattle graduates going to
(19:43):
community college and trying to fundthe first two years of community college
and prepare people for readiness, so-
And that's been a verysuccessful program as well.
It really has.
And so looking at doubling down onthis - with Mayor Harrell saying,
particularly with cuts coming from thefederal administration, that this is a
(20:05):
really important time to not only doubledown on this, but make sure that we
don't go backwards in these areas that,as you said, have been showing a lot of
success and a major return on investment.
So Mayor Harrell has branded this theEvery Child Ready proposal, saying that
it'll usher in transformative investmentsthat'll make Seattle one of the best
(20:25):
cities in the nation to start and raisea family, supporting our children from
cradle to classroom - into college andbeyond - toward successful careers.
And, you know, I've not been shyabout criticizing areas where I may
disagree with Mayor Harrell, but Ithink this is right on the money.
It's a great investmentwhere we get a great return.
(20:47):
And doubling down on thisis the right thing to do.
I'm happy to see it.
Me too.
I also want to talk about a significantWashington Supreme Court decision striking
down a Spokane homelessness initiative.
What happened here andwhy was it struck down?
So this is very complicated, and it'swhy I value newspapers to explain
(21:12):
stuff like this to me because justreading the case is really complicated.
So apparently, citizens in Spokanewanted to crack down on homelessness.
And so they passed an initiativesaying the city needed to get
people off the streets - it'smuch more complicated than that.
And a lot of initiatives end up inthe Supreme Court to decide whether
(21:35):
they are constitutional or not.
And if I remember correctly, thiscase was struck down because of
the way the initiative was worded.
And also because - citizens canvoice their opinion in initiatives in
certain ways, but not in other ways.
(21:57):
I'm trying to explain thisin plain English, but like I
said - it's really complicated.
Well, it's interesting.
So in this, Spokane voters approvedan initiative to ban camping
within a thousand feet of parks,schools, and licensed daycares.
And so you could be issueda citation if you did that.
And the Supreme Court essentially saidthat - according to our Washington
(22:18):
Constitution, voters can passinitiatives that deal with policy,
that make legislative changes.
But it is actually unconstitutionalto pass initiatives that deal
with administrative changes.
Kind of the difference between layingout a broad policy goal versus how
(22:39):
you enforce that specific goal.
So the Supreme Court essentially said- This wasn't a change in policy, this was
about how to enforce an existing policy.
And that's the area that you can'tget into - if you're changing a
policy, if you're establishinga new policy, that's permitted.
But what they said is - This wasa law that was already on the
(23:00):
books, they had already decidedon essentially what the policy was
on the approach to homelessness.
This was more on how to manage withinbounds that were already established.
Right.
So the citizens were trying to be thelawmakers instead of the policy deciders.
Yeah.
Or essentially - of the executives,of the staff there - as opposed to the
(23:25):
legislators stepping in to that role.
And so it's not like the GrantsPass decision, or the Supreme Court
ruling overturning that, which wasmore about - Hey, this policy is not
in-bounds constitutionally, or is.
This is more - You can't do it this way.
If a city could - essentially, itcould be argued that a city council
(23:47):
could decide to do this, but itcan't be done via initiative.
And so it's interesting because there wereother cities considering doing similar
things to this - have heard similar thingskicked around in some King County cities.
But this really gives some clarityand narrows the scope about what
is possible in citizen initiatives,both when it comes to dealing with
(24:12):
homelessness and any other issue.
We know that you can't havean initiative that covers more
than one subject - as we've seenseveral of those get overturned.
But here's another bound that is areminder that you have to craft your
initiatives carefully to make surethat they're constitutional - not
only with our federal constitution,but with our state constitution.
(24:35):
And if there's a question about that,they're going to be taken to court.
Right.
And the Supreme Court in Washington hasdone a really good job of - in as plain
English as they can - explaining what'sokay and what isn't okay in initiatives.
And I appreciate that.
It's actually pretty funto read their rulings.
(24:56):
I'm one of those people thatlove to read U.S. Supreme Court
rulings - whether I agree with themor not, they're usually interesting
the way that they cover the topic.
You learn a lot from them.
You definitely do.
And you can watch SupremeCourt proceedings in our
Temple of Justice on TVW.
And TVW - kind of our state's ownC-SPAN-type channel - that really
(25:20):
gives you an eye into right now, thelegislative session that's going on,
a lot of information about what'shappening in State departments, and
also our Washington Supreme Court.
And you can go there in person as well.
When the Supreme Court was debatingthe McCleary decision, I brought my
daughter with me when I was coveringthat case because it was education.
(25:44):
And I wanted her to have an opportunityto see that court in action.
And I knew that they always hadan interesting conversation.
It was very cool.
I just remember her - she had tosit on the floor because there
weren't enough seats in the room,but we got to be in the room.
So that was cool.
Absolutely.
Our Washington Supreme Court does areally admirable job - especially in
(26:07):
comparison to a lot of other states - ofmaking the court accessible, decisions
accessible, and really trying to helpeducate the public about the importance
and impact of the judicial system overall.
We have previously talked toJustices Mary Yu, Justice Whitener,
as well as our newest SupremeCourt justice, Justice Mungia.
(26:30):
And we had previously spokenwith Justice González also.
So a number who have just been interestedin communicating with the public,
making the court accessible, helpingpeople understand and access the court.
So I deeply appreciate that.
I also want to talk about some potentialconsequences from this legislative
session, as they are wrapping up budgetnegotiations - which Democrats in the
(26:54):
Legislature said have wrapped up andthey will announce what looks to be
the final budget as early as Friday,the day that you're hearing this.
We're actually recording this on Thursday.
But as some pretty significant cuts loom,the latest count shows there's a sharp
increase in homelessness and that someprograms that have been very helpful
(27:19):
in reducing homelessness and gettingpeople housed are on the chopping block.
What's happening hereand what may be affected?
So I am only following thelegislature these days as a
regular citizen, not as a reporter.
So I keep up as best as I can.
But there are cuts being considered.
(27:41):
There's a really successful programthat was allowing encampments on State
Department of Transportation land- temporary for the most part, but it
made a difference for a lot of people.
And that program seems to be going away,or at least being severely reduced.
(28:01):
So that's a major program that is paidfor by the state - the right-of-way
program, which was started under GovernorInslee - and had been really successful.
And one of the things, when rollingout that program, is they took a very
intentional, service-based approach.
So it was not just a sweep that bulldozesbelongings and forces people out of
(28:25):
one area, most often displacing them toanother area - but doesn't get people
into shelter or housing or anything - it'sessentially just you can't be here and
we're going to take everything that youhave and trash it if you try to stay.
To one, connecting people with services.
So it was run by Purpose.
Dignity.
(28:46):
Action.
which created a program called Co-LEAD,which provided temporary lodging and tried
to connect people to permanent housing.
And so they had resolved 23 encampments,moved 479 people into housing since
2022 - with more than two-thirdsof those people still being housed.
(29:07):
And that's one major metric thata lot of people pay attention
to - Is this just a temporary thing?
People are provided some temporaryshelter, but it's not making a difference
in getting people permanently housed andthey're just returning to the street?
Or are they really beingconnected to permanent housing?
Providing the extra level of connectionand service, and really working through
(29:29):
that had shown to be successful inmoving a much higher percentage of people
than average into permanent housing.
That number certainly pales incomparison to the number of people
who were unhoused, but it was onestate program looking to do that.
And others were looking to replicate it,but funding has been in short supply.
(29:51):
And this is at a time where we just gotthe numbers from the 2024 Point in Time
count, which is an usually annual countthat is required by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development,showing that this year, there were
almost 17,000 - they counted 16,868people in the Point in Time count - 26%
(30:15):
higher than the number of individualsliving in homelessness in 2022.
So significant increase, particularlyat a time where we have almost every
elected official saying that homelessnessis a top priority, certainly paying lip
service to saying they've taken action.
There have been different approaches.
In the city of Seattle, thatapproach has largely been a
(30:37):
sweep-not-connected-to-services approach.
And it looks like at this point in time,the numbers are moving in the wrong
direction instead of the right direction.
Now, the lack of, or the absence ofaffordable housing is the biggest
metric correlated with homelessness.
So as we see housing prices continueto escalate, it can be anticipated
(31:01):
and expected that we're goingto see those numbers going up.
And that's certainly a continuingdynamic in the city of Seattle
and around King County.
Interestingly, unsheltered and shelteredkey findings - they broke down available
shelter beds by King County sub-region,and then broke down how many homeless
(31:22):
people there are per available bed.
In North King County, thereare almost 10 people - 9.6 for
each individual available bed.
So, for every one person that has accessto a bed, nine others are without any
option for shelter or housing there.
(31:43):
By far the worst - yeah, by far the worst.
And Southeast is the secondworst, and it's much smaller
- it's two people per bed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And the rest are right around2 - 1.9 for South King County,
Seattle Metro, and East King County.
1.5 for Snoqualmie Valley.
And what's just striking is that alot of times in conversations about
(32:06):
homelessness, there's an assumptionthat - People wanted to get inside.
If they wanted shelter,there's shelter available.
And what numbers like this continueto make plain is that - man,
shelter is in short supply.
There's literally, best case scenario,about half of what's actually needed.
So in these conversations aboutfrontline enforcement and should we
(32:29):
create more zones where people are notallowed to camp or be - I don't know
how we divorce that conversation fromproviding available places for people
to go, if we're saying it's illegalfor people to not be in certain places.
And right now, we are woefullyshort and need - looking, like
(32:49):
here, 8,000 more beds easy, just tobe at a breakeven point right now.
And this number continues togo up, which means that that
need will continue to go up.
So there's a lot of work to do, but itreally seems like we need to make sure
and hold elected officials accountablefor dealing with the need for shelter.
(33:13):
At a time when the federal governmentis cutting money going everywhere
for all the important things.
And then you hear people are alwaystalking about - What about this city?
There's not homeless people on thestreets in this city, or that city.
Well, those are the cities that actuallyprovide a place for people to go.
There's a direct connection, like yousaid, between available shelter - and
(33:37):
not just temporary shelter, butpermanent shelter - for people.
People either have a right to shelterin this country, or they don't.
And apparently they don't.
Yeah.
And interestingly, in this- there's an article from Erica
Barnett about cuts looming.
As you said, federal cuts arehappening and need to be backfilled
(34:01):
- but also because of county budgetwoes and state budget woes.
And the options that have or have notbeen utilized to address those - there
are further shortfalls in funding andcuts in funding that look to be coming.
And they're basically saying - Unlessthere is more funding added, the King
(34:23):
County Regional Homelessness Authorityis looking at losing a lot of money.
And the services that they're ableto provide - already not enough
for the amount of demand outthere - are going to recede further.
And one potential budget tool that waspotentially an increase in the amount
of property taxes that the county isable to levy, which is capped at 1%.
(34:49):
1% increase.
Yep, 1% increase.
There were conversations aboutpotentially bumping that up to 3%.
Those died, so that does not look likeit's going to be a potential lever.
And it is not looking particularlypromising for what's going to be
unveiled tomorrow, that they're goingto be backfilling in some of these cuts.
(35:09):
And it doesn't look like the county isponying up much more, according to Dwight
Dively, the King County Budget Director.
Interestingly, King County CouncilmemberTeresa Mosqueda suggested another option.
Since funding is lacking at the county,state, and federal level, the King County
Regional Homelessness Authority could beempowered with its own taxing authority.
(35:33):
The King County Council and the regionexplicitly decided not to do that
before - when established previously,and made that decision explicit in 2019.
But Councilmember Mosquedanoted - they didn't just stand up
a regional homelessness authority,they stood up a funding mechanism
through voter-approved tax measures.
We did not add the ability forKCRHA to have taxing authority, and
(35:57):
I think that was a misstep then.
So there's potentially an option forproviding the King County Regional
Homelessness Authority with itsown taxing authority - I'm sure
that would be a lively and probablycontentious conversation and debate.
But we really have to decidewhat our priorities are here.
(36:19):
And if we say that homelessness is anemergency, it's a crisis, it's a priority,
and that's not backed up by funding - Idon't see how that's consistent.
Well, my hot take is - we haveseparate taxes to support our
stadiums, our athletic facilities.
This seems like a much higher priorityto me than whether the Mariners
(36:41):
have a beautiful stadium to play in.
I would agree with you there.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
this Friday, April 25th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today is formernews editor at Cascade PBS - also on
(37:02):
Substack, where her newsletter is calledCivics for Adults - Donna Blankinship.
Donna, how can people signup for your newsletter?
Well, just Google "Civics for Adultson Substack" and you'll find it.
Absolutely.
We can also put a link in the show notes.
You can find Donna onBluesky @dgblankinship.
(37:23):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky @HacksAndWonks, and
you can find me at @finchfrii.
We'll throw all of thatin the show notes also.
You catch Hacks & Wonks on ApplePodcasts, Spotify, or wherever else
you get your podcasts - just type"Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to get the fullversions of our Friday week-in-review
shows and our Tuesday topical showdelivered to your podcast feed - next
(37:45):
week, we have another SeattleCity Attorney candidate teed up.
So if you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
And you can get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in this showat officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuningin - we'll talk to you next
(38:11):
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