May 30, 2025 • 36 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Josh Cohen discuss:
🏳️⚧️ “Protect Our Kids” anti-trans rally & counterprotests
📉 Every Seattle elected = negative approval
🏘️ Seattle's interim missing middle housing
🤦 Essential behavioral health facilities stymied
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, Josh Cohen at @jcohenwrites.
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 Eddie Lin, candidate for
Seattle City Council District 2, abouthis stance on housing affordability,
(00:42):
public safety, transportation, andmore - including the Hacks & Wonks
Lightning Round - as well as hisgovernment experience and commitment
to community-driven solutions.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend ofthe show and today's co-host: Cascade
(01:03):
PBS city reporter covering Seattlegovernment, politics, and the issues
that shape life in the city, Josh Cohen!
Hey, great to have you.
Hello - thanks so much for having me.
So I am pumped that you're here andto talk about this this week - I
am not pumped about the firsttopic, but it's been dominating
news coverage attention this week.
(01:25):
The Protect Our Kids Rally of religiousleaders - who are basically taking an
anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ stance - takingover Cal Anderson Park, leading
to a counter-protest and arrests.
And another protest, and more arrests,another protest targeted for August 30th.
(01:48):
How did this come to be?
How did this start?
And who is behind theProtect Our Kids Rally?
Yeah, story of the week, for sure.
So this has been in the works for a while.
This group, Mayday USA,which is a conglomeration
(02:09):
of evangelicals, preachers and churches- very much Christian organizations
- they've been doing this five-city tour.
I think, mostly liberal West coastcities - getting the word of God
out on the street in liberal placeslike Seattle and San Francisco, LA.
So way back in February, they appliedto hold their big 500-ish person
(02:34):
rally, concert, public prayer.
They were giving outfree haircuts to folks.
They applied to hold it Downtown, onthe street near Pike Place, but the
city denied that and instead offeredthem up a space in Cal Anderson
Park - in the heart of Capitol Hill,city's historically gay neighborhood.
They also offered up space, or said therewas space, available in South Lake Union.
(03:00):
And Mayday USA applied to holdthe rally in Cal Anderson.
And, like you said, explicitly anti-trans,anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, and like,
went into it with an antagonistic aim.
Like they wanted to stir up areaction from Seattle, from the
(03:22):
LGBT community - and they got it.
There was a big counter-protest,as you said, on Saturday.
A huge police presence ultimatelyended up being conflict, for lack
of a better word, between police andalmost exclusively counter-protesters.
I think 23 people gotarrested on Saturday.
(03:43):
Police were using pepper spray andbatons, and people complaining about
just an excess response from the police.
All in all, I would say - a big mess.
And then Mayor Bruce Harrell denounced theMayday USA folks, accusing them of coming
in to antagonize the LGBTQ community anddecried them as an extremist right-wing
(04:04):
group, which then led to Tuesday'sprotest - another four-hour affair
outside of City Hall, with, again, lotsof police, lots of counter-protesters,
eight more arrests of counter-protesters.
Big, big, messy affair.
And just a few interestingthreads coming from it.
There's been a lot of people sayingthe city never should have issued
(04:25):
this permit, or they shouldn'thave issued it for Cal Anderson.
It is interesting - the city codeand our U.S. Constitution is pretty
cut and dry about issuing the permit.
It is a free speech, free assembly event,and the city does not really have grounds
to deny it based on the substance.
I was asking the Mayor's office if thereare instances where they would deny
(04:50):
an event - say if it's hate speech oran explicit hate group - and it sounds
like their answers are pretty firm.
No, they don't do that.
The only time they deny permitsis logistical things, like the
space is not big enough for wherethe group applied and whatnot.
And then there's another thread of itwhere people are saying - Well, they
shouldn't have issued it for Cal Anderson.
(05:12):
You know, again, having a group that'sexplicitly anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ
going to the heart of Seattle'sGayborhood in a park named after
the first gay state legislator, CalAnderson, is just sort of asking
for the messy trouble that they got.
(05:35):
Seems like a provocation in itself.
Yeah, and I don't have aclear answer yet on that.
I'm still pushing to understand - couldthe city choose, in the interest of,
like, trying to minimize conflict?
Could they say - No, you can't haveit here, but you can have it in, say,
South Lake Union, or at the WestlakeCenter, or whatever it might be?
Well, and they can and have before.
(05:56):
As a matter of fact, they didwith this particular protest.
So this one, where they initiallyapplied to have it, they said - No,
you are not able to have it there.
But we can work togetheron another location.
They have denied permits beforeon a staffing basis, saying that
they aren't able to adequatelystaff and keep people safe.
Certainly, the staffing needs at CalAnderson could be predicted to be much
(06:21):
higher - given the provocation and theneed for SPD presence, other people there.
And the level of staffing wouldpredictably be higher there than it
would at other locations in the city.
In the same way that if the KKK wanted tohave a protest at the Northwest African
American Museum, at historically Blackspaces, that would - one, be an obvious
(06:47):
provocation and someone looking toprovoke and incite a reaction that could
be predictably violent, certainly tense.
And two, with all of the otherchoices, you could say - Ah, our
staffing needs would not be as great.
Here, we would bestruggling to contain this.
So I think that one, you make excellentpoints in that - just on content alone,
(07:13):
of course, you can't deny a permit.
People have a First Amendmentright to protected speech
to say what they want to do.
I think where a lot of peoplewere questioning was on - if they
already said no to one location,why was it yes at Cal Anderson?
Why was this one of thethings suggested by the city?
How did that make any kind of sense?
(07:35):
Why did they think they wouldbe able to staff it adequately?
Was someone just completely asleepat the wheel, or was someone
aligned with the provocation here?
Because this should have been foreseeable.
And the one councilmember who wasthere and seemingly engaged on the
day-of - Alexis Mercedes Rinck - hadsaid that she was calling hours before
(07:57):
the end of this rally, before theescalation and a lot of the tension.
Saying, this is headed in a bad direction.
I don't think we can keep a lid on thisand keep this peaceful and contained.
We should be calling this off.
And then the other set of questions I'veseen - not just about the rally over the
weekend, but the one on Tuesday - wasthe conduct and the content of the rally.
(08:22):
One, if you're holding a rallyin a public space, the public
is supposed to be invited.
In some of these - especially the oneon Tuesday - they were not allowing
all members of the public to attend.
They were screening - askingwhat churches people belonged
to, not letting them in there.
They had significant, high-poweredaudio equipment - that there are
(08:45):
different thresholds and permitteduses for what a permit is.
If it's a rally or a protest, that'sdifferent than holding a concert - having
a private event using a public space.
So it's interesting just to seewhat is protected and permitted in
different cases, because it seemsto have been inconsistent between
this and other rallies and protestswith other organizations from other
(09:09):
ideological perspectives before.
Certainly a lot ofquestions being raised here.
Yeah, and it seems like - especiallyTuesday's follow-up rally came
after this huge national attention.
Right-wing media reallygrabbed onto this story.
And like lots of angry religious figuresand right-wing media figures targeting
(09:32):
Harrell and say - He either needs toapologize or resign for his statements
about us being "extremists," etc., etc.And so, yeah, you kind of have to assume
that Tuesday's event - counterfactual,who knows how it would have gone in
other circumstances, but I kind of gotthe impression that it was amplified
and a private event on City Hall Plazaand all of these other things that
(09:55):
aren't allowed in the city rules.
And that probably the Harrelladministration didn't want to invite even
more backlash from all these nationalfigures in the wake of the backlash
that was already coming out of Saturday.
So, yeah, I have to assumethat that was a bit of a factor
in their logic at City Hall.
(10:16):
And I think it's worth mentioning thatalso, Saturday was the first time post
the City Council changing rules around,or basically rolling back restrictions
around, "less lethal weapons" - crowdcontrol stuff like pepper spray and the
long sticks, the batons and blast balls.
(10:39):
Our City Council repealed restrictions onthose that were placed on SPD by the last
City Council, I want to say 2020 or 2021.
And so another piece of this comingout of Saturday is a lot of concern
about overreaction by SPD targetedat trans, LGBTQ counter-protesters.
(11:01):
And there's some intense photos andvideos that came out of Saturday of
eight or ten officers swarming somebodyand tackling them for an arrest, or an
officer pepper-spraying two young womenthat are already lying on the ground.
And Police Chief Barnes has saidhe is investigating and they're
going to do a review of it.
(11:22):
I think Harrell has said similar.
But a moment where our police, whichpart of the consent decree from the feds,
the federal oversight, is overuse offorce in crowd control situations - like
here we are with the sort of leash off.
And I think a lot of people aredeeply upset about how the police
(11:42):
responded to the counter-protest.
And again, I guess worth mentioningthat the only people who got
arrested were counter-protesters onSaturday and then again on Tuesday.
Yeah, absolutely worth mentioningand continuing to pay attention to.
So just a lot coming out of this.
Danny Westneat, who always has acolumn, had a column about this.
(12:04):
He makes various points in there.
But one of them I do agree withis that the Harrell administration
essentially played themselves here, andthey're inviting this as a tactic now
- certainly for the rest of the summer.
The right now knows that they have paintedthis administration into a corner here.
(12:26):
And they can use this for attention,they can use this to provoke a reaction.
Whether he permits them and they'reallowed to spew their rhetoric in the
middle of Seattle's queer neighborhood,or they can act persecuted for being
denied a space or moved somewhere else.
(12:47):
That's going to be milked for attention- that it appears the administration is not
up to handling effectively, according tothe way a lot of people are talking now.
Yeah, a tough spot for city leaders.
I think, for sure, like, there willdefinitely - and we already know that
August 30, there's an event permittedat Cal Anderson Park by the same group.
(13:10):
And I would not be surprised, likeyou said, if there's more of it - that
is reminiscent of what we saw inPortland, with Proud Boys just holding
rally after rally in the heart of"Antifa" territory - for the same
thing to like, get the nationalmedia attention, to just antagonize.
And this does not feel like it willbe the last of this sort of thing
(13:32):
happening in Seattle this summer.
Absolutely.
And now, on to another subject - NPI cameout with another poll this week, showing
that every Seattle City Councilmembernow has a negative approval rating.
What did this poll show, and whatdo they think is behind this?
(13:55):
Yeah, not the best numbers forSeattle's elected officials - both
City Council, Mayor Harrell,and City Attorney Ann Davison.
The disapproval numbersare all quite high.
They range from 30%disapproval to 45% disapproval.
(14:17):
Alexis Rinck is the least disapprovedCity Councilmember - that could
be just because she's barelybeen there for six months so far.
And Harrell has the highestdisapproval numbers at 45%.
On the flip side, Harrell also hasthe highest approval rating at 37%.
Alexis Rinck has the highest approvalrating of councilmembers at 26%.
(14:39):
And with the caveat that there arealmost equal or even higher percentages
in every case of people who justaren't sure - whether that means
they aren't sure because they don'tknow their councilmember's policy.
Or I would guess most citizens in theworld - they just straight up don't
know who these people are by name.
But yeah, I think, given what animportant election year this is, and
(15:03):
how much I think it will say abouthow Seattle feels about the direction
of city leadership, it is interestingthat in May, we're seeing such high
disapproval, especially of figures upfor re-election, like Harrell, Davison,
and City Council President Sara Nelson.
Yeah, absolutely - that's, I think,what's most striking to a lot of people.
(15:26):
Interesting to see all of these numbers.
Like you said, Alexis Mercedes Rinck- kind of leading the pack of everyone
- with a mere negative 4% approval rating.
Bruce Harrell, negative 8%.
Ann Davison, negative 13%.
Joy Hollingsworth, negative 16%.
Mark Solomon, negative 18%.
(15:49):
Bob Kettle, negative 20%.
Sara Nelson, negative 21%.
Maritza Rivera, negative 21%.
Dan Strauss, negative 21%.
Cathy Moore, negative 23%.
And the least popular politician inSeattle at this point in time, according
to this poll, Rob Saka, negative 27%.
(16:14):
Really interesting to see.
This was a sample of 522 likely 2025Seattle voters done in May 2025.
So I think a lot of this isjust really interesting in
signaling competitive races here.
We have Alexis Mercedes Rinck- perhaps most people are feeling
(16:37):
that she's in a fairly comfortableposition, but certainly not a race
she can take for granted at all.
Sara Nelson - with that significantnegative 21% disapproval rating,
essentially - and a figure thathas grown since the last time they
measured her disapproval rating.
So it seems like voters areonly getting more unhappy.
(17:00):
Or more are tuned in, and they'relanding in the unhappy pile.
And she's in a race with DionneFoster for that citywide seat.
Then you have Bruce Harrell - anegative rating - with more
controversial actions and newsheadlines coming at a negative 8%.
And facing Katie Wilson, Ry Armstrong,several others in this mayoral race.
(17:26):
Just a lot here and with some significantdecisions coming up on the ballot, it
strikes me - we're currently havinga conversation about the ethics vote.
Whether they should weaken essentiallyethics rules - that we talked
about before, and I'm sure we'llbe talking about in the coming
weeks as they take further action.
Just wondering - the headlines thatwe're seeing are not kind to the Council.
(17:49):
They're not either showing them tobe aligned with where the general
voting public is at in Seattle.
On top of some issues, theyseem to be reactive to a lot
of this instead of proactive.
Several taking heat on that fornot hearing from them - most
recently as this weekend, with theprotests and this rally that we saw.
So this is one to continueto pay attention to.
(18:12):
And I think this just means that we'regoing to see pretty competitive races.
Ann Davison is facing three challengersin this race - three fairly strong and
qualified challengers in that race.
So it's going to be really interestingto see where things land in the primary.
Yeah, for sure.
I think it would be very surprisingif any of the incumbents didn't
(18:36):
make it into the general, with theexception of potentially Ann Davison.
Extremely early, we're only a coupleweeks past the filing deadline - but
I did notice this week that she'sin last place in fundraising among
the four City Attorney candidates.
She's raised about $44,000, $45,000.
And then Erika Evans - she'sat like $54,000 or $55,000.
(18:59):
And then all the way up toRory O'Sullivan, who's at
somewhere like $150,000 raised.
And so, money isn't everythingand there's a lot of time for
supporters to donate to Ann Davison.
But it says something that an incumbentis in last place in the fundraising
contest, when if you look at the otherincumbents, they are just way out ahead of
(19:23):
their challengers in fundraising so far.
Absolutely.
It's going to be reallyinteresting to see what that is.
Nathan Rouse, the other candidate inthat race, also having a - last time I
checked - decent amount of cash-on-hand.
So that's going to be an interestingrace because it's unusual to see all
(19:45):
of the challengers to an incumbentbeing, certainly, to Republican
Ann Davison's left - it's not thathard to do in Seattle when you're
a Republican - but to her left.
But also each coming with theirvery impressive set of resumes and
backgrounds themselves - and healthyresources to get their message out.
(20:06):
So that's going to beone to pay attention to.
This is coming on the heels of last week'spoll finding that we talked about briefly.
That showed, after messaging, astatistical tie in the mayor's race.
Before the messaging - just initialquestion - Bruce Harrell would be the
choice of 25% of respondents, KatieWilson 18%, with 56% not being sure.
(20:31):
After hearing about their backgroundsand platforms, that moved people who
were Not Sure - some people who wereNot Sure - ultimately resulting in Katie
Wilson receiving the hypothetical voteof 36% of the respondents, Bruce Harrell
33%, with 30% of people remaining Unsure.
(20:52):
Also read this week that Katie Wilsonhas now surpassed Bruce Harrell
in Democracy Voucher collection.
So really interesting dynamic with anincumbent - usually, like you said,
we're seeing incumbents with big leads.
It's really looking like BruceHarrell may be vulnerable here, with
Katie Wilson running to his left.
(21:13):
Not sure yet exactly where Joe Mallahanis running, but does appear - I
believe he did a cleanup with We HeartSeattle over the past couple weeks.
And certainly has been criticalof the Harrell administration's
management and some of the ethicsand legal issues that we have seen.
So it's going to be interestingto see where they land there.
(21:36):
And if Bruce Harrell is going to bein a strong position to even make it
through the primary in this situation- will be really interesting to see.
Yeah, again - it would be verysurprising if Harrell did not
make it through the primary.
If I was reading the crystal ball,I would say it's likely we'll have a
(21:56):
Harrell-Wilson race in the general.
But I still think Katie Wilson has anuphill battle for sure in this race.
Harrell has big business backing and theChamber has a great relationship with him.
But then also, and I know you guystalked about this last week, but he's
netted labor support - and he got thatendorsement from the MLK Labor Council.
(22:18):
Again, early - long race ahead of us - butI'd say it's still Harrell's race to lose.
I think if you're looking at probabilitybased on how similar races have gone and
the dynamics that you have traditionallyseen in these races - certainly,
the incumbent has the advantage,and that would say Harrell has that.
(22:39):
But, you know, and maybe it'sbecause Mallahan's in this race.
But the dynamic is very, very similarto 2009, where you have an increasingly
unpopular incumbent - and Harrell'sapproval rating is upside down right
now - facing existing controversies.
That time, it was Snowmageddon.
(23:00):
This time, we have some ethicsissues in the office, some management
issues, different controversies here.
And it looks like we're gearing up forwhat we kicked off talking about - these
rallies and provocations seeming likethey're beginning and not ending here.
So that's going to be interesting to see.
And corporate executive challenger tothe unpopular incumbent - Joe Mallahan
(23:23):
coming from the right - kind of someonefrom left field, both ideologically and
unknown to most of the voters in Seattle,and people being in a big mood for change.
I think the Council approval ratingsare showing people are fed up with
incumbents at this moment, overall- maybe some exceptions, but overall
(23:47):
not happy with the way things aregoing and looking for some change.
And so I just - who knows howthis is going to end up, I'm
certainly not predicting an upset.
But I also think we can't discount thatat all, especially since we have seen
it involving one of these people before.
(24:07):
Right.
The inclusion of Joe Mallahan doesmake it very similar to Nickels 2009.
But we didn't have any big snowstormsin Seattle this year, so Harrell's
street didn't get plowed first.
Not yet, not here.
So we'll continue topay attention to that.
I also want to talk this weekabout pretty important legislation,
(24:28):
but interim legislation.
The missing middle housing bill passedthe Seattle City Council on Tuesday.
What does this bill do, andwhat will its impact be?
Yeah, the bill aligns us essentiallywith the State Legislature's missing
middle housing bill from two yearsago, which says that cities must
(24:55):
allow anywhere, any residential zonesmust allow four to six units per lot.
So this is places that used to besingle family, now they can build
up to four townhouses on the lot.
And if the lots are near a lightrail station or a bus rapid transit
station, they can build up to six.
There's some other sort of wonky carveouts to allow you to build 6 as well.
(25:19):
Like you said, it is interim legislationbecause of delays from the Mayor's
office transmitting his proposed CompPlan update to the City Council, delays
from legal challenges to the Comp Plan.
The city was butting right up againstthe state's deadline of July 2025 to
(25:41):
implement the missing middle law, so theydid this interim, more bare bones version.
The crucial difference between whatthey passed on Tuesday and what the
Mayor has proposed for the permanentversion of missing middle is that
in the interim version, the maximumnumber a developer could build is six
(26:03):
units - no matter the size of the lot.
In the permanent version that Harrellhas proposed, there's like a calculus
of - so if you had a larger lot, you couldbuild more than six units, potentially.
And so that leaves us in a situation wherethe impact of the interim legislation
is kind of a big question mark.
Working on a story about this,people can check it out next week.
(26:25):
But when I spoke to some developersearlier this spring - when the interim
proposal was on the table - a lotof them said that everything is kind
of on hold for this sort of townhomedevelopment in Seattle right now.
Because people were just waitingto see what the City Council did.
And say, you're a developer who has alot way up north or way down south that's
(26:49):
9,000, 10,000 square feet, where you couldpotentially be building eight or nine or
ten units - I don't know the math off thetop of my head - and making that much more
money from your deal, you're probably notgoing to want to go ahead and develop it.
When you could only do four to sixright now, because that's real money
(27:09):
out of your pocket in the project.
So yeah, I think it'll be interestingto see if folks move forward building
four to six units on lots right now,or if they're just going to wait.
The Council has set a goal ofpassing the permanent legislation
in October - only a couple monthsdown the line - and then the interim
(27:30):
legislation expires this time next year.
And so it's also very costly for adeveloper to sit on land and not do
their project for a year, but thatcould be one outcome we see - is a
delayed Impact of all of this becausethe Council went for the interim,
lesser version of the proposal.
(27:54):
Very interesting.
We will continue to follow this and seewhere this lands up in the permanent
version - what will ultimately happen.
I also want to talk about a story that'sbeen reported across the state, but
that really is an overall trend, ofbehavioral health facilities sitting
(28:16):
empty, certainly in Vancouver, Washington,and Lynnwood, And also push back over
the crisis care proposal on Capitol Hill.
What's behind this andwhy is this happening?
Yeah, a few factors on thisarguably frustrating story.
Here we are, everybody saying - fromresidents to business owners to
(28:40):
police and city leaders all across thestate - they're like, We need somewhere
to take folks who are in crisis.
Whether it's a mental healthcrisis or substance use disorder in
public, they want these behavioralhealth facilities to take people.
In Seattle right now, the option isbasically drop somebody at Harborview,
where they'll be out on the streetthat evening or the next day.
(29:02):
Or take them to jail, which isexpensive and deeply unhelpful.
So down in Vancouver, they have thisshiny, brand new residential facility
that's either just about to be readyto be open or is ready to be open.
And it's got beds for 48 patients, wheresomebody who has a mental behavioral
(29:25):
health issue can go there and receivetreatment and it's a longer term option.
But it's sitting empty right nowbecause it doesn't have enough
funding from the state to open.
We've got a many billion dollarbudget deficit at the state and the
Leg and Governor Ferguson were makingcuts - and this is something that fell
(29:47):
into the cuts bucket, unfortunately.
Then, up in Lynnwood, a similarstory - they've got a crisis care
center, more of a temporary, likesomebody can go there for a couple
of days to get help and get off thestreet and get connected to services.
And the provider who was supposed to runthat facility pulled out, saying that
the way the city does its billing andMedicaid reimbursement doesn't pencil.
(30:13):
Like, they can't - it's not financiallyfeasible for them to run it.
And so, again, we have this shinynew facility that's sitting empty.
In that case, there was some moneyearmarked in the state budget this year
to try and help get that off the ground.
And then, finally, a couple years ago,King County voters approved Crisis
(30:34):
Care Center Levy to construct andoperate, again, these like temporary
facilities - somebody can go for a coupleof days or a week and get connected to
services and get them off the street.
And there is a proposal to build onein Capitol Hill in Seattle, right on
Broadway - sort of the border betweenthe Hospital District on First Hill and
(30:59):
the Business District on Capitol Hill.
And there's been huge pushback frombusiness owners on Capitol Hill,
saying - This is just going to bringin more people with problems and we
already have so many people strugglingwith addiction and mental health
problems on the street in Capitol Hill.
Can it go somewhere else?
It's just this sort of frustratingsituation where - this is part of the
(31:22):
solution that everyone says we need.
And for a variety of reasons - fundingor community pushback - we're struggling
to get these places open to actuallystart helping people on the street.
Yeah, I think this is certainlyfrustrating to me personally, but I think
to a lot of people - because this is acrucial link in our public safety chain.
(31:46):
Public safety is far more than police- even though sometimes the public
conversation is just about police,it is mostly other things in reality.
And a big part of that - and you'll hearpeople in law enforcement talk about
this, too - there are people in crisis whoare not necessarily committing a crime.
(32:06):
But it's contributing to disorder- they're in crisis, they can't get
stabilized, maybe they escalateto a point where it's an issue.
So people are calling the policeto deal with this, but police don't
have the tools - and oftentimes thetraining - to even deal with this.
And too often, it leads toviolent confrontations and
(32:29):
escalations, because that personis not of sound mind at the time.
Or, someone entering into the criminallegal system - maybe it does result
in arrest, they go to jail - andthose things have proven to be more
destabilizing than stabilizing overall.
And then you see people develop moreand more of a record - having repeated
(32:50):
arrests and repeated trips to jailor within the legal system because we
aren't dealing with the root cause ofthe issue, just the symptoms of it.
And so, as you mentioned, King Countypassed a Crisis Care Centers Levy - this
has been demanded by people across thestate, cited as a priority by most of
(33:11):
our legislators, our governor, certainly.
And it feels like we're taking stepsbackwards instead of steps forward here.
And particularly after all of theinvestment, it feels frustrating
that we're not making more progress.
Yeah, I will say - we can leave listenerson the one bright note on that - at
(33:33):
least I hope this is still true.
Kirkland opened the first CrisisCares facility in the county, or
post the Crisis Cares Levy passing.
And as far as I am aware, it isworking and it is sort of a model for
others - so that is one bright spot.
But the fact that it is so hard toget these places open - and even when
(33:56):
you build a new facility that we sodesperately need, and it just sits
empty because the state didn't comethrough with money for operations - it
just feels like banging our headsagainst the wall, when I think everybody
wants to make progress on this issue.
Nobody wants people incrisis on the streets.
(34:20):
Yeah, absolutely agree with that.
Also, want to remind listeners - orinform listeners - that on June 4th,
this coming Wednesday, there will bea forum put on by the Move All Seattle
Sustainably, or MASS Coalition - hostinga candidate forum at the Centilia
(34:40):
Cultural Center in Beacon Hill,focusing on transportation and housing
issues critical to Seattle's future.
It starts at 5:30p with refreshments andmingling, followed by discussions with
District 2 candidates, citywide councilcandidates, and mayoral candidates.
Nearly all major candidates haveRSVP'd, and attendees have a
(35:01):
chance to hear directly from thoseseeking to lead Seattle forward.
So it's free, open to the public.
There will be ASL interpretation.
Masks will be there and provided.
And this should be a realenlightening evening.
And I'll be moderating it sowe can all learn together.
Hope to see you there.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
(35:25):
this Friday, May 30th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today was CascadePBS city reporter, covering Seattle
government, politics, and issues thatshape life in the city, Josh Cohen.
Thank you so much for your insight today.
Thanks for having me.
You can find Josh onBluesky at @jcohenwrites.
(35:47):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
And you can follow me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you listen - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcastto get the full versions of our Friday
(36:08):
week-in-review and our Tuesday topicalshows delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcript ofthis episode and links to the resources
referenced at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - andwe'll talk 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,I chatted with Eddie Lin, candidate for
Seattle City Council District 2, abouthis stance on housing affordability,
(00:42):
public safety, transportation, andmore - including the Hacks & Wonks
Lightning Round - as well as hisgovernment experience and commitment
to community-driven solutions.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows, where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friend ofthe show and today's co-host: Cascade
(01:03):
PBS city reporter covering Seattlegovernment, politics, and the issues
that shape life in the city, Josh Cohen!
Hey, great to have you.
Hello - thanks so much for having me.
So I am pumped that you're here andto talk about this this week - I
am not pumped about the firsttopic, but it's been dominating
news coverage attention this week.
(01:25):
The Protect Our Kids Rally of religiousleaders - who are basically taking an
anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ stance - takingover Cal Anderson Park, leading
to a counter-protest and arrests.
And another protest, and more arrests,another protest targeted for August 30th.
(01:48):
How did this come to be?
How did this start?
And who is behind theProtect Our Kids Rally?
Yeah, story of the week, for sure.
So this has been in the works for a while.
This group, Mayday USA,which is a conglomeration
(02:09):
of evangelicals, preachers and churches- very much Christian organizations
- they've been doing this five-city tour.
I think, mostly liberal West coastcities - getting the word of God
out on the street in liberal placeslike Seattle and San Francisco, LA.
So way back in February, they appliedto hold their big 500-ish person
(02:34):
rally, concert, public prayer.
They were giving outfree haircuts to folks.
They applied to hold it Downtown, onthe street near Pike Place, but the
city denied that and instead offeredthem up a space in Cal Anderson
Park - in the heart of Capitol Hill,city's historically gay neighborhood.
They also offered up space, or said therewas space, available in South Lake Union.
(03:00):
And Mayday USA applied to holdthe rally in Cal Anderson.
And, like you said, explicitly anti-trans,anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, and like,
went into it with an antagonistic aim.
Like they wanted to stir up areaction from Seattle, from the
(03:22):
LGBT community - and they got it.
There was a big counter-protest,as you said, on Saturday.
A huge police presence ultimatelyended up being conflict, for lack
of a better word, between police andalmost exclusively counter-protesters.
I think 23 people gotarrested on Saturday.
(03:43):
Police were using pepper spray andbatons, and people complaining about
just an excess response from the police.
All in all, I would say - a big mess.
And then Mayor Bruce Harrell denounced theMayday USA folks, accusing them of coming
in to antagonize the LGBTQ community anddecried them as an extremist right-wing
(04:04):
group, which then led to Tuesday'sprotest - another four-hour affair
outside of City Hall, with, again, lotsof police, lots of counter-protesters,
eight more arrests of counter-protesters.
Big, big, messy affair.
And just a few interestingthreads coming from it.
There's been a lot of people sayingthe city never should have issued
(04:25):
this permit, or they shouldn'thave issued it for Cal Anderson.
It is interesting - the city codeand our U.S. Constitution is pretty
cut and dry about issuing the permit.
It is a free speech, free assembly event,and the city does not really have grounds
to deny it based on the substance.
I was asking the Mayor's office if thereare instances where they would deny
(04:50):
an event - say if it's hate speech oran explicit hate group - and it sounds
like their answers are pretty firm.
No, they don't do that.
The only time they deny permitsis logistical things, like the
space is not big enough for wherethe group applied and whatnot.
And then there's another thread of itwhere people are saying - Well, they
shouldn't have issued it for Cal Anderson.
(05:12):
You know, again, having a group that'sexplicitly anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ
going to the heart of Seattle'sGayborhood in a park named after
the first gay state legislator, CalAnderson, is just sort of asking
for the messy trouble that they got.
(05:35):
Seems like a provocation in itself.
Yeah, and I don't have aclear answer yet on that.
I'm still pushing to understand - couldthe city choose, in the interest of,
like, trying to minimize conflict?
Could they say - No, you can't haveit here, but you can have it in, say,
South Lake Union, or at the WestlakeCenter, or whatever it might be?
Well, and they can and have before.
(05:56):
As a matter of fact, they didwith this particular protest.
So this one, where they initiallyapplied to have it, they said - No,
you are not able to have it there.
But we can work togetheron another location.
They have denied permits beforeon a staffing basis, saying that
they aren't able to adequatelystaff and keep people safe.
Certainly, the staffing needs at CalAnderson could be predicted to be much
(06:21):
higher - given the provocation and theneed for SPD presence, other people there.
And the level of staffing wouldpredictably be higher there than it
would at other locations in the city.
In the same way that if the KKK wanted tohave a protest at the Northwest African
American Museum, at historically Blackspaces, that would - one, be an obvious
(06:47):
provocation and someone looking toprovoke and incite a reaction that could
be predictably violent, certainly tense.
And two, with all of the otherchoices, you could say - Ah, our
staffing needs would not be as great.
Here, we would bestruggling to contain this.
So I think that one, you make excellentpoints in that - just on content alone,
(07:13):
of course, you can't deny a permit.
People have a First Amendmentright to protected speech
to say what they want to do.
I think where a lot of peoplewere questioning was on - if they
already said no to one location,why was it yes at Cal Anderson?
Why was this one of thethings suggested by the city?
How did that make any kind of sense?
(07:35):
Why did they think they wouldbe able to staff it adequately?
Was someone just completely asleepat the wheel, or was someone
aligned with the provocation here?
Because this should have been foreseeable.
And the one councilmember who wasthere and seemingly engaged on the
day-of - Alexis Mercedes Rinck - hadsaid that she was calling hours before
(07:57):
the end of this rally, before theescalation and a lot of the tension.
Saying, this is headed in a bad direction.
I don't think we can keep a lid on thisand keep this peaceful and contained.
We should be calling this off.
And then the other set of questions I'veseen - not just about the rally over the
weekend, but the one on Tuesday - wasthe conduct and the content of the rally.
(08:22):
One, if you're holding a rallyin a public space, the public
is supposed to be invited.
In some of these - especially the oneon Tuesday - they were not allowing
all members of the public to attend.
They were screening - askingwhat churches people belonged
to, not letting them in there.
They had significant, high-poweredaudio equipment - that there are
(08:45):
different thresholds and permitteduses for what a permit is.
If it's a rally or a protest, that'sdifferent than holding a concert - having
a private event using a public space.
So it's interesting just to seewhat is protected and permitted in
different cases, because it seemsto have been inconsistent between
this and other rallies and protestswith other organizations from other
(09:09):
ideological perspectives before.
Certainly a lot ofquestions being raised here.
Yeah, and it seems like - especiallyTuesday's follow-up rally came
after this huge national attention.
Right-wing media reallygrabbed onto this story.
And like lots of angry religious figuresand right-wing media figures targeting
(09:32):
Harrell and say - He either needs toapologize or resign for his statements
about us being "extremists," etc., etc.And so, yeah, you kind of have to assume
that Tuesday's event - counterfactual,who knows how it would have gone in
other circumstances, but I kind of gotthe impression that it was amplified
and a private event on City Hall Plazaand all of these other things that
(09:55):
aren't allowed in the city rules.
And that probably the Harrelladministration didn't want to invite even
more backlash from all these nationalfigures in the wake of the backlash
that was already coming out of Saturday.
So, yeah, I have to assumethat that was a bit of a factor
in their logic at City Hall.
(10:16):
And I think it's worth mentioning thatalso, Saturday was the first time post
the City Council changing rules around,or basically rolling back restrictions
around, "less lethal weapons" - crowdcontrol stuff like pepper spray and the
long sticks, the batons and blast balls.
(10:39):
Our City Council repealed restrictions onthose that were placed on SPD by the last
City Council, I want to say 2020 or 2021.
And so another piece of this comingout of Saturday is a lot of concern
about overreaction by SPD targetedat trans, LGBTQ counter-protesters.
(11:01):
And there's some intense photos andvideos that came out of Saturday of
eight or ten officers swarming somebodyand tackling them for an arrest, or an
officer pepper-spraying two young womenthat are already lying on the ground.
And Police Chief Barnes has saidhe is investigating and they're
going to do a review of it.
(11:22):
I think Harrell has said similar.
But a moment where our police, whichpart of the consent decree from the feds,
the federal oversight, is overuse offorce in crowd control situations - like
here we are with the sort of leash off.
And I think a lot of people aredeeply upset about how the police
(11:42):
responded to the counter-protest.
And again, I guess worth mentioningthat the only people who got
arrested were counter-protesters onSaturday and then again on Tuesday.
Yeah, absolutely worth mentioningand continuing to pay attention to.
So just a lot coming out of this.
Danny Westneat, who always has acolumn, had a column about this.
(12:04):
He makes various points in there.
But one of them I do agree withis that the Harrell administration
essentially played themselves here, andthey're inviting this as a tactic now
- certainly for the rest of the summer.
The right now knows that they have paintedthis administration into a corner here.
(12:26):
And they can use this for attention,they can use this to provoke a reaction.
Whether he permits them and they'reallowed to spew their rhetoric in the
middle of Seattle's queer neighborhood,or they can act persecuted for being
denied a space or moved somewhere else.
(12:47):
That's going to be milked for attention- that it appears the administration is not
up to handling effectively, according tothe way a lot of people are talking now.
Yeah, a tough spot for city leaders.
I think, for sure, like, there willdefinitely - and we already know that
August 30, there's an event permittedat Cal Anderson Park by the same group.
(13:10):
And I would not be surprised, likeyou said, if there's more of it - that
is reminiscent of what we saw inPortland, with Proud Boys just holding
rally after rally in the heart of"Antifa" territory - for the same
thing to like, get the nationalmedia attention, to just antagonize.
And this does not feel like it willbe the last of this sort of thing
(13:32):
happening in Seattle this summer.
Absolutely.
And now, on to another subject - NPI cameout with another poll this week, showing
that every Seattle City Councilmembernow has a negative approval rating.
What did this poll show, and whatdo they think is behind this?
(13:55):
Yeah, not the best numbers forSeattle's elected officials - both
City Council, Mayor Harrell,and City Attorney Ann Davison.
The disapproval numbersare all quite high.
They range from 30%disapproval to 45% disapproval.
(14:17):
Alexis Rinck is the least disapprovedCity Councilmember - that could
be just because she's barelybeen there for six months so far.
And Harrell has the highestdisapproval numbers at 45%.
On the flip side, Harrell also hasthe highest approval rating at 37%.
Alexis Rinck has the highest approvalrating of councilmembers at 26%.
(14:39):
And with the caveat that there arealmost equal or even higher percentages
in every case of people who justaren't sure - whether that means
they aren't sure because they don'tknow their councilmember's policy.
Or I would guess most citizens in theworld - they just straight up don't
know who these people are by name.
But yeah, I think, given what animportant election year this is, and
(15:03):
how much I think it will say abouthow Seattle feels about the direction
of city leadership, it is interestingthat in May, we're seeing such high
disapproval, especially of figures upfor re-election, like Harrell, Davison,
and City Council President Sara Nelson.
Yeah, absolutely - that's, I think,what's most striking to a lot of people.
(15:26):
Interesting to see all of these numbers.
Like you said, Alexis Mercedes Rinck- kind of leading the pack of everyone
- with a mere negative 4% approval rating.
Bruce Harrell, negative 8%.
Ann Davison, negative 13%.
Joy Hollingsworth, negative 16%.
Mark Solomon, negative 18%.
(15:49):
Bob Kettle, negative 20%.
Sara Nelson, negative 21%.
Maritza Rivera, negative 21%.
Dan Strauss, negative 21%.
Cathy Moore, negative 23%.
And the least popular politician inSeattle at this point in time, according
to this poll, Rob Saka, negative 27%.
(16:14):
Really interesting to see.
This was a sample of 522 likely 2025Seattle voters done in May 2025.
So I think a lot of this isjust really interesting in
signaling competitive races here.
We have Alexis Mercedes Rinck- perhaps most people are feeling
(16:37):
that she's in a fairly comfortableposition, but certainly not a race
she can take for granted at all.
Sara Nelson - with that significantnegative 21% disapproval rating,
essentially - and a figure thathas grown since the last time they
measured her disapproval rating.
So it seems like voters areonly getting more unhappy.
(17:00):
Or more are tuned in, and they'relanding in the unhappy pile.
And she's in a race with DionneFoster for that citywide seat.
Then you have Bruce Harrell - anegative rating - with more
controversial actions and newsheadlines coming at a negative 8%.
And facing Katie Wilson, Ry Armstrong,several others in this mayoral race.
(17:26):
Just a lot here and with some significantdecisions coming up on the ballot, it
strikes me - we're currently havinga conversation about the ethics vote.
Whether they should weaken essentiallyethics rules - that we talked
about before, and I'm sure we'llbe talking about in the coming
weeks as they take further action.
Just wondering - the headlines thatwe're seeing are not kind to the Council.
(17:49):
They're not either showing them tobe aligned with where the general
voting public is at in Seattle.
On top of some issues, theyseem to be reactive to a lot
of this instead of proactive.
Several taking heat on that fornot hearing from them - most
recently as this weekend, with theprotests and this rally that we saw.
So this is one to continueto pay attention to.
(18:12):
And I think this just means that we'regoing to see pretty competitive races.
Ann Davison is facing three challengersin this race - three fairly strong and
qualified challengers in that race.
So it's going to be really interestingto see where things land in the primary.
Yeah, for sure.
I think it would be very surprisingif any of the incumbents didn't
(18:36):
make it into the general, with theexception of potentially Ann Davison.
Extremely early, we're only a coupleweeks past the filing deadline - but
I did notice this week that she'sin last place in fundraising among
the four City Attorney candidates.
She's raised about $44,000, $45,000.
And then Erika Evans - she'sat like $54,000 or $55,000.
(18:59):
And then all the way up toRory O'Sullivan, who's at
somewhere like $150,000 raised.
And so, money isn't everythingand there's a lot of time for
supporters to donate to Ann Davison.
But it says something that an incumbentis in last place in the fundraising
contest, when if you look at the otherincumbents, they are just way out ahead of
(19:23):
their challengers in fundraising so far.
Absolutely.
It's going to be reallyinteresting to see what that is.
Nathan Rouse, the other candidate inthat race, also having a - last time I
checked - decent amount of cash-on-hand.
So that's going to be an interestingrace because it's unusual to see all
(19:45):
of the challengers to an incumbentbeing, certainly, to Republican
Ann Davison's left - it's not thathard to do in Seattle when you're
a Republican - but to her left.
But also each coming with theirvery impressive set of resumes and
backgrounds themselves - and healthyresources to get their message out.
(20:06):
So that's going to beone to pay attention to.
This is coming on the heels of last week'spoll finding that we talked about briefly.
That showed, after messaging, astatistical tie in the mayor's race.
Before the messaging - just initialquestion - Bruce Harrell would be the
choice of 25% of respondents, KatieWilson 18%, with 56% not being sure.
(20:31):
After hearing about their backgroundsand platforms, that moved people who
were Not Sure - some people who wereNot Sure - ultimately resulting in Katie
Wilson receiving the hypothetical voteof 36% of the respondents, Bruce Harrell
33%, with 30% of people remaining Unsure.
(20:52):
Also read this week that Katie Wilsonhas now surpassed Bruce Harrell
in Democracy Voucher collection.
So really interesting dynamic with anincumbent - usually, like you said,
we're seeing incumbents with big leads.
It's really looking like BruceHarrell may be vulnerable here, with
Katie Wilson running to his left.
(21:13):
Not sure yet exactly where Joe Mallahanis running, but does appear - I
believe he did a cleanup with We HeartSeattle over the past couple weeks.
And certainly has been criticalof the Harrell administration's
management and some of the ethicsand legal issues that we have seen.
So it's going to be interestingto see where they land there.
(21:36):
And if Bruce Harrell is going to bein a strong position to even make it
through the primary in this situation- will be really interesting to see.
Yeah, again - it would be verysurprising if Harrell did not
make it through the primary.
If I was reading the crystal ball,I would say it's likely we'll have a
(21:56):
Harrell-Wilson race in the general.
But I still think Katie Wilson has anuphill battle for sure in this race.
Harrell has big business backing and theChamber has a great relationship with him.
But then also, and I know you guystalked about this last week, but he's
netted labor support - and he got thatendorsement from the MLK Labor Council.
(22:18):
Again, early - long race ahead of us - butI'd say it's still Harrell's race to lose.
I think if you're looking at probabilitybased on how similar races have gone and
the dynamics that you have traditionallyseen in these races - certainly,
the incumbent has the advantage,and that would say Harrell has that.
(22:39):
But, you know, and maybe it'sbecause Mallahan's in this race.
But the dynamic is very, very similarto 2009, where you have an increasingly
unpopular incumbent - and Harrell'sapproval rating is upside down right
now - facing existing controversies.
That time, it was Snowmageddon.
(23:00):
This time, we have some ethicsissues in the office, some management
issues, different controversies here.
And it looks like we're gearing up forwhat we kicked off talking about - these
rallies and provocations seeming likethey're beginning and not ending here.
So that's going to be interesting to see.
And corporate executive challenger tothe unpopular incumbent - Joe Mallahan
(23:23):
coming from the right - kind of someonefrom left field, both ideologically and
unknown to most of the voters in Seattle,and people being in a big mood for change.
I think the Council approval ratingsare showing people are fed up with
incumbents at this moment, overall- maybe some exceptions, but overall
(23:47):
not happy with the way things aregoing and looking for some change.
And so I just - who knows howthis is going to end up, I'm
certainly not predicting an upset.
But I also think we can't discount thatat all, especially since we have seen
it involving one of these people before.
(24:07):
Right.
The inclusion of Joe Mallahan doesmake it very similar to Nickels 2009.
But we didn't have any big snowstormsin Seattle this year, so Harrell's
street didn't get plowed first.
Not yet, not here.
So we'll continue topay attention to that.
I also want to talk this weekabout pretty important legislation,
(24:28):
but interim legislation.
The missing middle housing bill passedthe Seattle City Council on Tuesday.
What does this bill do, andwhat will its impact be?
Yeah, the bill aligns us essentiallywith the State Legislature's missing
middle housing bill from two yearsago, which says that cities must
(24:55):
allow anywhere, any residential zonesmust allow four to six units per lot.
So this is places that used to besingle family, now they can build
up to four townhouses on the lot.
And if the lots are near a lightrail station or a bus rapid transit
station, they can build up to six.
There's some other sort of wonky carveouts to allow you to build 6 as well.
(25:19):
Like you said, it is interim legislationbecause of delays from the Mayor's
office transmitting his proposed CompPlan update to the City Council, delays
from legal challenges to the Comp Plan.
The city was butting right up againstthe state's deadline of July 2025 to
(25:41):
implement the missing middle law, so theydid this interim, more bare bones version.
The crucial difference between whatthey passed on Tuesday and what the
Mayor has proposed for the permanentversion of missing middle is that
in the interim version, the maximumnumber a developer could build is six
(26:03):
units - no matter the size of the lot.
In the permanent version that Harrellhas proposed, there's like a calculus
of - so if you had a larger lot, you couldbuild more than six units, potentially.
And so that leaves us in a situation wherethe impact of the interim legislation
is kind of a big question mark.
Working on a story about this,people can check it out next week.
(26:25):
But when I spoke to some developersearlier this spring - when the interim
proposal was on the table - a lotof them said that everything is kind
of on hold for this sort of townhomedevelopment in Seattle right now.
Because people were just waitingto see what the City Council did.
And say, you're a developer who has alot way up north or way down south that's
(26:49):
9,000, 10,000 square feet, where you couldpotentially be building eight or nine or
ten units - I don't know the math off thetop of my head - and making that much more
money from your deal, you're probably notgoing to want to go ahead and develop it.
When you could only do four to sixright now, because that's real money
(27:09):
out of your pocket in the project.
So yeah, I think it'll be interestingto see if folks move forward building
four to six units on lots right now,or if they're just going to wait.
The Council has set a goal ofpassing the permanent legislation
in October - only a couple monthsdown the line - and then the interim
(27:30):
legislation expires this time next year.
And so it's also very costly for adeveloper to sit on land and not do
their project for a year, but thatcould be one outcome we see - is a
delayed Impact of all of this becausethe Council went for the interim,
lesser version of the proposal.
(27:54):
Very interesting.
We will continue to follow this and seewhere this lands up in the permanent
version - what will ultimately happen.
I also want to talk about a story that'sbeen reported across the state, but
that really is an overall trend, ofbehavioral health facilities sitting
(28:16):
empty, certainly in Vancouver, Washington,and Lynnwood, And also push back over
the crisis care proposal on Capitol Hill.
What's behind this andwhy is this happening?
Yeah, a few factors on thisarguably frustrating story.
Here we are, everybody saying - fromresidents to business owners to
(28:40):
police and city leaders all across thestate - they're like, We need somewhere
to take folks who are in crisis.
Whether it's a mental healthcrisis or substance use disorder in
public, they want these behavioralhealth facilities to take people.
In Seattle right now, the option isbasically drop somebody at Harborview,
where they'll be out on the streetthat evening or the next day.
(29:02):
Or take them to jail, which isexpensive and deeply unhelpful.
So down in Vancouver, they have thisshiny, brand new residential facility
that's either just about to be readyto be open or is ready to be open.
And it's got beds for 48 patients, wheresomebody who has a mental behavioral
(29:25):
health issue can go there and receivetreatment and it's a longer term option.
But it's sitting empty right nowbecause it doesn't have enough
funding from the state to open.
We've got a many billion dollarbudget deficit at the state and the
Leg and Governor Ferguson were makingcuts - and this is something that fell
(29:47):
into the cuts bucket, unfortunately.
Then, up in Lynnwood, a similarstory - they've got a crisis care
center, more of a temporary, likesomebody can go there for a couple
of days to get help and get off thestreet and get connected to services.
And the provider who was supposed to runthat facility pulled out, saying that
the way the city does its billing andMedicaid reimbursement doesn't pencil.
(30:13):
Like, they can't - it's not financiallyfeasible for them to run it.
And so, again, we have this shinynew facility that's sitting empty.
In that case, there was some moneyearmarked in the state budget this year
to try and help get that off the ground.
And then, finally, a couple years ago,King County voters approved Crisis
(30:34):
Care Center Levy to construct andoperate, again, these like temporary
facilities - somebody can go for a coupleof days or a week and get connected to
services and get them off the street.
And there is a proposal to build onein Capitol Hill in Seattle, right on
Broadway - sort of the border betweenthe Hospital District on First Hill and
(30:59):
the Business District on Capitol Hill.
And there's been huge pushback frombusiness owners on Capitol Hill,
saying - This is just going to bringin more people with problems and we
already have so many people strugglingwith addiction and mental health
problems on the street in Capitol Hill.
Can it go somewhere else?
It's just this sort of frustratingsituation where - this is part of the
(31:22):
solution that everyone says we need.
And for a variety of reasons - fundingor community pushback - we're struggling
to get these places open to actuallystart helping people on the street.
Yeah, I think this is certainlyfrustrating to me personally, but I think
to a lot of people - because this is acrucial link in our public safety chain.
(31:46):
Public safety is far more than police- even though sometimes the public
conversation is just about police,it is mostly other things in reality.
And a big part of that - and you'll hearpeople in law enforcement talk about
this, too - there are people in crisis whoare not necessarily committing a crime.
(32:06):
But it's contributing to disorder- they're in crisis, they can't get
stabilized, maybe they escalateto a point where it's an issue.
So people are calling the policeto deal with this, but police don't
have the tools - and oftentimes thetraining - to even deal with this.
And too often, it leads toviolent confrontations and
(32:29):
escalations, because that personis not of sound mind at the time.
Or, someone entering into the criminallegal system - maybe it does result
in arrest, they go to jail - andthose things have proven to be more
destabilizing than stabilizing overall.
And then you see people develop moreand more of a record - having repeated
(32:50):
arrests and repeated trips to jailor within the legal system because we
aren't dealing with the root cause ofthe issue, just the symptoms of it.
And so, as you mentioned, King Countypassed a Crisis Care Centers Levy - this
has been demanded by people across thestate, cited as a priority by most of
(33:11):
our legislators, our governor, certainly.
And it feels like we're taking stepsbackwards instead of steps forward here.
And particularly after all of theinvestment, it feels frustrating
that we're not making more progress.
Yeah, I will say - we can leave listenerson the one bright note on that - at
(33:33):
least I hope this is still true.
Kirkland opened the first CrisisCares facility in the county, or
post the Crisis Cares Levy passing.
And as far as I am aware, it isworking and it is sort of a model for
others - so that is one bright spot.
But the fact that it is so hard toget these places open - and even when
(33:56):
you build a new facility that we sodesperately need, and it just sits
empty because the state didn't comethrough with money for operations - it
just feels like banging our headsagainst the wall, when I think everybody
wants to make progress on this issue.
Nobody wants people incrisis on the streets.
(34:20):
Yeah, absolutely agree with that.
Also, want to remind listeners - orinform listeners - that on June 4th,
this coming Wednesday, there will bea forum put on by the Move All Seattle
Sustainably, or MASS Coalition - hostinga candidate forum at the Centilia
(34:40):
Cultural Center in Beacon Hill,focusing on transportation and housing
issues critical to Seattle's future.
It starts at 5:30p with refreshments andmingling, followed by discussions with
District 2 candidates, citywide councilcandidates, and mayoral candidates.
Nearly all major candidates haveRSVP'd, and attendees have a
(35:01):
chance to hear directly from thoseseeking to lead Seattle forward.
So it's free, open to the public.
There will be ASL interpretation.
Masks will be there and provided.
And this should be a realenlightening evening.
And I'll be moderating it sowe can all learn together.
Hope to see you there.
And with that, we thank you forlistening to Hacks & Wonks on
(35:25):
this Friday, May 30th, 2025.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
Our insightful co-host today was CascadePBS city reporter, covering Seattle
government, politics, and issues thatshape life in the city, Josh Cohen.
Thank you so much for your insight today.
Thanks for having me.
You can find Josh onBluesky at @jcohenwrites.
(35:47):
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
And you can follow me on Bluesky at@finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever
you listen - just type "Hacksand Wonks" into the search bar.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcastto get the full versions of our Friday
(36:08):
week-in-review and our Tuesday topicalshows delivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, please leavea review wherever you listen.
You can also get a full transcript ofthis episode and links to the resources
referenced at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Thanks for tuning in - andwe'll talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.