Week in Review: April 25, 2025 - with Donna Blankinship

Public Defender Nathan Rouse Brings Frontline Experience to Seattle City Attorney Race from Hacks & Wonks

“‘A devastating loss’: WA state Sen. Bill Ramos mourned after dying unexpectedly” by Jake Goldstein-Street from Washington State Standard

“Washington lawmakers remember State Senator Bill Ramos” by Laurel Demkovich from Cascade PBS

“King County special election: Voters favor funding for crime-solving tool” by Sara Jean Green from The Seattle Times

“Tacoma braces for ‘diminished’ ability to repair streets after defeat of Prop 1” by Isha Trevedi from The News Tribune

“Seattle democracy voucher renewal set for August ballot” by Nate Sanford from Cascade PBS

“Mayor proposes renewing Seattle education levy, doubling it to $1.3B” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“WA Supreme Court strikes down Spokane homeless initiative” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times

“As Cuts to Critical Programs Loom, Latest Count Shows Sharp Increase in Homelessness” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

State Budget Cuts Could Halt Successful Encampment Resolution Program by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola

“Democrats in Washington Legislature wrap up budget negotiations” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

Find stories that Crystal is reading here

Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it.

If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Seattle City Attorney candidate Nathan Rouse about his vision for reforming the office through the lens of his public defender experience, his criticism of incumbent Republican Ann Davison's approach, and his proposal of alternative solutions focused on addressing root causes of crime.

Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, friend of the show and today's co-host: former news editor at Cascade PBS and publisher of the Civics for Adults newsletter on Substack, Donna Blankinship. Welcome!

[00:01:11] Donna Blankinship: Thank you. Nice to be here - thanks for inviting me.

[00:01:14] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here. Now, just mentioned you're the publisher of the Civics for Adults newsletter. Can you tell us a bit about that newsletter and what your goal is there?

[00:01:25] Donna Blankinship: So I'm semi-retired now and I wanted to pursue a passion project, which is helping educate voters and non-voters about how our government works - because I am hopeful that that work will lead to more voter turnout.

[00:01:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, that is certainly a noble endeavor. And we can use a ton of that, a ton more of that these days. Well, starting with the news of the week - unfortunate news, really sad news - that state Senator Bill Ramos passed away unexpectedly this past weekend. What are some of the reflections you've seen about Senator Ramos, and what have people been saying?

[00:02:09] Donna Blankinship: Well, I've noticed how personal the reflections were. I didn't know him personally, but he seemed to be the kind of lawmaker that people connected with on a person-to-person level. He seemed to be very effective. He was in the Legislature for a long time, which makes him someone that people listen to - apparently, his constituents liked him a lot.

[00:02:32] Crystal Fincher: Well, certainly, he had - after three terms in the House, he just recently joined the state Senate. He is from the state 5th Legislative District, which includes Issaquah. He actually passed away while on a trail run - just 69 years old - so certainly unexpected. He was married to King County Councilmember Sarah Perry, so we certainly send our condolences to her and just a really, really tough time. But he was a member of the Latino Democratic Caucus, served in the U.S. Forest Service, Federal Transit Administration, and on the Issaquah City Council before joining the Legislature.

[00:03:14] Donna Blankinship: So a lifetime of public service.

[00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: Lifetime of public service, and was a longtime leader of Dance All Night in the Cascade Foothills, where he taught ballroom, salsa, and swing dancing. The Washington State Standard and Jake Goldstein-Street wrote a great article covering what a lot of people had to say and remembering his life. Tributes poured in all throughout the weekend and since - from members of Congress, Governor Bob Ferguson. Ferguson said he just saw Ramos and Perry a week ago at an event, saying - 'It was a typical conversation with them - big hugs, 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 for all people in Washington.' Saying 'he was a tireless champion for improving our transportation system, making our communities safer, and protecting Washington's natural resources and outdoor spaces.' And he died on a trail run, and Sarah Perry had said that that was typical of him - to connect with nature and to try and get out and reconnect that way. And so just really sad to hear about that. He's survived by Perry and his two adult children, Max and Maya. And so just pass along our condolences for all of his colleagues. The King County Council has 30 days to appoint a replacement for Ramos in the Legislature from a list of candidates that the 5th District Democrats will provide. So just sad to see, and we certainly share in passing along our condolences.

[00:04:59] Donna Blankinship: Yes, indeed - yes.

[00:05:00] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about a few different notes and news about items that have been or will be on the ballot. Just talking about some ballot initiatives that we covered last week and the week before - a King County special election and a City of Tacoma special election. For King County voters, in just a one-issue ballot in April - which a number of people thought was either curious or ill-advised, depending on who you speak to - King County voters passed the AFIS, the Automated Fingerprint identification System, continuing funding for that in King County. Looks like currently, it has just shy of about 60% of the vote. Pretty expected vote - this had been a continuing levy that was just up for renewal across the county, was not an organized opposition against it. And so even in a low turnout election, just kind of continuing as things had been. Any thoughts on this that you saw?

[00:06:04] Donna Blankinship: Well, I wanted to comment on the low turnout election because there's a lot of talk in Washington and other places that we might want to consider switching to having fewer elections so that turnout is better. The argument against that has been that it makes the ballot really long, but we all opened that ballot and saw one item on there. And that just seems - I don't know - wasteful, I guess.

[00:06:31] Crystal Fincher: 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 - and so thought that it was an odd choice. At least seems like it would have made sense to put this on - perhaps - the August ballot that was already going to be coming, 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 been a movement gaining traction to move to even-year elections that would consolidate the elections that we have, 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-

[00:07:18] Donna Blankinship: No, it advantages voters, I think.

[00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely advantages voters. And really, it advantages what the popular sentiment generally leans to. So in blue areas, you're going to see higher turnout elections trend blue. In red areas, you're going to see higher turnout elections trend red. We saw across the country higher turnout elections trend slightly red - this past election, we've certainly seen that in the past. So it's really not an issue of does it advantage a particular party or another. It is about - can more voters participate in making their voices heard and in shaping the policy for their communities?

[00:07:57] Donna Blankinship: Right. And voter turnout is something that's really important. Because we want the majority of people to tell us what they think about policies and who represents them. And Washington state has rules about when elections can be, depending on what it's for - but those rules can be changed and it really is important for more people. And also, I would say that people who don't vote very often - when they get a ballot they're not expecting, are probably just letting it sit there. And it's really not that hard to vote in Washington - the ballot arrives in your mailbox. But it would be good to have it so that it arrives less often.

[00:08:43] Crystal Fincher: I certainly agree with that. And one area where it looks like a low turnout election may have influenced an outcome is in the City of Tacoma renewal of their street maintenance levy - which had been slightly expanded to include some Vision Zero goals, given some of the really high profile incidences of traffic violence that they've experienced in recent years. This measure failed. If you have paid attention to Tacoma, you know that street maintenance has been a hot issue, and pothole repair has been a hot issue for - geez, the past 15+ years. But it seems like a big challenge was - this was a very, very low turnout election in the city. A lot of people just didn't know that this was on the ballot, that nowadays a lot of people do not check their mail every day.

[00:09:36] Donna Blankinship: I don't.

[00:09:37] Crystal Fincher: Sometimes, not every week. So much comes online. And so this was just unexpected for a lot of people. The ballot language sometimes can be really thick and hard to understand. And so in the absence of significant campaigns to educate voters - which there was not here - people just don't know, people aren't plugged in. And so it looks like this will end up very narrowly failing - reaching 48%, 49%. But they're going to have to regroup and decide what to do. But as this stands, there's kind of a cliff of funding ending for road maintenance and for traffic safety measures there in Tacoma. So it'll be interesting to see what happens from here.

[00:10:20] Donna Blankinship: Do you know if the Tacoma ballot was just one issue as well?

[00:10:24] Crystal Fincher: It was.

[00:10:25] Donna Blankinship: And it's just such a strange time of year. It's like - maybe we'd see a school levy right now, but I don't think so.

[00:10:34] Crystal Fincher: Well, let me amend that. City of Tacoma - yes. There were also some individual districts in the county, in the same way that there were some individual districts in King County that may have passed their own measures. So they're-

[00:10:47] Donna Blankinship: Like water district or something or-

[00:10:49] Crystal Fincher: Water districts, and there were some school levies throughout the state that were on there - so it depends on people's local jurisdictions. But for the majority of people, there was just one ballot measure on their ballot.

[00:11:01] Donna Blankinship: And generally, when it's a school levy - we're a lot more aware of it and paying more attention. At least I think I am, and I think a lot of people are.

[00:11:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and a lot of times it's easier to communicate those - because parents are looking for information from the school, from the district, there's a direct line of communication there. Where here - just general information - it becomes a bit tougher.

Also want to talk about a couple of items that will come to our ballots here pretty soon. One, the Seattle Democracy Voucher renewal is set to appear on the August ballot this year. Can you talk a little bit about what Democracy Vouchers are and the difference people have said that they've made?

[00:11:47] Donna Blankinship: Yeah, so Democracy Vouchers are a way to get more citizens involved in supporting their elections. And it's a Seattle project - hasn't been duplicated in very many places across the country, it's been an interesting experiment here. The goal was to democratize elections by giving candidates an ability to get money directly from citizens, even if they don't have their own personal dollars to contribute. And they have found that more people participate in the financial part of elections. But also, one of the other goals was to get more people to run for office. And I don't know the latest data, but I do know that a lot of people run for office in Seattle. And it's not just the usual suspects who have corporate or family wealth - it's all kinds of people. And I think Democracy Vouchers have made a difference there. For those who don't know how they work, you can hand a voucher - which we get in the mail - to a candidate. You can assign it to them online. Candidates can even come to your door and ask you for a voucher or at an event. So it's really grassroots and interesting. I don't know why other municipalities haven't adopted this idea, but it's kind of cool, though.

[00:13:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's pretty cool. Other municipalities are working on that idea right now. Basically, every resident of Seattle who's a U.S. citizen or Green Card holder gets four $25 vouchers that they 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're very, very expensive to run. And just - there was a thought a decade back, 15, 20 years back, where - Oh, social media is here, and that's going to completely democratize campaigns itself. It's going to make it free to communicate directly with people. We see what's happened with there - you essentially have to pay to boost your message digitally anyway. And so reaching large amounts of people costs a lot of money - hiring campaign staff, field programs, getting your word out through advertisements - both digital, mail, ads - it is a really, really expensive thing, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for major cities, including Seattle. And that was just out of reach for a lot of people. And advantages people who already are coming from wealth or money, have a lot of wealthy friends, or who are being supported by usually wealthy corporate interests. And that really narrowed the pool of who was able to run and the type of representation that we were getting.

There are a lot of sitting councilmembers and people who've run for office who credit the Democracy Voucher program for enabling their candidacy and fueling their run. Dan Strauss has said that that enabled him to not accept what he called "problematic contributions," saying that it allowed him more independence, essentially, to run, to focus on representing the people instead of representing corporate donors who he would need to get funding from. So it functions as a measure of accountability to voters, helps to even the playing field financially - that's certainly the goal. And hearing from virtually all of the councilmembers on the Seattle City Council, saying that it's a valuable program that should continue. And they opted to put that renewal on the August ballot. So all Seattle voters are going to be voting on that coming up in a few months here. And it's been very popular, been successful. It's going to be funded at a slightly higher level because of both the popularity of the program and its higher utilization among candidates, and the number of candidates who are using that - so slightly higher renewal amount.

[00:15:48] Donna Blankinship: I also think - you know that saying about buy-in, right? So as a voter, when you vote for someone, you feel like they're your person. But if you not just vote for them, but you also support their candidacy - even if it's public mone -, that's one other way that you feel like that's your person who's representing you. And I think that's very powerful.

[00:16:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I absolutely agree. So we'll be seeing that. And also, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell is proposing renewing the Seattle Education Levy, but doubling it to $1.3 billion. Now, this Seattle Education Levy - it's not a levy from the district, it's a levy from the city that provides a lot of wraparound services for the district. Can you talk a little bit about what this would provide, and why Mayor Harrell felt it important to expand this levy?

[00:16:44] Donna Blankinship: Well, part of the expansion is it just costs more to run preschools and do wraparound services. Salaries are more expensive - all kinds of costs have gone up since the last time it was renewed. Seattle has a preschool program that's a subsidized preschool - that's in addition to what the state does. And it's not just for the lowest income families - medium income families can get access to those preschool. Almost every research study that's done says that quality preschool makes a huge difference in a child's ability to succeed later in life. And frankly, these days, preschool is hugely expensive. And parents - sometimes it's a choice between working and putting your kid in preschool, because you can't afford to do both. Also, the wraparound services that you were talking about - everybody agrees that schools are not providing all of the mental health support. It came out of a time when mayors were being encouraged to take a bigger role in education, that cities thrive if their education systems are good. And Seattle wants to have a world-class education system, and it keeps trying and trying to get there. So it's helpful, this extra money. And Seattle voters really are happy to vote Yes on spending tax money on things that they believe in - and people believe in education.

[00:18:20] Crystal Fincher: People absolutely believe in education in Seattle. Most voters in Seattle are happy to fund services that they find value in. Voters at the highest end of the income and wealth ladder are least likely to do that, but most other Seattle voters do support that. And you talked about how expensive childcare is now, and how important funding for preschool and some of those wraparound services are. Childcare is now more expensive than in-state college tuition, which is just - I was talking to someone who is a new dad not that long ago, who's plugged in, a wonky guy. And he's like - You know, I had heard that talking point that childcare was more expensive than tuition. But he's paying over $3,000 a month for childcare costs. And it is just - I don't know how a lot of people are doing it. And really, a lot of people are really struggling to do it and having to make some really tough decisions that are having major impacts on their economic mobility, on their professional 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 amount spent on Seattle graduates going to community college and trying to fund the first two years of community college and prepare people for readiness, so-

[00:19:51] Donna Blankinship: And that's been a very successful program as well.

[00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: It really has. And so looking at doubling down on this - with Mayor Harrell saying, particularly with cuts coming from the federal administration, that this is a really important time to not only double down 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 the Every Child Ready proposal, saying that it'll usher in transformative investments that'll make Seattle one of the best cities in the nation to start and raise a family, supporting our children from cradle to classroom - into college and beyond - toward successful careers. And, you know, I've not been shy about criticizing areas where I may disagree with Mayor Harrell, but I think this is right on the money. It's a great investment where we get a great return. And doubling down on this is the right thing to do. I'm happy to see it.

[00:20:51] Donna Blankinship: Me too.

[00:20:52] Crystal Fincher: I also want to talk about a significant Washington Supreme Court decision striking down a Spokane homelessness initiative. What happened here and why was it struck down?

[00:21:07] Donna Blankinship: So this is very complicated, and it's why I value newspapers to explain stuff like this to me because just reading the case is really complicated. So apparently, citizens in Spokane wanted to crack down on homelessness. And so they passed an initiative saying the city needed to get people off the streets - it's much more complicated than that. And a lot of initiatives end up in the Supreme Court to decide whether they are constitutional or not. And if I remember correctly, this case was struck down because of the way the initiative was worded. And also because - citizens can voice their opinion in initiatives in certain ways, but not in other ways. I'm trying to explain this in plain English, but like I said - it's really complicated.

[00:22:02] Crystal Fincher: Well, it's interesting. So in this, Spokane voters approved an initiative to ban camping within a thousand feet of parks, schools, and licensed daycares. And so you could be issued a citation if you did that. And the Supreme Court essentially said that - according to our Washington Constitution, voters can pass initiatives that deal with policy, that make legislative changes. But it is actually unconstitutional to pass initiatives that deal with administrative changes. Kind of the difference between laying out a broad policy goal versus how 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't get into - if you're changing a policy, if you're establishing a new policy, that's permitted. But what they said is - This was a law that was already on the books, they had already decided on essentially what the policy was on the approach to homelessness. This was more on how to manage within bounds that were already established.

[00:23:12] Donna Blankinship: Right. So the citizens were trying to be the lawmakers instead of the policy deciders.

[00:23:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Or essentially - of the executives, of the staff there - as opposed to the legislators stepping in to that role. And so it's not like the Grants Pass decision, or the Supreme Court ruling overturning that, which was more 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, it could be argued that a city council could decide to do this, but it can't be done via initiative. And so it's interesting because there were other cities considering doing similar things to this - have heard similar things kicked around in some King County cities. But this really gives some clarity and narrows the scope about what is possible in citizen initiatives, both when it comes to dealing with homelessness and any other issue. We know that you can't have an initiative that covers more than one subject - as we've seen several of those get overturned. But here's another bound that is a reminder that you have to craft your initiatives carefully to make sure that they're constitutional - not only with our federal constitution, but with our state constitution. And if there's a question about that, they're going to be taken to court.

[00:24:38] Donna Blankinship: Right. And the Supreme Court in Washington has done a really good job of - in as plain English as they can - explaining what's okay and what isn't okay in initiatives. And I appreciate that. It's actually pretty fun to read their rulings. I'm one of those people that love to read U.S. Supreme Court rulings - whether I agree with them or not, they're usually interesting the way that they cover the topic. You learn a lot from them.

[00:25:07] Crystal Fincher: You definitely do. And you can watch Supreme Court proceedings in our Temple of Justice on TVW. And TVW - kind of our state's own C-SPAN-type channel - that really gives you an eye into right now, the legislative session that's going on, a lot of information about what's happening in State departments, and also our Washington Supreme Court.

[00:25:30] Donna Blankinship: And you can go there in person as well. When the Supreme Court was debating the McCleary decision, I brought my daughter with me when I was covering that case because it was education. And I wanted her to have an opportunity to see that court in action. And I knew that they always had an interesting conversation. It was very cool. I just remember her - she had to sit on the floor because there weren't enough seats in the room, but we got to be in the room. So that was cool.

[00:26:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Our Washington Supreme Court does a really admirable job - especially in comparison to a lot of other states - of making the court accessible, decisions accessible, and really trying to help educate the public about the importance and impact of the judicial system overall. We have previously talked to Justices Mary Yu, Justice Whitener, as well as our newest Supreme Court justice, Justice Mungia. And we had previously spoken with Justice González also. So a number who have just been interested in communicating with the public, making the court accessible, helping people understand and access the court. So I deeply appreciate that.

I also want to talk about some potential consequences from this legislative session, as they are wrapping up budget negotiations - which Democrats in the Legislature said have wrapped up and they 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 some programs that have been very helpful in reducing homelessness and getting people housed are on the chopping block. What's happening here and what may be affected?

[00:27:29] Donna Blankinship: So I am only following the legislature 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. There's a really successful program that 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.

[00:28:01] Crystal Fincher: So that's a major program that is paid for by the state - the right-of-way program, which was started under Governor Inslee - and had been really successful. And one of the things, when rolling out that program, is they took a very intentional, service-based approach. So it was not just a sweep that bulldozes belongings and forces people out of one area, most often displacing them to another area - but doesn't get people into shelter or housing or anything - it's essentially just you can't be here and we're going to take everything that you have and trash it if you try to stay. To one, connecting people with services. So it was run by Purpose. Dignity. 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-thirds of those people still being housed. And that's one major metric that a lot of people pay attention to - Is this just a temporary thing? People are provided some temporary shelter, but it's not making a difference in getting people permanently housed and they're just returning to the street? Or are they really being connected to permanent housing? Providing the extra level of connection and service, and really working through that had shown to be successful in moving a much higher percentage of people than average into permanent housing. That number certainly pales in comparison to the number of people who were unhoused, but it was one state program looking to do that. And others were looking to replicate it, but funding has been in short supply.

And this is at a time where we just got the numbers from the 2024 Point in Time count, which is an usually annual count that is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, showing that this year, there were almost 17,000 - they counted 16,868 people in the Point in Time count - 26% higher than the number of individuals living in homelessness in 2022. So significant increase, particularly at a time where we have almost every elected official saying that homelessness is a top priority, certainly paying lip service to saying they've taken action. There have been different approaches. In the city of Seattle, that approach has largely been a 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 of affordable housing is the biggest metric correlated with homelessness. So as we see housing prices continue to escalate, it can be anticipated and expected that we're going to see those numbers going up. And that's certainly a continuing dynamic in the city of Seattle and around King County. Interestingly, unsheltered and sheltered key findings - they broke down available shelter beds by King County sub-region, and then broke down how many homeless people there are per available bed. In North King County, there are almost 10 people - 9.6 for each individual available bed. So, for every one person that has access to a bed, nine others are without any option for shelter or housing there.

[00:31:43] Donna Blankinship: By far the worst - yeah, by far the worst. And Southeast is the second worst, and it's much smaller - it's two people per bed. Yeah.

[00:31:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And the rest are right around 2 - 1.9 for South King County, Seattle Metro, and East King County. 1.5 for Snoqualmie Valley. And what's just striking is that a lot of times in conversations about homelessness, there's an assumption that - People wanted to get inside. If they wanted shelter, there's shelter available. And what numbers like this continue to 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 about frontline enforcement and should we create more zones where people are not allowed to camp or be - I don't know how we divorce that conversation from providing available places for people to go, if we're saying it's illegal for people to not be in certain places. And right now, we are woefully short and need - looking, like here, 8,000 more beds easy, just to be at a breakeven point right now. And this number continues to go up, which means that that need will continue to go up. So there's a lot of work to do, but it really seems like we need to make sure and hold elected officials accountable for dealing with the need for shelter.

[00:33:13] Donna Blankinship: At a time when the federal government is cutting money going everywhere for all the important things. And then you hear people are always talking about - What about this city? There's not homeless people on the streets in this city, or that city. Well, those are the cities that actually provide a place for people to go. There's a direct connection, like you said, between available shelter - and not just temporary shelter, but permanent shelter - for people. People either have a right to shelter in this country, or they don't. And apparently they don't.

[00:33:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And interestingly, in this - there's an article from Erica Barnett about cuts looming. As you said, federal cuts are happening and need to be backfilled - but also because of county budget woes and state budget woes. And the options that have or have not been utilized to address those - there are further shortfalls in funding and cuts in funding that look to be coming. And they're basically saying - Unless there is more funding added, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority is looking at losing a lot of money. And the services that they're able to provide - already not enough for the amount of demand out there - are going to recede further. And one potential budget tool that was potentially an increase in the amount of property taxes that the county is able to levy, which is capped at 1%.

[00:34:49] Donna Blankinship: 1% increase.

[00:34:50] Crystal Fincher: Yep, 1% increase. There were conversations about potentially bumping that up to 3%. Those died, so that does not look like it's going to be a potential lever. And it is not looking particularly promising for what's going to be unveiled tomorrow, that they're going to be backfilling in some of these cuts. And it doesn't look like the county is ponying up much more, according to Dwight Dively, the King County Budget Director.

Interestingly, King County Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda suggested another option. Since funding is lacking at the county, state, and federal level, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority could be empowered with its own taxing authority. The King County Council and the region explicitly decided not to do that before - when established previously, and made that decision explicit in 2019. But Councilmember Mosqueda noted - 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 for KCRHA to have taxing authority, and I think that was a misstep then. So there's potentially an option for providing the King County Regional Homelessness Authority with its own taxing authority - I'm sure that would be a lively and probably contentious conversation and debate. But we really have to decide what our priorities are here. And if we say that homelessness is an emergency, it's a crisis, it's a priority, and that's not backed up by funding - I don't see how that's consistent.

[00:36:28] Donna Blankinship: Well, my hot take is - we have separate taxes to support our stadiums, our athletic facilities. This seems like a much higher priority to me than whether the Mariners have a beautiful stadium to play in.

[00:36:44] Crystal Fincher: I would agree with you there. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 25th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today is former news editor at Cascade PBS - also on Substack, where her newsletter is called Civics for Adults - Donna Blankinship. Donna, how can people sign up for your newsletter?

[00:37:10] Donna Blankinship: Well, just Google "Civics for Adults on Substack" and you'll find it.

[00:37:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We can also put a link in the show notes. You can find Donna on Bluesky @dgblankinship. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky @HacksAndWonks, and you can find me at @finchfrii. We'll throw all of that in the show notes also. You catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed - next week, we have another Seattle City Attorney candidate teed up. So if you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. And you can get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in this show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.