Week in Review: August 15, 2025 - with David Kroman

“Seattle sends tax rewrite to ballot as economic forecast improves” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times

“Seattle Council Greenlights Rinck’s B&O Tax Overhaul” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“Seattle budget season is oh so political” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City

“Seattle could expand police surveillance to more neighborhoods” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times

“Groups sue to try to get Tacoma $20 minimum wage initiative on ballot” by Alexandra Yoon-Hendricks from The Seattle Times

“WA GOP Senate leader John Braun to challenge Democratic Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard

“Urbanist-Backed Katie Wilson Opens Up Nearly 10 Point Lead over Harrell” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist

“After primary defeats, Seattle moderates face hard path to reelection” by Josh Cohen from Cascade PBS

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.

Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows, where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Times City Hall reporter, David Kroman. Hey!

[00:00:44] David Kroman: Hi - thanks for having me.

[00:00:46] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. All right, well, we've got a few things to talk about this week. Last week was all about the election, but we have some catching up on other news to talk about. First thing I want to talk about is the Seattle City Council greenlighting a business tax overhaul sponsored by Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and supported by Mayor Bruce Harrell. What would this do? And how did this arrive on the ballot?

[00:01:15] David Kroman: Yeah, it's a little confusing - first, just to emphasize that this goes to the ballot, so voters will get to decide whether to enact it or not. But basically, what it does is it takes the City's B&O tax structure, which - B&O taxes make up, I think, about 20% of the general fund, so it's a significant source of money - and shifts the burden upward. So 75% of businesses who pay the B&O tax right now, who earn $2 million or less of gross income, will no longer pay the B&O tax. And businesses above that will get to deduct that first $2 million. So the calculation is basically - if your gross income is less than $6 million, you're going to pay less under this proposal, which they say is about 90% of the businesses who pay the B&O tax. If you are above that threshold, though, you're going to pay probably something close to like 50% more on your B&O taxes - so not insignificant. There's a few reasons that they're doing this. The first is the budget is - well, it's perhaps a slightly improved place now - but the budget is basically seen as being in a very tight place. And the city has done what it can over the last few years to avoid big cuts, but they have come to the point where they probably can't do that anymore. So this proposal would bring in something around $80 million more per year. And then for folks who have been pushing for something more "progressive" the idea is this is shifting the burden away from small businesses and towards larger businesses. And so, in the limited menu of options that Seattle has to make their tax code a little more progressive, the idea is this does this.

There are some complicating factors - namely, that Seattle cannot just tax profit. They have to tax gross income - that means that businesses that have super high expenses but low margins are going to oppose this, and it's going to be a little harder on them. The number one issue is probably going to be grocery stores - businesses that spend a lot of money but don't make a lot of money. The other one is probably hospitals - they have huge expenses, but it's not like they're bringing in a large amount of money - and so that's kind of the complicating factor here. But for folks who have been pushing for some kind of rewrite of the City's tax code, they see this as the best of a selection of not great options.

[00:03:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's a great way to summarize it - in a lot of people's view, the best of not great options. And a lot of people feeling that even though it's not perfect, it's necessary to address the budget shortfall, which in the short-term seems like it got a little bit better with a - rosier might be overstating it - but a better economic forecast than anticipated just now, but still a significant deficit. It looks like you were talking about the healthcare organizations, hospitals being a group that may have experienced more effects here. It looks like Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and Seattle Children's Hospital were actually exempted from this legislation. So maybe some of that conversation happened before this - so it looks like they are going to be exempt. But this is going to be a really interesting conversation over the next few months - for voters to have, for businesses to weigh in on. There certainly has been a lot of talk about inequality in the tax code on the business side. And hearing a lot of feedback - feeling that our current tax code advantaged very large corporations, with people feeling that there was more than an appropriate burden on local small businesses, and viewing that as particularly harmful in light of increased insurance costs, labor costs, lots of other costs that they have cited in the past several years. What is your take on how voters will view this and its chances in November?

[00:04:55] David Kroman: I don't have any reason to believe that voters will not sign off on this - just because they have a pretty strong track record of voting in favor of tax proposals coming out of City Hall. I think the fact that it has the trappings of a tax that hits larger businesses and exempts small businesses - we've seen with the Social Housing vote and honestly, with the election results just a week ago - this is a city that is willing to take that on. I think that Councilmember Rinck and Mayor Harrell know that, which is part of why they're proposing this at this point. And so my approach to votes on taxes is - until voters of Seattle turn one down, I will always assume they will approve the next one. And in the 10 years I've been covering Seattle politics, that has always proven to be true - that logic has never failed me. So I assume they will vote it and vote in favor of it. I will revisit that assumption if they vote this one down for future taxes. But right now, I think it'll pass.

[00:05:46] Crystal Fincher: I think that is pretty sound and safe logic. Now I want to talk a little bit more about the economic forecast that the city just received - and what the city is saying about its outlook, its deficit, and what may be on the horizon. What did the Seattle Office of Economic and Revenue Forecast say?

[00:06:10] David Kroman: Yeah, so the big change here is their outlook on the economy going forward - it's not really a particularly meaningful change as far as like how much money they have seen coming in over the last few months. But if you remember, back in April, the office recommended to lawmakers that they take basically a pessimistic view of the economy - which is a rare thing to do. Usually, they recommend the middle-of-the-road approach, but all the uncertainty around tariffs and everything caused them to think that - Hey, we think that the worst-case scenario is more likely over the next six months than the middle-case scenario. The new forecast changes that - they revisited their assumptions. They said - Hey, you know, it actually wasn't as bad as we thought. That's not to say it couldn't get bad, but as of right now, we're going to shift our projections back to this kind of baseline scenario. So that alone, basically, put the city in a roughly $100 million improved position. There are lots of caveats around that, which is, they said - Yes, we're recommending this, but there's so much uncertainty in the economy right now that we could easily downgrade that in the next few months. So lawmakers - if you are creating a budget, you should accept this, but not assume that this is going to stay true. And then the other piece here is that their pessimistic forecast is actually much worse than their pessimistic forecast back in April. So even though they're not adopting that one right now, they're saying that if that is the scenario that comes to pass, it will actually be worse than what we were expecting before. So the takeaway is really - on surface level, things look a little better and that is good for the city, but be cautious because things could turn south pretty quickly.

[00:07:45] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. That next revenue forecast is due in October, so we'll see what the updates are then. But yeah, a lot of caution, I heard, there, moving forward. So we'll see what that means for Seattle's budget in the future. Also wanted to note that Councilmember Rinck was able to add $300,000 to the City's supplementary budget to pay for legal defense for unaccompanied children facing detention and deportation. That money was taken from an underspend from the SCORE jail contract that we talked about a while ago here - the City of Seattle contracting with a Des Moines jail for some services to house people who are incarcerated there. Councilmembers Rob Saka and Maritza Rivera were the only No votes. But that certainly seems to be addressing a lot of feedback that councilmembers have heard and concern about some of the federal actions and how they're impacting families in Seattle.

But I also want to talk about Seattle expanding police surveillance to more neighborhoods because of a decision from the Council this week. What did the Council decide and why?

[00:09:05] David Kroman: Yeah, so the Council decided that they were going to deploy more cameras around the city. And this has been a conversation that has been sort of ongoing for a long time, which is - how do we use technology to "force multiply" the police department that we have? Technology has taken a much bigger role in policing and law enforcement over the last few years for a few reasons, which is - staffing is down. And so there is sort of justification that - Hey, you know, we don't have the officers we used to, so we need some help. There has also been sort of - and counterintuitively, I think to some - a civil rights argument, which is that the more technology you have, the less face-to-face interaction you might actually have with police officers, which, particularly after 2020, was seen as a good thing. And so this is part of this Council's pledge to be a public safety-law enforcement council. Of course, the timing of it, with concerns about what the Trump administration may or may not do - that has made this a little bit more of a sensitive topic. There have always been surveillance concerns in Seattle, though I would say that that had kind of waned a little bit in the 2020 years. But now, with the Trump administration - and particularly their immigration enforcement - there have been a lot more questions about, can this be used by federal officers? I think the priorities of this Council to be a public safety forward law enforcement council have outweighed those concerns. So we'll get a final vote on this, I believe, after recess. But I expect that it'll pass.

[00:10:35] Crystal Fincher: It certainly does look poised to pass, just by the comments from the councilmembers that we've heard so far. But there have been some significant dissenting voices, including some saying that - Hey, this is still in a trial or pilot period. Why are they accelerating while they're still here? And others expressing concerns about what the data could be used for - as you just talked about, not only from the administration, but how is Seattle handling this? What is the equity analysis and have they really done that type of analysis and homework to the degree that it should have? Certainly, some concerns were expressed previously - some dismissive comments from some councilmembers when it came to those kind of analyses. What have you heard?

[00:11:24] David Kroman: Yeah, that is a concern. I think the counter argument is that the City has this Surveillance Ordinance, so there's all these steps that they have to go through whenever they're deploying surveillance technology - that was born out of the late 20-teens debate. But yeah, I think this goes to deeper issues around enforcement, which is how do you avoid kind of "over-policing" or focusing too much on certain communities. At the same time, sometimes there are certain areas that have more expressed desire for some of these technologies - and it's not monolithic at all, as far as who wants this and who doesn't. So I'm sure the City will say that they'll do analyses of these things and consider it. But like I said, it just seems like the tide has shifted as far as this City Hall's desire to deploy what they see as public safety law enforcement technology outweighing whatever concerns those technologies bring with them.

[00:12:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. Now we heard Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck and Bob Kettle voice some concerns that they addressed in an amendment to this. What did they wind up adding to this legislation?

[00:12:31] David Kroman: Yeah, so one question that follows this technology around is like whether it actually works. And I think that's a question mark. I think when you're talking about law enforcement technology, it's really case-by-case basis. Things like traffic cameras do tend to have an effect on at least speeding where those cameras are. So that's a case where if you're trying to slow down speeds through a school zone or whatever, there's some evidence that traffic cameras actually do that. But as far as sort of like what they do generally, there's other examples of technology that, just like, don't work very well at all. I think of the ShotSpotter debate. There's just a lot of question mark around whether that actually reduces gun violence. And then there's this new technology they voted on - these like GPS projectiles that they can stick onto cars - a lot of questions about how effective those would be. And so, yeah, when you're talking about police and technology, this question of how effective it is and whether the juice is worth the squeeze, so to speak - I think that's where Councilmember Rinck and Councilmember Kettle are coming from, which is - if we are going to continue deploying this new technology, we should have some method for checking into whether or not it's working. Both from an equity standpoint, but also, this stuff's expensive and you got to maintain it. And so if we are going to expand the reach of surveillance technologies, we should be pretty well sure that they're actually worth doing, that they're actually worth deploying and making a difference.

[00:13:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well. And is a really valid point and great question - is this actually working? There are absolutely equity concerns that need to be addressed, need to continue to be evaluated. But the goal of this all is to make people safer, to reduce the amount of people being harmed in Seattle. And I think, as you said, there are big question marks. And I think that was part of the reason why some people are questioning why they're moving forward with this when there are some questions that exist, before gathering the data throughout the pilot period that those are typically used for - to really do a full evaluation before determining the right way to proceed, to do that based on actual data instead of wishes, hopes, and desires for what that may be. In some of the coverage that I read here, there was some talk of - Well, you know, we've seen them involved in investigations and involved in these things. But did we see how that wound up in the actual cases? Did they result in making a difference in those cases? Were they very valuable there? Are we using this in the way that it should? Are there certain types of cameras or uses that are more effective than others? I think there's a need and a lot of validity to questioning methods here. I think everyone shares the ultimate goal of reducing crime, particularly violent crime, and finding the most safe and effective way to do that. I think there are big questions about - is this the most safe and effective way? And if we don't know that yet, if we don't have the data to do that - are we sure spending on these particular things is more effective than, say, spending on expanding the CARE team? Or other initiatives that they have, task forces that they've put together that have been successful in the past? So certainly, when expenditures in this amount - which is pretty significant are at stake - and we just were talking about a significant budget deficit, that seems like really fair questions to ask, both for good governments, for the budget's sake. And just to make sure people are getting what they asked for, what they voted for - when they said that they want people to take their safety seriously and make good decisions in that direction. So we'll certainly continue to see how this is. As you said, this will continue to be evaluated and reported on - at least to Council. So I will be very curious to see how this stands and how the prioritization of these particular methods versus, say, more traffic cameras for traffic enforcement or bus lane enforcement, or other initiatives like the CARE team, how they're really prioritizing and justifying the types of priorities that they are currently funding. So very interesting, pretty impactful, and potentially very consequential in a lot of different ways.

Now, I want to turn to the City of Tacoma, which we haven't talked much about lately. But some groups are suing to try to get a Tacoma minimum wage initiative on the ballot. And they're suing because, as may sound familiar to some people who follow Seattle politics and the Seattle City Council, with this minimum wage initiative that's being put forward by labor and community advocates - they collected signatures, it fell to the City Council to approve within a certain timeline. It looks like the Tacoma City Council failed to take action in time to ensure that it would be on the November ballot. And so, as we saw with the Social Housing vote in Seattle and the City Council action delaying that vote from what advocates initially had targeted and thought they had gotten signatures in time for for it to be on the November ballot - which is what these advocates in Tacoma did, this is potentially now looking at a February special election. Well, these groups who collected these signatures and turned them in for this initiative said - You know what, that's not okay. We're taking you to court. And so this is going to be really interesting here. The United Food and Commercial Workers 367, along with Tacoma for All and the Tacoma Democratic Socialists of America are behind this initiative and this litigation against the City of Tacoma. It'll be really interesting to see how this plays out. How do you see this?

[00:18:37] David Kroman: Yeah, it's a similar theme - my context usually comes from Seattle, what Seattle is, and I imagine that Tacoma's politics are a little bit different. But I think this is a tactic. The Seattle City Council denied that they were sort of intentionally pushing the Social Housing vote back. Yeah, had some questions about that. I will say that my read, though, on politics is that improving wages and taxing the rich - or the perception that you're taxing the rich - are just really popular issues with voters. And I think sometimes voters tend to be - at least around here - are to the left of even their elected bodies. And I suspect that that's what's happening in Tacoma, too.

[00:19:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're on to something there - that is a very accurate point. I do think that the residents of Tacoma - as they are in most places in Washington state, it appears, even in purple and red areas - are generally in favor of a more progressive - well, generally in favor of a higher minimum wage. That seems to be broadly popular, very pro-worker stance that is pretty uncontroversial, pretty universally supported - particularly in a City like Tacoma. Their Council is not as moderate as the Council of Seattle at this point, but Mayor Woodards of Tacoma does appear to be. This agenda was set by her, was definitely there. It does appear that she wasn't a big fan of this legislation. And is using the ambiguity, and kind of a conflict between the Tacoma City Charter and the State Constitution - there's actually a discrepancy between those two things, which makes a difference. It's a few days difference. And that is actually what it looks like she feels like she may be able to take advantage of here, in order to thwart this initiative. Now, that's a big technicality, essentially, that could have been addressed in a number of different ways. It looks like Mayor Woodards is choosing to pick this fight and use that opportunity for the conflict to create some confusion that may justify this delayed vote. But it really does not seem like that's going to pay off.

Now, the other thing here is Mayor Woodards is termed out. There is currently the election happening for her successor. So she's also not going to be in office for that much longer. And so if this is what she feels is right personally, there isn't really much of a price electorally that she pays for it because she's done and out of office anyway. So it looks like she may have just done this for the love of the game, but it'll be really interesting to see how this plays out and for other councils and legislative bodies that are put in this position - and we've seen quite a few - maybe this will act as a deterrent if this court case or if this litigation is successful against the city to using the tactic of delaying a vote to delay something landing on a ballot and hurting its chances of passing as a tactic, instead of just having the debate in public. So follow along with that in Tacoma. We certainly will, and we'll keep you updated.

Now, I also want to talk about news this week - in southwestern Washington - with Washington's Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in the Third Congressional District picking up a Republican challenger in Senate leader John Braun. Why does he say he's running against her? And what do you read into this for his chances, and what this means for that race?

[00:22:36] David Kroman: Yeah, I think Republicans view this as a fairly open pickup opportunity. And the last two cycles, Congressman Gluesenkamp Perez has run against Joe Kent. And Joe Kent is sort of the epitome of MAGA Republicanism. And so she's been able to exploit that. She's been an extremely local-focused congressperson and was able to win twice in a fairly conservative area that has elected a Republican congressperson for years. c now the question, though, is whether someone like John Braun - who is not that really - can beat her in this seat. I would say that historically, the answer probably would have been yes. I think this is going to be a much more difficult Gluesenkamp Perez than it was against Joe Kent. The question really is - can she separate herself from the larger Democratic Party? Because she's always tried to do that - quite controversially - but she has, basically every opportunity that she could take a vote against the Democratic Party and not be the swing vote, she has taken that opportunity, which I think politically makes some sense, because then she can go back to her constituents and say - I've bucked the party. And so far, that has worked pretty well for her. For me, the question is - has she endeared herself well enough to enough people in that area? Or have the demographics of that area shifted enough that she's safer? I don't know the area well enough to give a read on that. But I think Joe Kent running twice was a gift to Gluesenkamp Perez, and John Braun running is going to pose a much greater challenge for her. John Braun is going to be a real test of whether or not she has done enough to make herself popular in that district and survive, because now it's not so much a referendum on MAGA Republicanism - John Braun's a more traditional republican - and so the question is, Where will the Republicans go? Because we know that Gluesenkamp Perez picked up a lot of Republican votes. Are those people going to go back to a more traditional Republican, or will they stick with her?

[00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think, certainly - and we say more traditional Republican - I still think that, at this point, means something a little bit different than it did 10, 15 years ago. Certainly, John Braun is very supportive and aligned with Trump and what we see as the current Republican agenda. And to be clear, that district is, and has been - until Marie Gluesenkamp Perez - a red district. And if you look at who they elected at other levels, has several red legislative districts within her jurisdiction. So this is not a situation where it's a purple district, like where Kim Schrier is. Not that at all. It is red. And Marie Gluesenkamp Perez won by picking off Republicans. I think you're right that Joe Kent was somewhat of a gift. And that he was extreme - certainly, I would say, in the first race that they had - extreme, even by MAGA standards. Just some wild theories and beliefs. Now, for the current administration, that's pretty mainstream - and he is now part of the current federal administration. But there is a serious challenger who does not - publicly, at least - spout as many kind of wild conspiracy theories in the same way that Joe Kent did. So I think this is going to be a race with different dimensions.

I think another element of this is going to be whether she picks up a Democratic, more progressive challenger. Certainly, these past two elections for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez - she's been able to hold the Democratic base unified and add Republicans to that. We've seen over the past several months - essentially a lot of this year - her taking a lot of heat from her Democratic base, from some of the decisions, hearing feedback that they're viewing this less in partisan terms of strictly the traditional Democrat or Republican, and more in terms of - is she adequately protecting democracy? Is she adequately protecting basic, fundamental constitutional rights? And some being dissatisfied on where she landed there. Now, is that going to be enough to draw a credible challenger to her left? Don't know about that. Is that going to be enough to pull off some Democrats who voted for her before? We'll see. There may just be a couple percentage points, but in races as close as she's had, a couple percentage points could decide this race. So it'll be really interesting to see how she addresses that, if she's able to bring people back who were dissatisfied with her amidst what could be the threat of what a Republican in that seat would do. Or if Democrats are going to say - You know, we know it's a risk, and we know this is overall a red district, but we still don't like the direction that it is going from our perspective, and we may want an alternative. It's going to be really interesting to see, but this is one of the seats that's critical to Democrats' plans to retake the majority. And a very key swing district to hold on to - seems like the dimensions of this race are going to be different and probably more challenging than she might have dealt with before.

[00:27:55] David Kroman: Yeah, I think that's right. It feels a little bit like she's playing a Joe Manchin role here, and the debates around her seem to be kind of similar, which is - how do you view politics? Do you view somebody like this as - do you want to be pushing them all the time to be as aligned with your views on the world as possible? Or do you compare her to the alternative? If you're a Democrat in this area, it's hard for me to imagine anybody but Marie Gluesenkamp Perez being elected as a Democrat. And so, does she lose support from the Democratic base? I don't know. Possibly. If she does, they're going to end up with John Braun, though. I don't see a realistic path in which someone could challenge her from the left, and then beat John Braun in the general election - in this particular district. So I find those debates kind of interesting. Like I said, it's very Joe Manchin-like, which is - he frustrated a lot of Democrats with some of his votes. But at the end of the day, he got them judges confirmed, and he was the tilt on a lot of contentious votes in the Senate. I think losing Gluesenkamp Perez in this district - she would not be replaced by a different Democrat. She would be replaced by John Braun.

[00:29:03] Crystal Fincher: I agree with you there. Again, this is a red district - it's not purple, it's red. But it's interesting to me because I do think there's a possibility that - and I'm not saying that she loses to a progressive challenger if a credible one does appear, but it could erode her support. I think that's the biggest risk. And I think that kind of traditional, pragmatic approach of - Well, the alternative is someone who is going to be even less in-line with our values if you're a Democrat, could be worse. But what a lot of people have seen, and I do think that there are some shades of, are a dynamic reminiscent of the Tea Party movement for conservatives - where they grew unhappy on the Republican side with how the Republican establishment was operating. Do I agree with that personally? That's a different issue. But they were saying - Hey, these people are not representing us in the way that we want to be represented. And we saw a crop of much more right wing challengers. And, in a number of situations, much less electable in general election terms than the people who they ousted in the primaries. They lost some, but what that did for that movement was ultimately move it significantly to the right - to the point that we have now a second Trump administration that is really reshaping the institutions and foundations of this country. And so I have certainly heard a lot of rumblings that - Ah, you know, everybody needs to be primary challenges. You'll see people expressing a lot of displeasure at a number of kind of establishment Democrats, more mainline Democrats - as well as Republicans in some of the town halls that they've had. And so you wonder if that same kind of resentment and feeling like - Well, our choices are between bad and worse for people who are making this kind of calculation, so what if we just vote for neither? It may hurt in the short-term, but ultimately we're only going in a worse direction. Whether that is sound or right or good is up for debate. But I do think that there is a bit of a different dynamic going into this election for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez than the other one. I'm not saying there's going to be a mass defection. I'm not saying that she's doomed to lose at all. I'm just saying that this is a tougher needle to thread, given the lay of the land currently.

[00:31:44] David Kroman: Yeah, I think there are parallels. I think the parallels are probably more likely playing out in places like Adam Smith's district, where you've got these intense primary fights - you got Kshama Sawant challenging Adam Smith. That's where I kind of see the Tea Party parallels. I wasn't paying super close attention to 2010, admittedly - I was still in college, studying English - but my sense is a lot of the fights that happened there ended up being in Republican primaries. So I think it's a good point. For my money, I look more to safe Democratic districts that have had people in them for a long time, where they might get challenges and lose to the left - it's the sort of AOC model. I don't know that the uprising has been quite as powerful as it was with the Tea Party so far, but it's early days yet - maybe it will.

[00:32:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, remains to be seen. And I do think that Adam Smith, of the Ninth Congressional District, is going to probably have a different kind of race on his hands that does reflect the dynamics that we just discussed. We will see. We will continue to cover this and stay updated.

Last thing I just wanted to touch on is - last week we talked about the election results. We have gotten continuous drops - they're still counting. They're almost done counting - they have a little while left to go. But we do have a good idea of the shape of a number of late races. Last week, we were not sure how the King County District 5 race was definitely going to wind up, but it does look like the people who were in the lead - the top two finishers, Peter Kwon and Steffanie Fain - are going to prevail. Kim-Khanh Van was within one percentage point of Steffanie Fain for that second position to get through to the general election, but there are not enough votes remaining to make that look possible at this point in time. And now, Katie Wilson is up over Bruce Harrell by almost 10%. Dionne Foster over 55%, nearing 60%. Alexis Mercedes Rinck nearing 80%, up in the upper 70s. So it looks like the dynamics that were present intensified somewhat. What are your big takeaways from this election?

[00:34:10] David Kroman: Yeah, if you are a Seattle City Hall moderate, it was just really bad. There's not really any way around it. I think Ann Davison and Sara Nelson are all but cooked - that is a huge gap. And we talk about the 50% threshold as being important because that suggests they have an outright majority of voters, and it's not even close in the Davison and Nelson races. I think Katie Wilson crossing that threshold is significant. If I put - at this point - something like three-to-one odds that she becomes the next mayor. Not to say that Harrell can't find a way to win this race, but it's going to be tough for him. I think he's certainly the underdog.

So I think there are a lot of takeaways, a lot of ways to think about this. My sense is there was sort of a specific thing that voters wanted in 2021 and 2023, which was around public safety and disorder and crime - and they voted for that. This City Hall has certainly taken on some of that, but has also gotten into fights that are less popular around gig work and wages and labor and tenant regulations and ethics and things like that - that are just frankly not why they were sent to City Hall. And so I think the fact that they focused and spent as much time and energy on those issues, at the same time as affordability became probably people's number one issue - public safety, I think, is not quite as important, which if you ask those moderates, they would say it's because they've done a great job already. But I just think it's not top of mind quite as much anymore, and affordability is. And I think voters during the Trump administration want somebody who is offering what they view as a clear direction and a narrative for what anybody left-of-center can coalesce around at a time when it feels like Democrats are being kind of steamrolled at the federal level. And Harrell just has never really been that guy. He's never been the type to offer broad, sweeping narratives. He's kind of a - Here, look at these specific wins I've had. I built housing over here or I've done X thing. But he has never really been an ideologue in any sense, or has never really offered a big narrative. And I think Katie Wilson is offering a narrative and offering a direction. People certainly disagree with that and question whether that is going to lead to the things she says she can do, but she is offering a fairly cohesive story about how hard it is to live in a city like Seattle and how expensive it is - and that she can be the person to do that. And I think that was appealing to people.

[00:36:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. One thing that I would say - and there are definitely varying opinions on this - I do think public safety is still really important to people.

[00:36:44] David Kroman: Yeah, I do, too - just whether or not it's the first, the top priority. But yeah, sorry - I interrupted you.

[00:36:50] Crystal Fincher: Well, and no - that's fine. And I think, what people - we talked about this, we had a roundtable with consultants and we talked somewhat about this - but what some people viewed, I think, as - Oh, Seattle voters were progressive, but then they became moderate to conservative, and it was a big swing, but now they turned moderate again. And I would say, and have said several times before, that I don't think that Seattle voters changed. But just because you're progressive, and you want to see root causes addressed, and follow evidence and data, and kind of look at the root causes of problems and address those instead of the symptoms of some of those problems - does not mean that you don't want to see results, that you don't want to see your leaders be accountable for what they do and accountable to the public. And I think that what was sold when a lot of the moderate majority took over was them saying - Hey, we're progressives, but we're going to hire more cops. We're totally going to take public safety seriously. We're definitely going to fix this homelessness problem. And it's only because those crazy liberals and their crazy ideas were allowed in office that this problem became so bad, and we'll get in and we'll fix it. That was almost explicitly their argument. And they did not do that - to a lot of people. Now, I do think that they have focused in certain areas - and that's not to say that no progress has been made. I think that particularly some areas of focus - like Downtown - that the City Council and Mayor Harrell took action to reduce visible homelessness in the Downtown core. And I think people have seen that difference. What I also think is that the approach that they used - being primarily a sweeps-focused approach for homelessness, which they said that they had the answer to improve dramatically. And to public safety issues and disorder by cracking down - the tough-on-crime but ultimately punitive - types of solutions didn't fix the problem for a lot of people. And although there were some areas of the city that saw improvements, those problems migrated to some other areas. And I think that there was a dynamic that - Hey, I'm still seeing problems and it's still around, but these people actually haven't shown that they have what it takes to fix the issue, both in terms of the types of things that they're prioritizing, which, like you said, involves some weird attacks on minimum wage and other things, but also just that their approach didn't work.

I think a lot of that's behind why Ann Davison performed so poorly in the primary, where that's a position solely focused on public safety. And I think what her significant lag behind Erika Evans shows is that voters just disagree with the approach. They want to feel safer. They want safer streets. I think they have a more expansive view of what safety means - it's not only about violent crime. It's also about being safe when you're in a car, when you're walking and biking. It's about feeling safe that the federal government, or masked people in unmarked cars, aren't going to show up and drag you away - or your neighbors - with no due process. I think people are feeling unsafe from a variety of perspectives, and ultimately, just haven't felt that the people in power and the policies that they have pushed have done an adequate job of addressing those. I share your opinion that Ann Davison and Sara Nelson are likely cooked. I cannot recall a time when an incumbent, down by that much in a race where their opposition is not aligned with them policy-wise, has ever come back to win. And agree with you that Bruce Harrell certainly has an uphill battle, but there's potentially a path - where it's just really hard to see a path with the other Seattle incumbents there. But it'll be really interesting to see, and I'm waiting to get the final data so we can start looking into the maps, start looking into what's happening where. And it's going to be really interesting to see.

What was your take on the King County Executive results?

[00:41:39] David Kroman: Yeah, that one's interesting, because on paper, Zahilay and Balducci are not - those two running against each other, that is not an Ann Davison and Erika Evans situation. I certainly think Zahilay is in a good spot, but King County - I think there are a lot more votes out there for Balducci to pick up. It's impossible to do the simple math of dividing up everyone's votes and trying to reallocate them in the general election, but Balducci certainly is probably the underdog here. But that one feels a little more up in the air, just because there were enough people who got real votes in the primary. When you look at Katie Wilson or Bruce Harrell, or Erika Evans and Ann Davison, or Sara Nelson and Dionne Foster - those were really basically two-person races in the primary. And so the reason that it's so hard for those three people who are down to make up ground is there just weren't a lot of votes that were not distributed between the two of them - they got 90%. The Executive race - John Wilson, despite saying he's not running anymore, still got 10% of the vote. And what's his name? Derek Chartrand - I think his name - he got like 12% of the vote. So those are real vote counts. So I guess with that, I don't know what it was about Zahilay that drew people to him - probably in Seattle more. I think he's probably a little more Seattle-oriented - Balducci being from the Eastside. He has more progressive affiliations, though I don't know that his administration would be significantly more progressive than a Balducci administration. But that one, for me, I just kind of throw that in the blender and we'll see what we get in the general election, just because it's really hard to know exactly how the rest of King County - whose candidates did not advance - how they will end up voting in the general election, or if they will vote at all.

[00:43:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a huge question mark. I think that you're absolutely spot on. Looking at the vote totals of some of the people who didn't advance - are certainly significant, exceed the margin of separation between them now, and are up for grabs. Whether all those votes migrate in one direction, a majority in one direction, or if people who are Republicans and voted for a Republican can't bring themselves to vote for people who've called themselves progressive Democrats before - so we will see what that is. But I also think they have a lot of defining of themselves still left to do for voters. I think there are a lot of people still struggling to really articulate what the differences between them are. And so it'll be fascinating to learn more about how voters did make that decision in the primary and see what research and feedback says about that. But certainly, that's a race to watch for the next few months, and I do not know how it's going to wind up. It's going to be very interesting. We will continue to follow the election results, what people are doing in Seattle, Tacoma, and beyond.

And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 15th, 2025. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the excellent and unparalleled Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times City Hall reporter David Kroman. You can find David on Bluesky at @KromanDavid, K-R-O-M-A-N-David. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks and me at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever 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. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You could also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.