Does Mayor Bruce Harrell ❤️ Elon Musk? Plus, Seattle Fights Over Totem Poles and Trees

[00:00:10] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde with Erica C. Barnett, editor and publisher of Public Hall and also the co-host of the exciting new podcast, Are You Mad at Me? And just to be clear, Erica, I'm not asking if you're mad at me. I'm telling people the name of your new podcast. It's about Shattered Glass, the movie. Check it out.

[00:00:31] About Shattered Glass, the movie. Check it out. Also here, political consultant Sandeep Kaushik, who co-hosts an equally exciting, depending on your perspective, new podcast with me called Blue City Blues. Hello, Sandeep. Hey, David. Yeah. Likewise, people check out the new episode with Adam Smith, our own congressman from Southfield.

[00:00:49] Yeah. And you can subscribe to both of those podcasts as well as Seattle Nice. So anyway, on today's show, Mayor Bruce Harrell raised some eyebrows at a downtown Seattle Association meeting earlier this week when in a speech he appeared to be praising prominent Trump advisors. We know that our current president surrounds himself by some of the smartest innovators around when we drop names like Andreessen or Peter Thiel or David Sachs or Elon Musk. These are smart innovators.

[00:01:18] His office later clarified. We're going to be talking about that in just a minute. But first, a totem pole controversy over Victor Steinbrook Park near Pike Place Market that's delayed the opening of the renovated park. Erica, this is kind of a complicated story, but basically the Pike Place Market Historical Commission, among the many historic commissions here in Seattle, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission says this park should not open until these totem poles are restored and included.

[00:01:48] Other folks have been questioning whether or not the totem poles belong in this park at all, and we should get into that controversy. But to me, I wanted to start by just who has authority over this park because it doesn't seem that complicated. Setting aside the question of what to do with these totem poles, should they be restored? Should they be replaced? Let's talk about that in a second. But Mayor Bruce Harrell is now saying, we're going to go ahead and open the park in March. The Pike Place Historical Commission says he can't do that without their approval. So I don't know who's right about that.

[00:02:18] And why has it taken so long to get this fucking park open? Yeah, I don't know who's right about it either. I mean, my gut, just knowing, you know, the way city departments operate is it's the parks department's call and it's their park and they should be able to open it. And, you know, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission obviously feels differently. And I didn't report on this story myself. It was in the Seattle Times. But their position seems to be that everything must remain exactly as it has always been.

[00:02:46] And the totem poles must be restored exactly as they were. And anything less is unacceptable. And, you know, at the same time, you've got tribes saying, you know, look, these totem poles aren't even from here. I mean, the tribe that created these poles is not from the Seattle area or what became the Seattle area. And, you know, let's talk about that. You know, let's maybe replace them with something more culturally appropriate to Seattle. But the Historical Commission seems to be saying, you know, absolutely not. Everything must never change.

[00:03:15] And, David, I think you mentioned before we recorded that this seems to be the most Seattle process story ever. I think possibly the most Seattle story ever we're going to talk about later. But this is a pretty Seattle story that we can't open a park on the waterfront where tourists and, you know, and residents and everybody wants to be able to go in the summer. It's fenced off because of, you know, this this fucking historical commission. And it has the name Steinbrook in it, which is, you know, Sandy. Yeah.

[00:03:44] So Eric is saying replace these totem poles with something more in the spirit of the times that reflects changing ideas about what ought to be there. What do you think? What I think is we have a fucking park that just got renovated and that is closed to the public because some, you know, completely faceless, you know, unelected activist types who no one has ever heard of on a commission, some obscure commission is. Boy, you're going to.

[00:04:14] The hate mail is going to be used to me, if not me for once. Look, I think this is, you know, are demanding and claiming some authority that I don't think they have. I think Eric is absolutely right. There's a Seattle park and the parks department and the mayor, you know, have authority over it. This commission doesn't have. But isn't Pike Place Market kind of its weird own entity with its own. There's a historical district thing and there are separate rules for historic districts about. Yeah. Well, we'll look into that.

[00:04:42] So maybe they have some kind of, you know, I don't know the granular legalities of this, but it's absurd. Right. And first of all, who are these people on historical commission? Second, I should point out, this is just sort of a symptom of a larger problem in Seattle municipal governments. We have more than 70 of these boards and commissions in Seattle that, again, most normie Seattle people have never heard of.

[00:05:07] But that wield pretty significant authority behind the scenes, you know. And often it seems that that gets wielded in ways that are actually not productive to delivering results that benefit the people of Seattle. But to pursue, you know, kind of odd idiosyncratic agendas of the people on these commissions.

[00:05:28] Do you two want to take this one anecdote, jump all over it and cast aspersions on all boards and commissions and historic preservation the way Sandeep just did? Or do you want to take a more measured response? Because, I mean, this is the perfect story where it's like the urbanists are like, oh, these damn commissions. But, you know, it's just it's one commission. It's one incident. And I would guess if you went out and did a poll, like there's a lot of boards and commissions and historic preservationists in Seattle who would be like, yeah, they should open the park.

[00:05:58] They would agree with you 100 percent. So I don't think it's fair to lump them all in. I mean, geez. Anyway, Erica. Yeah, I mean, I'm not dismissing all boards and commissions. I watch a lot of boards and commissions. I'm looking at the boards and commissions calendar right now. I mean, you know, the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Commission, Housing Levy Oversight, the Elections Ethics and Elections Commission. There's lots of important boards and commissions in the city of Seattle.

[00:06:19] But I think that what Sandeep is identifying is that historical landmark type commissions and, you know, and design review when we're talking about development, for example. I mean, there's a lot of commissions that are sort of set up to obstruct things from happening that they don't want to happen. And in some cases, you know, maybe that's a good thing. You know, we're talking maybe if it's, you know, a landmark that is, you know, truly, you know, a landmark of Seattle. If they're talking about tearing down the space needle, you know, we need to have backstops for things like that.

[00:06:48] You know, we're we can discuss them as, you know, a civil society. But when you have commissions saying, you know, you can't open this park because everything has to be exactly the way we want it. I mean, that does seem like you're holding the entire city of Seattle or at least anyone who goes down to the waterfront hostage to this vision of what the park has to look like. And it's a vision that not everybody agrees with. Yeah.

[00:07:10] Including, as Eric, as you mentioned, a number of, you know, local tribal leaders have been saying these are the original totem poles, which were pretty, you know, damaged. Right. That's why they were kind of restored in the first place ought to be replaced with other totem poles or whatever. They may be damaged to the point where they can't be repaired from what I can tell. But you guys are wrong about this in the sense that you're simplifying it by saying tribes against white commission for saving these totem poles.

[00:07:40] As Colleen Echo Hawk apparently has backed off some of her original opposition saying wherever the family wants, meaning the family of the original carver, I believe, is where the poles ought to go. We should set it aside. That's how we do it in Indian countries. I'm not saying that tribes are a monolith. Right. Right. Okay, good. Just to be clear, I didn't say that at all.

[00:07:58] But I don't think that they are in favor of this idea that, you know, everything must be the way that the Pike Place Market Historical Commission, which has nothing to do with these, you know, with the tribes, you know, the way that they dictate it. I don't think that Colleen Echo Hawk has expressed that at all. Right, but some disagreement. There's some disagreement about – There's disagreement about what should happen, but not that, you know, that this park should be open. Or maybe there is. I don't know.

[00:08:23] I mean, we're all just reading the same Seattle Times story, so I don't want to, you know, go over my skis, but it just – it seems ridiculous to have a park sitting there closed for, you know, for no real reason. It is ridiculous, and it's, you know, and it makes progressive governance in a blue city like Seattle look dysfunctional and bad, right, for any kind of normal person out there.

[00:08:45] I would just remind you guys, remember like a couple years ago, we did an episode about a similar controversy involving a different Seattle board of unelected activists that was blocking the conversion of a, you know, former drive-thru bank. Right. That was the historic landmark board. You know, much, much needed housing, right?

[00:09:07] And they were demanding them some, you know, generic drive-thru bank with some, yeah, massive, important historical landmark, and you couldn't build, you know, an apartment building on it, which is absurd. I mean, they just saved a – they just saved a generic – you know, sorry, opinion is divided on this, but they just saved a double house in Capitol Hill that, frankly, you know, is not – you know, it's not even an aesthetic question. It's not particularly unique. I mean, it's like saving a craftsman house.

[00:09:35] I mean, the landmarks board is, you know, a scourge in many ways. They're out of control. I've been before that. So I'll just give you an anecdote. A number of years ago when I was on the board – That's all we're going to get is anecdotes today, by the way. Well, these anecdotes – let's hear another one. These anecdotes add up to a pattern, David. Oh, do they? Okay. They do. We're not painting with a broad brush anymore. Now it's a pattern. Okay, better. We're painting with a very pointed, you know, angry – We're going to piss on the idea of all historic preservation now. Go ahead. Let's hear it.

[00:10:04] Yeah, there's a long way between Jane Jacobs saving Grand Central Station and, like – You know, remember another controversy from back in, like, 2008 to kind of date myself. Remember when there used to be a Denny and Ballard? I love that Denny. Yeah. Why are you guys calling it a Denny? Denny's. He said Denny. I was like, is this like a Berenstain Bears? Okay. Denny's. Yeah. You know, and the Denny's was closing, and that was going to get converted into a big apartment building with housing.

[00:10:32] And there were folks who were like, oh, we must preserve the old building that the Denny's occupied because, oh my God, it's some example of some, you know, mid-50s, you know – Googie architecture. Googie architecture, right. And look, I mourn the passing of the Denny's. I like the fact that Old Ballard, there used to be a Denny's you could go to. I don't give a shit about the building that the Denny's was in. And frankly, I think it took a while, but I'm glad those people got rolled and we built some fucking housing, right? Like, it's absurd.

[00:11:00] Like, the whole thing is fucking absurd and irritating. And the fact that we don't have a park open is absurd. I agree. I agree. But that's – it's a separate issue. Whatever you do with the totem poles, whether they're restored and maybe they're put on display somewhere or, you know, whatever happens, I don't care. Totally, they should just have opened the park. That's – that we can agree about. But the idea of historic preservation or what to do with the totem poles or other parts of

[00:11:27] Seattle's material past and culture is a serious question that only Philistines, like yourself, would just completely reject. I mean, there are certainly buildings and structures that deserve to be preserved. I don't think that, you know, generic houses, craftsman houses, you know, and the sort of, you know, stuff that was built here in the 30s because we're such a young city and we cling to anything. I mean, in Seattle, you know, you can landmark something that's 25 years old. That's stuff that was built in 2000.

[00:11:56] I mean, that's, you know, like, are we going to be landmarking McMansions now just to make sure that, you know, in 50 years there'll still be a few around for people to look at? I mean, it just goes to absurd degrees in the city of Seattle, and I think that's what we're both expressing frustration with. Right. My experience as a landmark commission basically landmarks every fucking thing that comes before it, right? The anecdote I was going to tell before David, you so rudely interrupted me was a number of years ago, back when I was on the board of Schools First, which is the volunteer board

[00:12:25] that comes together to pass the school levies, my kids were about to enter middle school. And the old Eagle Staff Middle School, which is this dilapidated, run-down middle school from the 1960s over kind of 92nd off of Wallingford, was being renovated as part of the previous levy. And there had been a couple of Native American murals that had been outside that building. Those had been very carefully, you know, taken down and preserved and were going to be restored

[00:12:54] as part of the new building. So the one piece of it that has a real artistic value was there was already a commitment to kind of preserve and lovingly restore that stuff. But the old building was going to get rebuilt into a much better, more modern school building for these kids. And it got sent before the Historical Preservation Committee. Why? Because 20 years earlier, for a very brief period of time, there had been a Native American, you know, special schools program that had been housed there for a couple of years.

[00:13:24] That program actually moved to Rainier Beach High School, where it was for almost the entirety of existence. But because it had been there briefly, 20 years earlier, they were going to historically preserve this shithole of a school building, which they did. I went and testified before that board saying, this is ridiculous. Like, let them build the new school. They, of course, rubber-stamped and preserved it. And the school board did rebuild the building, but it just cost them a ton more money that could

[00:13:51] have been spent, like, educating kids and providing them with schools and shit. It's just ridiculous and frustrating and maddening. So anyway, I'll shut up now. But that's just, like, over and over again. Every few years, we have one of these stories. I mean, I think we can probably all agree that the Pike Place Market Historical Commission, in this instance, is giving historical commissions and preservations kind of a bad name. And they should just back off and let this park open and figure out the totem pole thing after the fact.

[00:14:21] But, you know, if you want historic preservation, be a little bit more pragmatic about it. Don't piss everybody off and let the park open up. I mean, just at a minimum. Erica, though, you have a story about activists wanting to save another kind of historic thing, a tree, a living cedar tree. Grandma Brooke Cedar, what can you tell us?

[00:14:50] Hey, Seattle nice listeners. Seattle politics got you low. Well, get high with Uncle Ikes. Pissed at the mayor? Relax with a dollar joint. Pop a tire in a pothole? Eat a $2 gummy and chill. Whether you need something to pump you up for Saturday's protest or a mellow strain for your next sit-in, Ikes is your best friend. Now is the time to roll up, Seattle.

[00:15:20] Download the Ikes app today. Or head on over to Ikes.com. That's Ikes.com. You're just setting me up to roll my eyes with that Grandma Brooke shit. Yeah, I wrote about this this week. And, you know, I mean, it's not news now, but the tree has been removed. There is a tree, as you said, a western red cedar in Ravenna,

[00:15:49] in between two apartment buildings where there's a house that a woman named Barbara Brooks lived in for more than 70 years. She died and sold the house. Or her daughter sold the house. And there's no stipulation on it that, you know, that the tree has to be preserved or that, you know, any development has to keep the tree. And that is, that was a decision that was very conscious, her daughter said. You know, they said they told me that she hated this tree because, you know, dumped.

[00:16:18] And they both, they both gave me this quote, you know, mom hated that tree because it just, it dumped, you know, needles all over the place. She had to, you know, go out and sweep the sidewalk all the time to keep people from, you know, to keep the sidewalk safe. You know, I mean, I think if you have a big conifer tree in your yard, you know why people consider these trees to be, you know, something of a pain.

[00:16:41] But a group of activists, as well as, you know, which included some neighbors, were very, very insistent after she died that, in fact, her wishes were to keep this tree. And they protested against the development that was going in and that is going to go in that, that removed the tree. And it got pretty heated, these protests. They ended up calling out the police because protesters were actually blocking a truck last week that was coming in to remove the tree. And at least one person got arrested.

[00:17:09] People were trespassing on the property, refusing to leave. And, you know, I mean, it kind of comes down to, you know, it was legal to remove the tree. The developer told me, or the builder rather told me, look, I bought the site plan the way it is. Nobody said anything about a tree. I could have, you know, designed the site or I could have bought a site plan that preserved the tree, but it would have cost a lot less because it'd be a lot less valuable.

[00:17:34] And so, you know, he said, you know, it's not you can't like drive a used car off the lot and then get a call. And, you know, from from the used car lot saying you have to pay more for the tires. And, you know, and I said, and I see that perspective. And, you know, I think there's been, you know, unfortunately, this particular, you know, story of grandma Brooks and lovingly caring for the tree. And, you know, she took out a little bucket of water and cared for it in the summer. I mean, her daughters say it's totally untrue.

[00:18:04] And one of them lived with her for the last years of her life, you know, and it's it's very sad to me that there is this, you know, this narrative. And what's happened sort of since the story has come out is, you know, I've gotten a lot of pushback saying that these women are essentially lying. And, you know, I spoke to both of them at length. They were very emotional about it. They are both you know, they both express that they're scared to go back now because they feel harassed by people in the neighborhood. And they just want to move on.

[00:18:31] And, you know, what they told me is after you own a property for 76 years, can't you sell it? You know, can't can't my mother just be buried and, you know, and not be like dragged up again and again by these people who didn't know her. And so anyway, it was just it was a really interesting story. And I think it got into some of the politics that that go on when people see a tree that's going to be cut down. Preserving trees. Sandeep Kaushik is going to speak in defense of that.

[00:18:59] Not not not really. No, I will say this. I did in the wake of Erica's story. I did. I know one of the leading tree preservation activists and she did email me. And just to be fair to them, I think their argument is that the the two sisters that that Erica interviewed had previously told some of the neighbors that when this sale and development was going to happen, that the tree was going to be preserved, which, of course, wasn't true.

[00:19:27] And now they're all upset and bloody, bloody. But that's what I said. Sandeep, like the activists are saying that these two women are lying. And and as a reporter, you know, I have to I mean, I talked to the person you're talking about. She's quoted in my story. I talked to the neighbors. I went back out and talked to four more people who are out there protesting as the tree was limbed. And most of those people did not have the perspective that, you know, that they were lying, although a couple of them did.

[00:19:56] And I found both sisters to be credible. I found them to be, you know, to get both both of them actually, you know, were very upset about this and, you know, became quite emotional as we were talking. I found their story credible. Now, ultimately, I wasn't there. Neither were the people that are now saying that they're both lying. But I just I find that kind of offensive. And maybe they are both lying. Maybe I'm just being snowed by two elderly ladies, you know, who cried on the phone to me.

[00:20:24] But ultimately, we have to make judgment calls as reporters. And I found their story to be credible. And I didn't see any actual evidence except for people saying, oh, well, they told me. And from the way that they described their mother's relationship with the neighbors, it just didn't sound very likely to me. And there and there are some other stories that I didn't include in there that were, you know, upsetting but unverifiable.

[00:20:49] So I don't know, just on the totality of our various conversations, I found I found the two daughters to be the most credible, you know, people to remember what their mother said to them. We have no way of knowing. It's kind of not worth getting into the weeds of who said what to when. I mean, there's multiple. Yeah. There's, you know. We've got trees to talk about. This is a very Rashomon-like, you know, episode in the city of Seattle, right?

[00:21:19] We can make a Kurosawa movie reference. But, you know, I generally think this does connect with what we were previously talking about, about this whole issue of the park not opening because of, you know, voices speaking in opposition. I know that the tree preservation activists would not agree with this or say this.

[00:21:38] But I do think there are often in our city processes too many opportunities to create roadblocks to move the city forward, to make progress on stuff. And I think this is a persistent problem with governance in Seattle that is having, you know, negative effects on people's perceptions of the public sector here, right?

[00:22:06] So my sympathies are with, like, you know, if everybody's following the law and following the tree ordinance or whatever, and the developer bought this in good faith, they should be able to move forward and, you know, build whatever the fuck they're building there, right? I mean, you know, that's just the way it is. Yeah. It's not the Lorax. He wants to talk about Rashomon, but not the Lorax. I think that, you know, one thing that really gets lost in all these conversations about trees and development and, you know, and the people I talked to on site, you know, said we're in favor of development.

[00:22:36] I mean, it is on a fairly busy street or just off a fairly busy street. There's apartments around there. But, I mean, when you are talking about the need to preserve the tree, and a lot of people were calling it an old-growth tree, which it absolutely is not, you know, you need to look at where did that tree come from? Why is it there?

[00:22:52] And the reason it's there is because at some point in the past, it was planted as landscaping by somebody who lived in a house that was built by tearing down and destroying an old-growth forest so that white people could live in houses in that area. And so I think the self-righteousness people have about trees and, you know, and particularly people who are, you know, anti-development, they really forget to think about where did these trees come from?

[00:23:18] And also, if we prevent development, what's going to happen to the trees in the forests that do remain? Because when you prevent development in cities, it goes to suburban sprawl, and that's what destroys forests. And frankly, you know, cedars, I mean, I love a big tree as well. I like that Seattle has a lot of them.

[00:23:35] I think they, I think we would do a lot better to focus on more trees and parks rather than forcing private property owners to, you know, make decisions that are not economically good for themselves by keeping trees. And yeah, and I just, I don't know, it ultimately comes down to, you know, we happen to be here now, you know, in this time as human beings, and we see this tree and we think that, you know, it's been here for a thousand years, but really it's been here for maybe a hundred.

[00:24:03] And it was planted there as landscaping. And the new development is going to have six new trees as landscaping, and those are going to get big too. So I just, I just find the whole conversation very frustrating because you can't ever talk about that stuff. You know, it's considered, you know, offensive to, I guess, to suggest that, you know, the single family lifestyle is anything other than ideal.

[00:24:24] I want to, I want to turn now to Mayor Bruce Harrell's speech at the Downtown Seattle Association, but I just wanted to mention that your story reminded me of a situation I have with a neighbor who feeds geese, basically has a goose farm in her yard. And her husband, who's passed away, they're an older couple, hated the geese, like, like did everything to haze them to keep them off of his carefully manicured lawn.

[00:24:51] But apparently as he got older and maybe, you know, suffering from dementia or something like that, decided that he really liked these geese, you know, very late in life. And so then when he passed away, she is like, oh my God, these geese remind me of my now dead husband. And that's why she's got this horrible health hazard goose farm rat infested thing happening next to my house. And I'm like, your fucking husband hated the geese. And she's like, no, he loved the geese.

[00:25:18] And there's just no, there's no truth to that story as it turns out. But anyway, as promised, Mayor Bruce Harrell causing a stir at the Downtown Seattle Association with his speech where he appeared to be praising several Trump advisors, including Elon Musk and Mark Andreessen, calling them innovators. We know that the FCC is run by Brendan Carr, who did write the playbook for the FCC's chapter in Project 25.

[00:25:45] We know that our current president surrounds himself by some of the smartest innovators around when we drop names like Andreessen or Peter Thiel or David Sachs or Elon Musk. These are smart innovators. So I asked Jamie Housen in the mayor's office to clarify what the mayor meant. And he said the mayor, Erica, was not praising them. He was just stating a fact. They are leaders in technology and innovation.

[00:26:09] And the point of this context for this speech was him talking about how worried he is about cybersecurity and other risks to personal data. So is this a political story that we're going to be seeing in ads this fall? Like, what do you think? Mayor Bruce Harrell supports Donald J. Trump or something like that. Elon Musk. Yeah. Yeah. So the four that he praised, I mean, and what he said, you know, was, as you said, in that context.

[00:26:36] But, you know, I mean, anybody can go and watch the entire speech. It's only about 12 minutes long. I think he was probably ad-libbing. The mayor's office did not respond when I asked about whether he was going off script with that. He says in the cut, we'll hear at the end of it. Sorry, I'm interrupting. But he actually says, oh, that's what happens when I go off script at one point. When I look at the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the, or just one sec here. Obviously, I'm off script.

[00:27:06] I get emotional when I start thinking about the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Yeah, I wasn't sure if that's what he was referring to specifically. Yeah. But, you know, but I mean, he said, he said these, you know, this praise of Mark Andreessen, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk. And, you know, and that quote that Jamie gave you, Jamie Howes and the mayor's spokesman, he sent it to me as well. He seemed kind of frustrated that I was asking about it too, David. But, but I worked for Publicola, not just Seattle Nice.

[00:27:34] And he, he said they have an objective reputation as leaders in technology and innovation. Meaning the tech bros, the tech bros, Mark Andreessen. The tech bros, yeah. And I don't know that Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, you know, Mark Andreessen and David Sachs have an objective. I don't know what an objective reputation is, to be honest. It's a fact that they're leaders in, in, in tech and innovation is right. That's what he's trying to say there. And I don't think that's, I mean, yeah, I mean, the quote was, I don't, what did you think, David? I thought it was a pretty weak sauce quote.

[00:28:04] I'll let Sundeep in and then I'll, I'll, I'll say what I, what I think about it. So I was there, right. It was the annual state of downtown event that the downtown Seattle association puts on. It's a big event. There's probably, I don't know, like a thousand people in the room. The governor spoke, the mayor spoke, they had a kind of keynote speaker.

[00:28:22] There's a guy, Mark Dunkelman, who's a pretty well-known commentator with a very well-received book out about sort of the failures of progressive governance and why progressive governance is failing. Anyway, I was there in the room. I actually missed the mayor making that comment. I think I was, I was only, I shouldn't admit this, but only partially paying attention at the time. And I will say this, um, were you playing angry birds?

[00:28:49] No, no, but I might've been texting or something, doing something on my phone, no doubt, as it was happening. But there was a sort of cocktail hour afterwards. And I will say there was buzz about this comment in the cocktail hour. Like several people came up to me and said, did you hear when the mayor like praised Elon Musk? And boy, you know, some one person said to me that seemed really tone deaf.

[00:29:13] And so it was clearly kind of catching people's attention and several people brought it up in that cocktail hour. Now, I look, I do think when I read the transcript of that part of the mayor's commentary, I don't think he was intentionally trying to say, I heart Elon Musk or I heart Peter Thiel.

[00:29:35] I think he was trying to say Trump is even more dangerous because he has these very smart, innovative tech bros around him. Sandeep. I do think there was something that- Do you really? I mean, you go back and watch it. You really think he was saying that they were, he said, we know that our current president surrounds us himself by some of the smartest innovators around. Right.

[00:29:57] And he did not say immediately before that, it's very dangerous what I'm about to say that, you know, that these, that he's surrounded by these brilliant genius men. I think he was trying to make a point about the threats to cybersecurity. I think he did go off script and it got garbled a bit. And, and I do think it came out wrong. And, you know, a lot of people notice, like, I don't think he's, I don't think the mayor is somebody who's like pro-Trump. I mean, I just don't-

[00:30:24] I don't think you have to think he's pro-Trump to notice that when he is in front of a business audience, he makes comments like he did the Washington Technology Industry Association event last year where he said, you know, I can work with anybody and I'll collaborate with the Trump administration however I can. And, you know, I'll look for opportunities no matter who's in the White House. I mean, he makes these comments and this is, this is how he talks off the cuff in front of a business audience. I don't think you have to say, and I'm not saying that he's pro-Trump. Yeah.

[00:30:51] But it is notable that, like, when he's talking to a general audience in the state of the city, he spends five minutes railing against the Trump administration. And then when he's in front of the Downtown Seattle Association, he, you know, has some kind words for, for these tech guys like Elon and Peter Thiel.

[00:31:07] I think it does get to, you know, a broader and I think ongoing issue, not just in the city of Seattle, but blue cities generally about the increasingly rocky relationship between what was once a kind of Tory romance between big tech and big blue cities.

[00:31:25] Right. I mean, Amazon moved, famously moved to downtown Seattle and South Lake Union, you know, in 2010, brought tens of thousands of jobs and became a kind of linchpin of the Belltown and South Lake Union economy. And there was a, there was a moment where, you know, there was just a love affair between tech and municipal government.

[00:31:46] But that relationship was already souring, you know, in the wake of Trump's first election and some of the stuff that happened there. And since he's gotten reelected, I think that relationship is really going south, man. And so I do think it came across as tone deaf to a lot of people, whatever the mayor's intent was of what he was trying to say, even for him in the context of criticizing Trump to talk in some favorable sounding way about some of these tech moguls. Well, it wasn't in the context.

[00:32:16] I mean, he had said something about Project 2025. He called it Project 25. But, you know, he it was in the context of talking about threats to cybersecurity and AI from AI. He was talking about the head of the head of the head. He mentioned the head of the FCC. I'm not sure what he meant to say. I'm not sure he knows what he meant to say. Like, I really feel like it was such a flub. I just want to correct the record, though. Again, like people can go watch the speech and see the context around this comment.

[00:32:43] Jamie's statement seems like it's plausible to me. Like, I don't necessarily think it's completely wrong. But I think your point, Erica, he definitely meant to say that those four tech bros are brilliant innovators. For sure, he was saying that. Whether he was saying everybody knows that or not, like, you know, I think he was definitely saying that. The question is, like, in saying that, was he also praising them in context? Or was he saying, you know, Hitler's surrounding himself with some brilliant people or something like that? I don't know what he meant.

[00:33:13] I really couldn't tell. You know, and I do think, though, you make a good point where it seemed as if he was kind of appealing in that one sentence to the business community, perhaps. Like, you know, kind of, you know, we all know that these folks are brilliant and you guys are brilliant, too. And, you know, it did have a little bit of that tone to it. And he might not have said it in another context. But then the question is, like, you know, is there any political hay here? Are we going to see, like, mayoral candidates? You bring up Elon Musk right now. I can't even imagine how these politicians managed to keep it together.

[00:33:42] I'd be afraid to go off script myself. You two would be better at it. I don't know why you're not running, Eric. I keep saying it. But I'm sympathetic to somebody fucking it up. I wouldn't bring up an opportunity to praise Elon Musk. Right, I know. But I mean. Right at this point in history. I mean, that's like, I mean, that really is like, Goebbels had some great ideas. Again, I'm not sure. I'm not sure he was praising them in context, even though he called them brilliant innovators. And you could call that praising. Like, because there definitely was a context, which was. Because I'm talking about the ways in which I'm kind of freaked out about the Trump administration. I agree. Go back and listen.

[00:34:12] But I think that was the context. And I think clearly that's mostly what he was talking about. And then he has this little line about praise. Anyway, it doesn't matter. People like Sandeep on the other side or Sandeep, I don't know which campaign he'll be working on this fall, if any. But like, you know, can pull that quote out of context and make him sound like he's he's MAGA. Well, right. I mean, we'll see. We'll see how much of a of a race the mayor gets so far. Nobody very serious has stepped up to challenge him and, you know, this his reelect year.

[00:34:41] So, again, we'll see whether it turns into a campaign thing or not. I'm not sure that it will. We'll see. I will say say this. I mean, to Erica's point, just an anecdote. In 2015, in the presidential primaries, when it was Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders, they were having a debate. I remember I was driving the car listening to this debate. And Hillary Clinton at one point goes off. They're talking about foreign policy.

[00:35:07] And she starts talking about Henry Kissinger and how she had been consulting with Henry Kissinger. And he'd been giving that, you know what? Right. One of our most leading like national foreign policy experts. And he'd been, you know, I'm going to the best people and blah, blah, blah. And she just goes on this sort of gushy thing about Henry Kissinger. And Bernie, as I remember, it kind of looks at her and he's like, Henry Kissinger? Like, he's a war criminal. Like, what are you talking about, lady? And I remember thinking at the time, like, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

[00:35:36] And I was like, ooh, why is she saying that? Ooh, I've got some very cringe. Like, don't talk about Henry Kissinger that way. Like, know your audience. Even if you think that, know your audience. But here's my theory about this. So she really liked Kissinger. Sorry, go. Yeah. Hillary Clinton. Yeah. Really liked Kissinger and knew him. Yeah. And, you know, and was like on, you know, on a level with him. I think Bruce Harrell has a kind of history that is developing with the Trump administration

[00:36:06] where he doesn't know Elon Musk. He doesn't know Peter Thiel. He doesn't know any of these people. I think that, you know, this may develop into sort of a pattern of trying to appear conciliatory in order to, you know, avoid negative attention from the Trump administration. And I don't think it's going to work. And I think that, you know, and I also think that, you know, Harrell is, I mean, you know, not to over-psychologize, you know, the mayor.

[00:36:33] But I think he is impressed by dudes who, you know, get shit done or, you know, or seem to be and who, you know, seem to be brilliant, smart innovators. I don't think Elon Musk is a brilliant, smart innovator. I don't think that's an objective reality, you know, but a lot of guys are, or a lot of people are impressed by him. And I think the mayor is, you know, one of those people. That's it for another amazing, scintillating edition of Seattle Nights. She's Erica C. Barnett. He's Sandeep Kashuk. I'm David Hyde. Our editor is Quinn Waller.

[00:37:03] And thank you all for listening.