Recall Mania, New RV Rules & Not "Barnes 2.0"

[00:00:10] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice, the only podcast that tells you what's really happening in Seattle politics. I'm David Hyde with fellow Zootunes fan, Erica C. Barnett of Publicola. Hi, Erica. Good morning. Zootunes junkie, Erica Barnett. Zootunes junkie, Erica Barnett. Also with us, political consultant and golfer, Sandeep Kaushik. Yes, that's right. I was just down in Oregon on a golfing vacation. Oh my Lord. A junket. Isn't that called a junket? Gearhart.

[00:00:39] Gearheart, the place where the Portland elite have hung out over a hundred years. Yes, on the coast. On today's show, we're not talking about Gearheart, our new interim police chief tells Publicola he won't be Barnes 2.0. The Seattle City Council is considering RV legislation, but first, a recall effort targeting Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson.

[00:01:03] And I should point out, in case either of you don't remember, but of course you do, we started this podcast talking about recalls. In that case, it was Shama Sawant. And that recall made it onto the ballot, right? Because the state Supreme Court decided that there was kind of enough there to let voters decide if she'd committed acts of malfeasance, etc.

[00:01:55] Or whatever it was. It was not like a legal charge or, you know, the police charging her with something. The charges seem quite vague. I mean, it seems that these, the people that are trying to recall Katie Wilson, it's a couple from North Seattle. And they are ardent Bruce Harrell supporters. And I mean, my read on it is that they are angry that Bruce Harrell didn't win. They don't like some of the decisions that Katie Wilson has made, particularly around policing.

[00:02:23] And this is, you know, what they see is their chance to redo the election, which is one reason I think it will not succeed in the way that Shama Sawant's recall succeeded in the courts. There's just no there there. I mean, you do have to prove malfeasance, misfeasance, breaking the law. Now, those are all terms of art, malfeasance, misfeasance that I, you know, could not define for you precisely.

[00:02:48] But it is not, you know, we're mad we lost the election and we want a do-over, which is kind of what this recall seems to be. That's right. I did use the word charges because I think it was Hugh Spitzer explained to me that essentially in cases of recalls in Washington state, the Supreme Court is saying, OK, now the the we've accepted this case. There's enough there. Now it's up to the jury to decide, meaning the voters, whether or not the charges stick. That's that's the but it's not they aren't formal legal charges, obviously.

[00:03:17] But malfeasance is wrongdoing. Yeah. I mean, basically, you can't recall somebody in Washington state because you don't like a political decision that they made. Right. And and that to me, when I looked at this, that looked to me, I agree with Erica that the that the complaint here, the sort of argument for recall seems to be we don't we disagree with decisions. Katie Wilson has made about cameras and other stuff.

[00:03:44] And therefore, you know, that doesn't seem to me at all to rise to kind of actual acts of wrongdoing. I mean, going back to December of 21, our first episode about the Sawant recall, the after the immediate aftermath of this recall, there were actually some some charges against Shama Sawant in that recall that passed legal muster. That said, she was, you know, misappropriating the use of the office. She was letting people in the government buildings when they weren't supposed to be in there.

[00:04:14] There were a number of different things that said she kind of, you know, was breaking the law. Right. You know, and maybe in minor ways, but nonetheless, enough that the court and David, I don't think it actually starts in the Supreme Court. It goes through the lower courts. I didn't say it started. Yeah. But you're saying it's the Supreme Court ways and not necessarily. It's just, you know, it has a judicial review. There is a judicial review of the charges to see whether they meet the legal standard. And then if they're judged to be appropriate, then it goes before the voters.

[00:04:44] I don't think this is going anywhere. Yeah, that's true. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not seeing here anything that looks to me like she broke the law. Therefore, the mayor should be subject to a recall. So the Internet told me that in 1931, Seattle's mayor was recalled for having fired the head of City Light. But that was before recalls had to meet this new bar. You basically could try to recall anybody for anything. And the state wisely changed the law.

[00:05:13] Is there anything else to say about this, Erica? I mean, what's the point of doing this when you know it's not going anywhere? Well, I mean, I don't know that this couple knows that it's not going anywhere. I mean, they filed these charges. I mean, I think that what's the point of doing it? You know, I mean, that's hard to say. But I do think that the media and I guess including us have really made a lot of this of this these allegations in this recall petition.

[00:05:41] I mean, I don't you know, there has been talk of a recall petition in other circles as well. And this is kind of like the first one that made it to, you know, actually the file, the point of filing. But, you know, I think it just speaks to the fact that there are a lot of people in Seattle who are very angry that Katie Wilson, a Democratic socialist, won the election.

[00:06:07] She is not like any other mayor that we've had in recent memory or perhaps ever. And and they, you know, are going to fight against it with every fiber of their being. I mean, it was very narrow election, as we've discussed. And Bruce Harrell had a lot of institutional support and support among sort of people in Seattle who want things to stay the same.

[00:06:29] And, you know, and I think it just speaks to the the foot stomping and anger that you will see when when Seattle changes things in a way that makes sort of entrenched power uncomfortable. You know, I think and I think the media has been really complicit in that. I mean, I brought up the word charges because the Seattle Times had a headline that basically made it sound like she was being legally charged with crimes.

[00:06:54] Right. And so I think that the media has really played this up as if it was much more legitimate than it actually is. Yeah. And as I understand, just to be clear about the process here, this will go before a judge who will determine whether, you know, what this couple has laid out in their document. Calling for the recall meets the sufficient legal standard.

[00:07:19] And then I believe if it does, that it has to go there has to be a signature gathering drive right to to qualify. Yeah, 70,000 signatures, which is itself a pretty tall order in the city of Seattle that would require a fair amount of effort to collect that many signatures. And then if if it those are deemed sufficient, it goes before the voters.

[00:07:39] I mean, look, I don't think like as I said, I don't think this is going anywhere in terms of an actual, you know, recall threat to the mayor. That said, Erica, you're absolutely right. First of all, it was a close election. City's deeply divided. It's been a bumpy ride for the mayor so far.

[00:07:58] I think I think there's a lot of unhappiness, not just with diehard Bruce Harrell supporters, but more broadly in the public about how things have been going on some stuff. We've obviously talked about the no good, horrible, really bad week around the bite of Seattle and the handling of the firing of the police chief. And I think that all feeds into some negative perceptions of the mayor.

[00:08:23] And and so this just seems like kind of a fluorescence of that, right? Like people freaking out and saying, oh, you know, the mayor needs to be recalled or, you know, I also hear lots of like weird chatter about how she's not going to survive her term and she's going to resign and, you know, and stuff like that, which all seems kind of hyperventilating to me. But but nonetheless, I think it's an expression of dissatisfaction out there. Or derangement. Maybe a little of both.

[00:08:52] I mean, it's it just seems like part of a mudslinging effort. And I, you know, I mean, in 2019, the effort to recall Mayor Durkin failed, too, because, of course, she had the discretion as mayor to make actions, even if people disagreed with them. And but in that case, I think there was more to it than this. But in any case, the Supreme Court didn't think so. So it seems like pretty unlikely this is going anywhere. Erica. Well, I mean, I also think that, you know, a lot of this.

[00:09:21] A lot of this is sort of a hype cycle fed by, you know, among other people, Debra Juarez, Chris Daniels at Como. Well, I mean, the thing that everybody was really mad about last week was a press conference that was five hours late and or not five hours late, rather, but five hours after the Biden's scandal shooting. And and I have never seen public officials give a fuck about when a press conference happened before.

[00:09:50] But but but the way that they're acting about this is that it was obviously Katie Wilson's responsibility and fault when it was, in fact, a, you know, a press conference by SPD that had a lot of reasons for the delay. And I will say, Bob Kettle, Seattle City Council member Bob Kettle put out a timeline that actually illuminated sort of what was going on, at least from, you know, from his perspective and for what he was able to glean.

[00:10:17] And it's very clear that a big reason for the delay was that former Chief Barnes wanted to be briefed while he was in Dallas. And and the briefing took quite a while to pull together and it took quite a while to hold. And and then there were some, you know, after that, there was probably some delay because of Pramila Jaipal and Bob Ferguson needing to get to the press conference.

[00:10:40] That's the thing that everybody has brought up, the fact that the mayor waited for dignitaries to arrive. But it just it doesn't seem like it was primarily the mayor's fault. There's going to be a big office of inspector general review of what happened. It's going to come out. But, you know, I mean, last week, the knives were out, you know, with Deborah Royals and Dan Strauss basically suggesting that the mayor's office was lying when they said that they didn't know exactly why the delay happened.

[00:11:11] And and just kind of creating this. I don't know the sense that that Katie Wilson is dishonest and everything's her fault when I just I mean, that's not plausible. That's not a plausible scenario, really. And there's evidence already out there that, you know, another city council member is putting out who is not a big Katie Wilson fan, by the way, that Barnes was largely to blame. But for some reason, nobody wants to nobody wants to take that one on. Which council member, Erica?

[00:11:40] Sorry, Bob Kettle. I agree that I mean, the five hour delay issue as the biggest issue when we just had this shooting at Seattle Center seems kind of ridiculous. I mean, sure, it was maybe a fuck up on somebody's part, but I don't really care. And ostensibly, I related to the media still in some fashion. So, yeah, I agree with that. I mean, but to me, it's like, you know, what's the city doing to make us safer or how do we prevent the next shooting?

[00:12:09] Those are the questions that I have. But anyway, Sandeep Kaushik. Well, it fed a narrative, a pre-existing narrative that a perception, right or wrong, that a lot of people had. And again, not entirely just diehard Bruce Harrell supporters that maybe the mayor's in over her head. She doesn't have the experience, right? We talked about that with the new council that came in in 2023. They seemed really green and, you know, made rookie mistakes. And I think there's been some of that with this mayor's office.

[00:12:34] And certainly there, you know, as an ongoing thing, their relationships with the council have really broken down to this kind of level where it feels like the McGinn era, right? Where the council and the mayor were, you know, at each other's throats. And that's not good for perceptions of the mayor. I would also add to Erica's point. It's a two-way street. It's not really great for perceptions of the council either, right? And most of them are up on, you know, for re-election a lot sooner than she is.

[00:13:02] And if City Hall looks like it's divisive and, you know, there's constant kind of public backbiting and warfare and, you know, people get this perception shit isn't going right. And, you know, that just reflects poorly, I think, across the board. I think the mayor takes a hit on that. I think the council takes a hit on that too. But right now it just seems very, very fraught and divisive, you know, at City Hall.

[00:13:29] In spite of the fact that I should mention my favorite day of the year at City Hall was last week, which was Kitty Hall, right? The annual. Oh, did you go? I wanted to go. I was outside. I didn't get a chance. I was outside of City Hall. And I was actually talking to council member Alexis Rink. And she was like about to go to Kitty Hall, you know, which they do in Berth and I. And for people who don't know, it's once a year. Seattle runs the animal shelter.

[00:13:54] So once a year at City Hall, they bring all the kittens and cats that are looking for adoption down to City Hall. And people come and adopt the kittens and play with them and stuff like that. It's actually a really sweet and nice event. And I am an old cat lady. So anyway, so despite that moment of sweetness, I don't think that's been the general vibe at City Hall these days. That's not where you got your kittens, is it? It isn't. I got – I did an adoption thing.

[00:14:24] There was a – my two kittens – they're not kittens anymore. My two cats are sisters and they were born in a homeless encampment. And I adopted them as a pair. Yeah. So anyway. Sandeep. Did Andrea Suarez steal them? Yes. Yeah. Yes. That's right. Okay. Moving on. The Seattle City Council is considering RV legislation.

[00:14:50] It's – you can read about it in Publicola on, I should say, Publicola.com. This is being proposed by City Council member Dan Strauss. I know, Erica, that we already have laws in the books that say you're not supposed to park any vehicle for more than 72 hours. So what does Strauss want to do here? Hey, Seattle nice listeners.

[00:15:19] 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. Download the Ikes app today.

[00:15:49] Or head on over to Ikes.com. That's Ikes.com. Yeah, you can't park any vehicle for more than 72 hours right now. And for RVs, they are only allowed to be parked in industrial areas. So they're restricted to certain areas of the city. This is one reason that you will see them cluster in places like Ballard. And Strauss' legislation, it's very complex.

[00:16:18] It's six pieces of legislation, five laws and a resolution, five ordinances and a resolution. But basically, it would say that any RV that is currently in the city, so they would do a count. And those RVs, those RV owners would be eligible to get permits. And it would only be available to the owner of an RV. So you have to own the vehicle that you're living in and get a permit. That would allow you to park in industrial areas.

[00:16:45] And the idea is that then outreach workers, which this bill would hire another seven outreach workers from the city, would go and offer you shelter and services. And if you refuse what's called appropriate shelter in the legislation, which is not defined more than five times, they can take your RV.

[00:17:07] And the permits also have lots and lots of ways for people to lose their RVs, among them breaking any law, which is just kind of wildly vague. Everybody breaks laws. I mean, you roll through a stop sign. You've broken a law, for example. But it's also stuff like not having your registration up to date and various other things, having trash around.

[00:17:34] And so it would become incredibly easy for the city to take away RVs. And I think that is the big concern of homeless advocates, along with that reference to appropriate shelter. Because, I mean, as homeless advocates have pointed out to me, if it is appropriate shelter, the person will be almost certain to take it. Most people, you know, don't want to be homeless forever. But if the shelter is inappropriate and their RV is better for them for whatever reason, they're going to stay in their RV.

[00:18:03] It's hard to get people out of RVs because they offer privacy and a sense of mobility sometimes and just security. So people are very concerned about that because you could end up with a lot more people who had lived in RVs ending up on the streets. Isn't just factual, isn't part of the legislation, too, to build more safe RV lots as opposed to just having folks park in the street?

[00:18:29] Correct. I forgot to mention that it includes $5 million in the first year and $3.5 million in ongoing funds to add one additional safe RV lot and to allow bigger RV lots. So up to, I think it's 100,000 square feet. So, yeah, I mean, there's an RV safe lot that's about to open in South Park at the glass yard. And I think that's going to have room for 72 RVs and something like 20 tiny houses.

[00:18:58] And the idea is that people would move from the RVs into tiny houses. There's also going to be money for a parking lot, essentially, for RVs to go when people have decided that they're ready to try shelter instead so that, you know, if they want to get their RV back, they can.

[00:19:15] But I think that's going to be controversial because one of the goals of this legislation is to sort of remove the aesthetic mess of RVs that people get very upset about and get them off city streets permanently. I mean, they're doing a one-night or a one-time count, rather, of who's here right now. And anybody who arrives after that would be ineligible for any of this stuff. Sandeep, what do you think?

[00:19:40] Well, first of all, I don't think anybody's going to lose an RV for driving through a stop sign. I don't think that's the intent of the legislation. No, I'm just bringing up the broadness of the term any law. Right. They may need to refine their standards, you know, some here on constitutes the kind of offenses that are going to get your RV impounded or whatever.

[00:20:05] That said, like, you know, there's clearly a problem with RV camping in significant parts of the city. I mean, this is Strauss legislation for a reason, right? I mean, parts of Ballard and, you know, have been kind of inundated with RV people camping in RVs. Oftentimes, people are in RVs because, you know, they're engaged in activities that are problematic for, you know, there's drug dealing going on.

[00:20:34] Certainly, like, you know, drug use. Sometimes there is, you know, sometimes they're on kind of like on 8th Avenue in Ballard. Like, it's kind of it's residential, that street. It's an arterial, but it's a residential arterial street. And like, yeah, there are a bunch of RVs camped out there. And that could be problematic for the community there. Sometimes there have been, you know, public nuisance issues and other kinds of problems with them.

[00:20:59] And so there needs to be some kind of action, I think, related to dealing with the RV issue. Councilmember Strauss has taken a cut at it. I get that the homeless advocates are like, how dare you, you know, or whatever. Right.

[00:21:13] But like, presumably we can work out some kind of standard here, which would help to move people out of RVs being parked in less than ideal places and into kind of shelter situations. And I do think there's more resistance among the RV population to coming into shelters, even things like tiny homes, than with other kind of unsheltered homeless folks. Because, hey, I've already got an RV.

[00:21:42] I've already got, as you say, Erica, I've got a pretty good setup here. Why would I leave it? And so that's the dilemma that the city faces. Just a factual question, but if I have my RV and I want to continue to live in my RV, can I move to one of those parking, safe parking areas and keep staying in my RV as opposed to moving into a tiny home or whatever? I mean, what are my options there? I mean, not really.

[00:22:10] The idea is that, you know, you are moving towards shelter and housing. And I will say, I mean, one reason this has failed in other places, San Francisco had a similar law and they wanted to get everybody out, you know, sort of to transition out of their RVs and into shelter and ultimately housing. But they've had to keep extending the permits because there is not enough shelter and housing, which is the same problem that we have faced here for many years for all kinds of, you know, of homelessness.

[00:22:39] So, I mean, I think that the idea that we're going to – I mean, and I think you're right, Sandeep. I think it's because Strauss is in Ballard. There's a lot of industrial land in Ballard too, you know, right around like the quote-unquote brewery district. And that's where a lot of RVs park and there's tons of eco blocks over there and it's very unsightly.

[00:22:58] But I think that, you know, when you view RVs as entirely an aesthetic problem, you know, or mostly an aesthetic problem, you sort of lose the fact that you can't just sort of tell people to get out of their RVs and move – and get rid of RVs and move people, you know, into tiny houses. I mean, there's a bottleneck. And the bottleneck is the fact that we just – we don't have enough shelter. We don't have enough housing.

[00:23:25] Estimates are that there are, you know, maybe 400, 500 RVs in the city right now. And so, you know, however many people are living in each of those, you could be talking about 800 people, 1,000 people. That's a lot of housing that we don't have. We're not building 1,000 units of housing exclusively for RV residents.

[00:23:46] And so, I mean, I just think the logic train doesn't quite – it kind of stops at that point where it's like, okay, and then we're going to have 20 tiny houses for, you know, 500 people, you know, to move them into housing that doesn't exist. So – I don't know if the math works and those are all really good questions, Erica. You raise really good points.

[00:24:07] I mean, for me, it's not really an aesthetic issue, although when you use it kind of dismissively, I'm not sure that when we think about, like, how do we make a great city, we shouldn't be concerned about aesthetics. I mean, that should be part of what we're thinking about. My concerns aren't really aesthetic. The fact that somebody allegedly who lives in an RV just up the street from me got super high and decided to, like, cover my cars in latex paint. That's a bougie concern. I have a pretty generous deductible. It doesn't put me out.

[00:24:38] I'm housed and everything else. When it happened, I was just like, God, that person needs help. That person who did that, who was dressed like a zebra, is obviously not of their right mind exactly and needs some kind of help. I don't know what that assistance is. And so this legislation, to me, seems like compassionate legislation aimed at trying to get that person help. And I just find it frustrating that folks who are supposedly homeless advocates don't share my concern, right? Because that person currently living on the street, living in that RV, is not getting the help that they need.

[00:25:08] And this seems like it's going to get them potentially closer to that. So I just don't get it. I find it really upsetting that people are like, this is bad, because it seems like you're just arguing for the status quo in that case. They're not, though. I mean, I have not heard one single homeless advocate. You call them supposed homeless advocates. I mean, I'm thinking about the Seattle State County Coalition. Well, I mean, you brought up this incident several times on this podcast. And I mean, it obviously was, you know, something like that does not happen to me.

[00:25:37] Fortunately, I used to get my car broken into all the time. The legislation would provide $3.5 million a year for there to be an additional RV park with, you know, perhaps, let's say, 20, 30 tiny house villages. And then it would create seven new outreach workers at the city. Those outreach workers are not really, you know, I mean, they are members of the unified care team. So it's expanding the unified care team. And so those are coordinators.

[00:26:06] What they are supposed to do, so those are the only new staffers. What they're supposed to do is coordinate people in going from RVs to shelter. I have not found the unified care team to be particularly effective, but to say that's a compassionate approach, I mean, you're just hiring more government workers to coordinate stuff.

[00:26:24] The rest of the money, let me finish because I'm trying to describe to you why the so-called homeless advocates that you're saying are just wanting the status quo are opposing this. They are opposing it because it does not provide meaningful new shelter services or housing except to the extent that those are available in this one new RV lot.

[00:26:47] And so when you're talking about – and David, I would submit to you that if that person loses their RV because they're breaking the law, and I'm going to guess if they're not, you know, doing well mentally, they probably have an expired registration, let's say. So then they lose their RV. The law doesn't – I mean, the law doesn't say, and then we're going to go and provide that person with mental health care and housing and wraparound services. I mean, that is the problem.

[00:27:12] I mean, if it did that, if it funded all that stuff, it would be great, but it doesn't do that. There's just not enough money. Last thing I'm going to say. So what I would say is those are great criticisms. Those are great objections. But instead of saying this is terrible legislation, say this would be great legislation if it included these things. I think that's a much stronger argument that gets us closer to where we need to get. It's not deep cashing. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:27:37] First of all, I don't think the objections to, you know, RV camping in places like Ballard or wherever, you know, are primarily aesthetic, right? I do think there are real problems that are associated with some of the RV camping that goes on that really does in very tangible ways erode the quality of life of people living in the vicinity of them.

[00:28:00] And the fact that we have had the proliferation of eco blocks, including eco blocks that are being dropped not just by frustrated residents, but we've actually had City Light themselves drop eco blocks in front of one of their facilities. I think it was in Ballard a few years ago. Yeah, I covered that when I wrote about the eco blocks a few years ago. Yeah, I know you did. And the school district, you know, there was an article in Seattle Times a couple weeks ago about the school district in front of the John Stanford Center.

[00:28:30] They were having an RV camping problem and they dropped eco blocks over there because of the issues with – And we act like that's just a naturally occurring thing. I mean this legislation says that they are to be removed, I mean in a non-binding resolution. But why is there – why are we doing law enforcement aggressively against, you know, RVs with expired registration but no law enforcement at all against eco blocks, which every one of which is illegal?

[00:28:57] They're illegal but they're an expression of frustration with the lack of action by the city to this point on the problems that are associated with RV camping. And so, yes, if – Well, I mean we can justify any lawbreaking if we – I know.

[00:29:11] But my point being with this legislation, I think – I haven't talked to Dan Strauss about this but I think what Dan's trying to get at is, yes, we should be removing the eco blocks but we need to actually show some improvement on the RV camping situation to go along with that, you know, concurrently, right? And that if we can start removing some of the objections neighborhoods have, then we can remove the eco blocks too, right? And get back to a more kind of normal order of business about how we handle these sorts of issues.

[00:29:40] I think that would be a good thing to happen. I will say though, Erica, I agree with – Erica 100 percent with you that there is a fundamental bottleneck here though about getting – you know, where is the shelter? Like where – you know, opening up one RV lot that's not actually all that much and why – I never understood why these fucking RV lots are so freaking expensive.

[00:30:02] Like the first one of these opened when Ed Murray was mayor and the city's experience with it was that it costs like a shit ton of money and they ran out of money and they shut that one down, right, after like a year or two. And it turns out you've got to have 24-7 staffing. There are all sorts of issues that when you concentrate these RVs in one place, right, it ends up getting – you know, issues emerge there and you've got to have like appropriate security and staffing and stuff like that. So it ends up being expensive.

[00:30:30] But yes, look, in an ideal world, the mayor is going to come forward with some announcement that she's going to meet her goal of like opening up a whole shitload of new shelter like by the end of the year. And so legislation like this, there's actually a pipeline available to move people out of RVs into a better, safer place. We'll see whether any of that happens.

[00:30:52] But I agree with you right now that bottleneck does exist and hopefully this integrates into a larger effort to create the shelter we need to actually improve conditions on the streets. But we're always saying hopefully. I mean that's the thing. And I will say, I mean, I do think to give credit to this model, the RV lot at Salmon Bay Village did get a number of people into housing, dozens of people.

[00:31:17] But when we're talking about hundreds and hundreds and then just kind of passing a blanket ban all at once, that is – it's just not – it's not going to work the way that Dan Strauss thinks it'll work. And I will disagree with you both a little bit that it's not an aesthetic concern. When people complain about RVs, I mean, yes, there are people living immediately in the vicinity of people who are committing crimes who are affected by stuff related to those crimes.

[00:31:45] I mean even if it's people dealing drugs amongst themselves, that has knock-on effects. But I mean I think a lot of it is, goddammit, I don't want to look at that RV and all those RVs as I drive down 8th Avenue. So, you know, and I think that we have to acknowledge that like it is not just, you know, well-meaning people who are horribly affected by these horrible, you know, actors living in these RVs. It's also people who don't like to look at homelessness. And it's the same thing with tent encampments.

[00:32:14] And so, I mean, I just – and with the eco-blocks, I mean, we can – sure, I guess they're an expression of frustration. I don't – you know, I have not polled every business owner that has done this because there are thousands of them all over the city. I think it's, you know, it's a permissive structure where, you know, we didn't deal with it in the first place and eco-blocks started emerging everywhere. And the city did absolutely nothing about it, gave permission to people to do this.

[00:32:42] It's very cheap to, you know, to litter the sidewalks with these big, ugly concrete blocks. And so everybody does it. If there hadn't been a permission structure there to sort of quote Bob Kettle, I think that it wouldn't have gotten to this point either. The city could have done something and they didn't. Yeah. I agree with a lot of what you said there. Although I'm back to saying, you know, I don't think aesthetic concerns are nonexistent. Or we should basically act as if people have no right to any aesthetic concerns.

[00:33:12] I will say, though, that, like, some of the tent encampments now in Ballard along, like, 8th Avenue and stuff used to be along the Burke-Gilman, which was worse. I mean, if you're like a woman alone driving your bike at night home, for some folks, they were nervous about that, I think. And so those tent encampments, like, along the street there where there are services and stuff like that doesn't seem – it seems like a better solution to me than along the Burke-Gilman, just sort of an aside there for a very specific thing in Ballard. I'm curious, though.

[00:33:40] What's the – and I haven't looked into it. Erica, what's the timeline on this legislation? Do you know? So it would go into effect in a year. So July 31st would be – everybody's got to get a permit. I think the count would be – I want to say in April. I could be wrong about that. But it's a relatively quick timeline but not immediate. Not immediate. But – and I also mean what's the, like, kind of legislative timeline?

[00:34:08] Like, it's been introed by Dan. What's the process going to be here? Do they want to try to get it done by budget? You know, because budget starts in first – third week of September. Yeah, and I think that's going to be hard. So the proposal – so the idea is that it will come back up at the September 22nd public safety meeting. It's in the public safety committee, not the housing or homelessness-related committees. Do you mean August 22nd or September 22nd? September 22nd. September 22nd. Okay.

[00:34:36] Yeah, because the council is about to go on its annual two-week recess. So they're not going to be around. And that's a really tight timeline if there are any objections from other council members. I will say, I mean, the public safety committee is kind of perfect for Strauss' purposes of getting this legislation passed because it is made up mostly of the more conservative council members. But I think there will be objections from – or at least amendments from other council members. So I think it could take until next year. But, you know, we'll see.

[00:35:06] This seems like – as you said, very complicated legislation, multiple parts to it, lots of different layers. And so obviously they're not going to successfully – I totally agree with you – rush this thing through by, you know, in a matter of a few weeks. This is probably a longer-term kind of policymaking discussion that I would be surprised if it doesn't extend in the beginning of it. All right. Look for more news about that on Publicola.com.

[00:35:33] And also on Publicola.com, Erica, our new Seattle interim police chief, Andre Sales, tells Publicola he won't be Barnes 2.0. The first question both Sandeep and I had when we read that was, what does that mean? Because apparently neither of us know how to read. So we decided to just come on here and ask you. Why read it when you'll just come on and tell us about it? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:35:59] Yeah, everyone else should take that same lesson and, I don't know, call me up or whatever. Yeah, well, so I sat down with Sales. He was doing kind of a round of media interviews last week. And I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that as a sort of holistic statement. But in the moment, what he told me is that he'll be about collaboration. Now, that is like the vaguest possible thing you can say.

[00:36:28] But I kind of interpret it as he is going to be a little bit friendlier than Barnes was, as evidence, you know, in one way by the fact that he sat down with me. And, you know, not to put too much stock into that, but Barnes, his predecessor, you know, just absolutely would not speak to me, you know, told people within SPD that he hated me.

[00:36:55] And, you know, and just to the point that, you know, I tried to shake his hand one time and introduce myself. And I had written something about him recently. I think it was about, you know, how he took a $50,000 bonus that was intended for rank and file officers. And which he got to keep, by the way, as part of his settlement. And, you know, he wouldn't shake my hand. He was incredibly rude to me. And I think sales is just like, from what everybody says, a nicer, more affable, easier to get along with guy.

[00:37:24] I haven't heard anything particularly negative about him yet. So I think that's part of it. And, you know, I mean, internally, you know, just to go back to Barnes for a second, one of the things that I talked about, you know, with the incident where he blew up with a reporter is that people don't just act like that once in public. They're acting like that behind the scenes. And I think that and that's what I always heard about Barnes. And what I've heard about sales is that he is not like that.

[00:37:53] And so I think that has been a great relief to a lot of people inside SPD, that they can just kind of breathe a little easier. I am hearing initial positive chatter about sales along the lines, Erica, of what you're saying. Like he seems like a more easygoing dude and certainly seems to be trying to come out of the gate with a bit of a charm offensive. Right.

[00:38:20] I have seen some TV interviews with him where he's saying, like, you know, I want to make the rank and file at SPD feel better. I want like people to see, you know, kind of like a smiling cops and a smiling chief, you know, and just kind of have a friendlier sort of like, you know, focus to, you know, how leadership at SPD is perceived. And so, you know, so from a vibes-y perspective, that seems good, I guess.

[00:38:48] But I would also say that he's been super vague about any of the questions that, you know, seem more fraught at the moment. Like, you know, I saw him duck a question about surveillance cameras and just say, you know, that's a mayoral prerogative or something to that effect. And other stuff, too. Like he's been pretty anodyne and nebulous in his comments.

[00:39:17] He's not really putting any kind of markers down about what he's going to do differently or what's going to change here. And so I think those are big open questions for me. Yeah. I mean, that was my impression, too. I mean, I, you know, I pushed him on some things and he gave me pretty vague answers. I was a little disappointed when I asked him about these outreach meetings that Barnes has instituted where, you know, they'll have like a big room full of city staff sitting around tables.

[00:39:45] And, you know, it's supposed to be an outreach meeting for the public and five people show up from the actual public. But, you know, he said, well, if one person shows up, that's, you know, that's good enough for me because they'll go back and tell other people. And, you know, that SPD is being responsive. And I was like, oh, I don't know, man. It's like it's a city of, you know, almost 800,000 people. That's not a very effective outreach strategy or use of funds. So, yeah, I mean, he's been he's been pretty vague. He also, you know, was one of the people that Barnes brought out here.

[00:40:14] He was in a small town in Wisconsin before and he maintains a home in Illinois just like Barnes did. So I think that is going to be an issue if he does end up going for the permanent chief job. I think he'll be under some pressure to actually move here permanently and move his, you know, his wife for his wife to move here as well because she still lives, you know, near the border of Wisconsin where they lived before.

[00:40:44] So, yeah, I mean, it'll be interesting. Oh, and the other thing that I did find interesting that and substantive is the care team, I think, has had a lot of frustration with with Barnes in particular. Their director, Amy Barden, has had frustration with Barnes because he just kind of wouldn't work with her and wouldn't meet with her.

[00:41:05] And from what I understand from both sales and Barden, they have been talking and meeting and, you know, there's some optimism that this team of social workers will be able to actually respond to more calls than they are able to right now. Now, again, I mean, that could just be vibes. So we'll have to wait and see whether that actually pans out in reality. But there's there's there's a lot of optimism right now. Yeah, I mean, one other point I would make.

[00:41:33] I mean, sales is a former police chief for Beloit, Wisconsin. He was actually recruited to SVD by Sean Barnes. He's friends. He said he's friends with Sean Barnes. So so he's he's he's a relative newcomer to the city, as you say. His family still lives back east. So, again, there's those questions are going to be.

[00:41:56] Is he is he going to be able to better understand the kind of local political culture of the city in a way? I think Barnes had some trouble adjusting to Seattle, even from coming from a place like Madison, Wisconsin, that's supposedly liberal. It's not Seattle and kind of the way we do stuff. And so so those those questions are out there, too, I think, about sales.

[00:42:21] And then the last thing I will say is the mayor's now has to do a big new police chief search for a permanent replacement for Sean Barnes. And I've questioned is sales going to go for that job? Like, how is that search going to go? A lot hangs on that for the mayor. Police chief searches are very, you know, high profile, consequential and sometimes quite politically complicated matters. Do you go inside out?

[00:42:51] You want an outside person, you know, are outside people going to want to apply, you know, given what's happened with the recent history of SVD? So anyway, there's a whole bunch of big looming questions, including how sales is going to intersect with the search himself himself. All right. That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice. She's Erica C. Barnett. He's Sandeep Kaushik. I'm David Hyde. Thanks, everybody, so much for listening.

[00:43:15] And I just want to thank everybody so much also for donating on Patreon dot com slash Seattle Nice. It's super helpful. We really, really appreciate it. And I don't think this week, but next week we're going to start coming to you straight from video. So, you know, get worried about that. You have to look at us. Bye.