Why was Seattle's original draft plan for more dense housing watered down?

[00:00:00] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde, and today we're

[00:00:15] talking about the future of Seattle, what it's going to look like, what it's going to

[00:00:19] feel like, how many people are going to be living here, how dense is the housing going

[00:00:23] to be, because we're talking about a never released draft comprehensive plan that Erica

[00:00:29] SeabartNet with Publicola was able to obtain through a public records request. Very cool,

[00:00:36] Erica. Also with us political consultant Sandeep Kaushik. But Erica, starting with you, this

[00:00:41] original draft plan it sounds like was a lot more ambitious than the plan that the Herald

[00:00:47] Administration ended up releasing.

[00:00:49] Yeah, we got a copy or I got a copy through this records request of this August version

[00:00:55] of the plan, which is almost a year late coming out. And they were ready to release it more

[00:01:00] or less last August, they being the Office of Planning and Community Development, which

[00:01:05] is the planning department at the city. But between August and when it was finally

[00:01:09] released last month, it got really whittled down. There was going to be just very

[00:01:13] high level, a lot more density along or a lot more density allowed, I should say

[00:01:18] along arterial streets and some streets that you wouldn't necessarily think of as arterial

[00:01:22] streets and deep into the neighborhoods, these neighborhood nodes where there can be

[00:01:27] apartment buildings of up to six stories. There are 24 in the plan that was released.

[00:01:32] There were up to 4850 in the original plan. And a lot of other stuff just got cut out.

[00:01:38] A lot of talk about the current racial segregation of Seattle, the kind of lasting

[00:01:43] effects of redlining were excised from the plan and sort of all that stuff,

[00:01:48] all the bad stuff that we did in the past is kind of portrayed in this new plan as being

[00:01:53] over and done with. As in, there are not many lasting ramifications, but we do need to know

[00:01:58] about the past in order not to repeat it. And I find that really significant. It doesn't

[00:02:02] have big policy impacts necessarily. But I think it's really interesting that

[00:02:08] in going through this plan, the mayor's office really took out a lot of the context that

[00:02:12] sort of took out the history, took out the history.

[00:02:14] Not just the history, but the history is still in there. What's not in there is that

[00:02:19] the history is still with us and we still have neighborhoods that are racially segregated because

[00:02:24] of decisions we made that we have not fully undone.

[00:02:27] Sandeep Kaushik, what do you think?

[00:02:29] Well, I think the document and the earlier version of the plan that Erica unearthed

[00:02:35] through her records request is really interesting. And it shows, look,

[00:02:39] I mean, it's not a surprise that there's various iterations of a comprehensive plan document like

[00:02:46] this and that they would go through. It would go through a process of change and evolution.

[00:02:51] Like that's not, that's pretty standard sort of how government procedure works.

[00:02:57] But it is interesting that the evolution of this plan was initially to go

[00:03:02] in a more ambitious direction in terms of growth and it got dialed back.

[00:03:06] The second piece of it about the language around Seattle's history of redlining and racist exclusion,

[00:03:17] I'm less troubled by that some of that stuff got exercised. It's still acknowledged in there

[00:03:25] that that happened and existed. But I find that there's a lot of performative

[00:03:31] virtue signaling that happens in Seattle as a matter of course too much as it is.

[00:03:35] Yeah, you should probably read the plan though, Sunday, because that's not what I'm talking about.

[00:03:39] Well, what you're saying is that they continue to acknowledge that there is this historical

[00:03:46] experience at Seattle had of exclusionary race-based zoning, but they sort of dialed

[00:03:55] back some of the language about racism, racism, racism.

[00:04:00] No, I'll tell you what they actually did and why it matters.

[00:04:05] I don't know about dialing back the language about racism, racism, racism.

[00:04:11] There is an anti-displacement document which also really got dramatically changed that I'm

[00:04:16] going to be writing about some more, so a little preview of that. That does impact policy.

[00:04:22] There's also quite a bit of stuff in there that's not just about racial covenants and

[00:04:27] redlining, but just about the history of Seattle and how it got settled and who was allowed and

[00:04:32] who wasn't. That's all still in there and it didn't get cut back a bit, but that's not what

[00:04:36] I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is this explicit language that says there was this situation

[00:04:43] in which certain neighborhoods were white, certain neighborhoods were black, and these

[00:04:48] were not equal neighborhoods and they were not treated equally. And that still persists today

[00:04:52] because of the zoning that we have in those neighborhoods. And one way to fix that is to

[00:04:59] allow specifically apartments and rental housing deep inside those white single-family neighborhoods.

[00:05:06] And that's what's all gone. And when you're talking about a comprehensive plan,

[00:05:09] I mean it sets a framework for policy, but this is not legislation. It's not like a zoning bill.

[00:05:15] So the reason it's important when you're making a 10-year plan or 20-year plan for

[00:05:19] the city to acknowledge that and to say the problem is zoning and we need to fix the zoning

[00:05:24] is that then you've set a framework for people to fix the zoning in the future. After Bruce Harrell

[00:05:29] is no longer mayor and after the city council is gone and the next city council. And so I do

[00:05:34] think that stuff is really important. And because if you just say in the misty past there was

[00:05:40] racism, but we fix that now, and I'm not saying it goes that far, but if you sort of consign

[00:05:45] it to the dusty past, then you don't need to make any real changes. And this plan doesn't really

[00:05:50] make any real changes to the way that we're already planning the city and the way the city is built.

[00:05:55] So Erica, like are you saying with the changes that they did make

[00:06:00] to zoning they should have included that language or that they excised both the density

[00:06:06] and this language? I mean I'm trying to understand so both of them are problems.

[00:06:10] You have to understand the nature of the plan. So they're not making any changes

[00:06:14] to zoning with this plan. They are saying so it's not adding density. It's a roadmap.

[00:06:18] They're not so yes, so it's a roadmap for future density. I just want to make that clear. This is

[00:06:22] not like a zoning plan. It's not putting an apartment in your neighborhood. But I'm saying

[00:06:30] that both are important and there are different levels to this plan. So there's policies.

[00:06:37] Here is what the city should do in the future when it adopts legislation. And then there's

[00:06:41] frameworks and goals and things like that. So I'm saying that both are dialed back.

[00:06:49] It was dramatic enough for me to write a story about it. And I think it's a pretty dramatic

[00:06:54] change. So my question then for Sandeep or you, well I guess is that it seems like it must have

[00:06:59] been a political calculation to take it out based on some of the experience that

[00:07:05] Murray administration had back in whenever that was 2017 when they included that language.

[00:07:09] And I agree with you. It's unfortunate that we can't be honest about what happened and what's

[00:07:13] happening in the present. But is that what's going on here? Do you think Sandeep? I don't

[00:07:17] know if you know. Well, what I think is going on is that look, the argument that in order to

[00:07:24] rectify past discrimination and racism, we need to blow up single family zoning and add lots

[00:07:33] of density into what were historically white single family neighborhoods is an argument that I

[00:07:41] think lands really, really well and left progressives. But it's a controversial argument that also turns

[00:07:46] off some people. It's funny that you say that given what you were saying last week, Sandeep,

[00:07:50] about the chamber poll showing that everybody wants density in their neighborhoods.

[00:07:56] Two thirds, about two thirds. There's still a third of people that are not on board with the

[00:08:03] kind of urbanist move. And so if dialing back some of the rhetoric, even though it doesn't have any kind

[00:08:08] of real substantive policy implications in this document makes this plan go down a little easier,

[00:08:15] I guess I'm not that worked up about that. I am, however, more interested in the fact that

[00:08:22] as you point out in terms of policy, they are dialing back some of the commitments to

[00:08:29] growth that they were initially contemplating or looking at. The original version of the plan was

[00:08:35] looking at more of these nodes of higher concentrations of density and they dialed

[00:08:41] that back significantly. That seems like the substantive shift here to me, the rhetoric,

[00:08:48] okay, I happen to be- Yeah, and I wouldn't characterize it as mere rhetoric.

[00:08:52] And I'm even sympathetic to the argument that you're saying is getting excised, but

[00:08:59] nonetheless, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that it's not in this document.

[00:09:04] I'm much more interested in the substantive implication.

[00:09:08] Yeah, and I think it's all substantive because the document contains many,

[00:09:12] as I said, different layers. And one layer is what are our goals as a city? And I don't

[00:09:17] know about blowing up single-family zoning. I wouldn't characterize it that way.

[00:09:24] The August version of the plan, it is more ambitious. It is not super ambitious.

[00:09:30] These 48 or 49 neighborhood nodes that got whittled down to 24, they're small.

[00:09:37] And they would have been bigger in the original version of the plan. They called for a thousand

[00:09:42] foot radius instead of the 800 foot radius that the mayor's office whittled it down to.

[00:09:47] I mean, we're not talking about apartments throughout single-family neighborhoods,

[00:09:52] which is what, as Sandeep, that is what I'd like to see. But I'm a pro-density person.

[00:10:01] I don't think we're even within a million miles of that with any version of this plan.

[00:10:07] And so we're talking about changes at the margins. And I do think on the political

[00:10:11] point, I mean, it is interesting. Murray did get in a lot of trouble for the housing affordability

[00:10:15] and livability agenda because he talked about allowing more slightly, very, very slightly more

[00:10:21] density in single-family areas. And now I think the pushback is coming from those two-thirds of

[00:10:28] people that want more density. And I think it may be more than two-thirds, but that

[00:10:33] were reflected in the chamber poll. I think the pushback is coming from those people

[00:10:36] telling Harold, you're not going far enough. So I think we actually really have shifted

[00:10:41] from the time of Murray to now. And I think Harold is out of touch with that.

[00:10:45] So yeah, see you agree with me.

[00:10:47] The language you're using like original draft plan, I mean, what's the status of an original draft

[00:10:52] plan? This is something that staffers come up with, right? I mean, it has no real status at all.

[00:10:59] You know, not that it didn't get watered down, but it's almost like you're talking about

[00:11:03] the Constitution or something. You're an originalist. We should move back to,

[00:11:07] let's go back to the original plan.

[00:11:10] I'm not actually not arguing that this should... I'm saying there are two drafts.

[00:11:14] There was one that was submitted to the mayor's office. So it's not like there's a million

[00:11:17] different drafts. The Office of Planning and Community Development.

[00:11:21] OPCD, right?

[00:11:22] So like bureaucrats created the original plan.

[00:11:25] Yeah, staff and staff.

[00:11:26] That we like better because it's got more density.

[00:11:29] I'm confused about your objection. Did you want the mayor himself to write it?

[00:11:31] No, no, I'm just saying the language. It's a draft plan that whatever,

[00:11:38] what status does it really have as a draft plan?

[00:11:40] Well, then you're sort of shitting on my story.

[00:11:43] No, not at all. I think it's super interesting, but my job is to shit on the arguments here.

[00:11:48] That's part of what I do, like devil's advocate. So yeah, I am kind of going...

[00:11:52] You're saying my story is not newsworthy.

[00:11:54] No, no, no, no. I'm trying to...

[00:11:56] In the interest of clarity, what are we really talking about here?

[00:12:00] Like there was a staff created plan that the mayor didn't like.

[00:12:03] We're talking about this consensus of people who are experts on this stuff,

[00:12:09] to whatever extent you agree with their expertise or not,

[00:12:11] who were asked to come up with a plan according to specifications set by the mayor.

[00:12:16] They did it and the mayor's office said hell no. And they changed it.

[00:12:21] And I think that is super newsworthy.

[00:12:23] Yeah. No, that's helpful. That's helpful.

[00:12:24] I just... That's all I wanted you to do was clarify.

[00:12:27] Right.

[00:12:27] That's what I was going for.

[00:12:27] This was the planners and the way the relationships work

[00:12:33] in the city is that the mayor is the executive, right?

[00:12:35] Has executive authority over all of the departments.

[00:12:38] But the mayor's office is small, right?

[00:12:40] It's not like all the work happens inside the mayor.

[00:12:42] So the mayor has a couple of people in his policy shop, right?

[00:12:46] So the actual work of government, the kind of planning and stuff happens at the

[00:12:50] departmental level.

[00:12:51] So what we're seeing here and what Erica is on earth is that the planners at OPCD

[00:12:56] had made basically a recommendation written a draft plan that recommended this level.

[00:13:02] Here's the approach we would take and this 48 of these nodes or whatever, right?

[00:13:08] And to Erica's point, like the mayor's office came in and said that's too much.

[00:13:13] We want to dial it back some and did, right?

[00:13:16] And they do have the ultimate authority and what they transmit over to council is

[00:13:20] the official document.

[00:13:21] But it's interesting to get insight into what bureaucratic or none of these people are

[00:13:29] partisan so calling on nonpartisan staff is kind of the wrong term.

[00:13:32] But you know what I mean here?

[00:13:33] The back and forth is interesting.

[00:13:36] Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:13:37] The last political staff.

[00:13:38] So Erica's earlier point though, I think Erica's right.

[00:13:42] I do think the politics around this stuff has changed.

[00:13:45] And I think the push here compared to what happened during the Hala process in 2016 or

[00:13:52] whatever it was.

[00:13:53] But eight years later, the push is all coming from the other direction.

[00:13:57] And I for one am super curious about what the council, this council is going to do

[00:14:04] with the official version of the plan they got pushed forward.

[00:14:06] Are we going to see, you know, I doubt they're going to make radical changes,

[00:14:11] but are we going to see them move back at least to some extent towards the OPCD draft or not?

[00:14:18] I don't know.

[00:14:18] Yeah, the council is, I mean a lot of the council members have indicated that

[00:14:22] that they are hearing from constituents that they want more density

[00:14:26] and that they want to take that into account when they work on this plan and get it.

[00:14:30] Now, to what extent that's actually going to happen?

[00:14:33] I mean, really remains to be seen, but I think there may be some pushback.

[00:14:38] And I think too, you know, if you look at, I spent some time after the story came out

[00:14:45] looking at constituent responses, just basically the surveys that they did.

[00:14:50] And the surveys were overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly people said we want more

[00:14:54] housing in our neighborhoods.

[00:14:55] We want more housing.

[00:14:56] We need housing for affordability.

[00:14:58] That is not what's reflected in this plan.

[00:15:00] So it kind of, there's also a situation where you have this huge public process

[00:15:04] and the public said one thing and the mayor's office did the opposite.

[00:15:08] I mean, arguably, you know, and so I think that there's, that's also an issue when like,

[00:15:14] when you have the public saying on this specific plan, here's what we want

[00:15:17] and that's not what they get.

[00:15:19] That's a problem.

[00:15:20] And I went to an open house recently for the comprehensive plan

[00:15:26] and when I was sort of even dropping on conversations, that's what people were saying

[00:15:30] was I want more density.

[00:15:32] Which among the council members would you say is the most open to more density, Erica?

[00:15:38] Or can you name them?

[00:15:39] Boy, I don't know.

[00:15:40] I mean, I don't know about most, but I think Rapsaka might be.

[00:15:43] I think Tanya Wu might be.

[00:15:44] I think Kathy Moore might be.

[00:15:46] You know, maybe even Sarah Nelson.

[00:15:48] I don't know about her position on this specific thing though,

[00:15:51] because she's been a little inconsistent.

[00:15:54] Dan Strauss, Tammy Morales, you know, across the board there's an openness, I think.

[00:15:59] Yeah, that's it's interesting.

[00:16:00] I mean, that you read it that way.

[00:16:01] I mean, I think coming out of the campaigns, right?

[00:16:05] There was a sense that like some of the challengers that lost were the

[00:16:10] quote unquote urbanist candidates and were the pro density candidate.

[00:16:13] So I actually think some of that was sort of misguided.

[00:16:16] We talked a little bit about this, you know, I mean, you had sort of Ron Davis running against

[00:16:20] Mercer Rivera anointed as the urbanist candidate and then he's signing pledges

[00:16:24] about how he'll never up the U district, right?

[00:16:26] And not suffering any political consequences for it from his sort of,

[00:16:29] you know, tribal support in the in sort of movement, urbanism or whatever.

[00:16:34] Most of the candidates said they supported an alternative in the comprehensive plan

[00:16:38] that was significantly more dense than this proposal and much more similar to

[00:16:42] the August proposal than what the mayor proposed.

[00:16:46] So they all said they, not all, I think Mercer Rivera did not,

[00:16:50] but a number of the candidates said they supported alternative five.

[00:16:54] And this is sort of alternative 4.5.

[00:16:56] Is it six or five?

[00:16:58] No, alternative six was was a was not a an official alternative.

[00:17:03] Oh, I heard them saying plan six sometimes in some of the.

[00:17:05] So that was what the activists, the activists had their own

[00:17:09] version of an even bigger plan that they called that.

[00:17:12] Alex Hudson, your candidate support.

[00:17:13] I know, I know, I get it.

[00:17:15] Yeah, I thought it was funny in debates where they would just talk about their

[00:17:18] support for plan six when nobody in the audience had any idea what the fuck

[00:17:21] they were talking about or plan five or plan one.

[00:17:23] That was very funny.

[00:17:24] I mean, that was a problem.

[00:17:25] You know, that was the questioners on the questioners a little bit, I think.

[00:17:29] Yeah, for going out of space.

[00:17:31] I'm for plan six or matter space.

[00:17:34] Sandy, if you were four, you're four alternatives.

[00:17:36] He was four, seven.

[00:17:37] Even for alternative seven.

[00:17:39] Yeah, I'm for plan nine.

[00:17:42] Oh my God.

[00:17:43] Okay, Boomer.

[00:17:44] God, I actually want to ask now you've inspired me, Erica, to ask like a lesser

[00:17:48] Seattle question.

[00:17:49] All of this density, obviously it's in some ways better for the environment.

[00:17:53] It's better than sprawl.

[00:17:54] But it's not necessarily as John Fox would tell you back in the day or

[00:17:58] or Canute Berger going to lead to more affordability.

[00:18:01] I mean, it could.

[00:18:03] But, you know, like look at all the super dense cities around the globe.

[00:18:07] Paris, London, New York, Tokyo, not very affordable.

[00:18:11] Super dense, much denser than Seattle.

[00:18:13] So you can say that you're going to point to this rosy future of more

[00:18:16] greater affordability, but it's no panacea, is it?

[00:18:19] Let's be honest.

[00:18:22] Well, I mean, Seattle is at a massive housing deficit right now.

[00:18:26] And one of the reasons that housing is so unaffordable in Seattle is that

[00:18:30] there are more people than there is housing to fit everybody.

[00:18:33] So people get shoved out to the suburbs.

[00:18:35] You know, the price of mid-range housing is now what you would expect for

[00:18:39] very high-end housing.

[00:18:41] We have a housing deficit.

[00:18:42] And one of the things that sort of got cut out, some of the rhetoric that got

[00:18:46] cut out of this comp plan is, you know, just a lot of talk about the

[00:18:50] fact that we need housing abundance.

[00:18:51] And the idea is, you know, if you have enough housing or more than enough

[00:18:55] housing, I mean, yes, the new housing is never going to be the affordable

[00:18:59] housing unless it's explicitly affordable housing built by nonprofits and stuff.

[00:19:04] But we're at a housing deficit.

[00:19:07] This comp plan proposes to maintain that deficit and actually make it a

[00:19:10] little bit worse by building 100,000 units for 200,000 or more people over

[00:19:15] the next 20 years.

[00:19:17] And so we're not fixing the housing deficit that we have now.

[00:19:20] And we're building less housing than we need for the people who are going to

[00:19:24] be coming here.

[00:19:25] So of course, housing is not going to get more affordable.

[00:19:27] Now, is it a panacea to add 24 new neighborhood centers or, you know,

[00:19:33] allow housing on arterial streets?

[00:19:34] No, that's not going to be enough either.

[00:19:36] But it's definitely better than saying we're going to continue to provide less

[00:19:41] housing than we need for the people that are already here and the people that

[00:19:44] are coming.

[00:19:44] Right. Well, I think the argument that we can build enough that we're going

[00:19:50] to significantly lower the cost of housing in Seattle is not very convincing.

[00:19:56] I don't think not to me.

[00:19:56] And the Seattle Times has released some polling, I think last week, right?

[00:20:00] That I think was Heidi Gruber wrote a story about how there's polling that

[00:20:03] shows that most people, I think it was a statewide poll in the state, don't

[00:20:08] are suspicious of the idea that housing prices are going to be more affordable

[00:20:12] because we build more.

[00:20:13] But that wasn't the question.

[00:20:15] I mean, who cares about polling?

[00:20:16] Is it true that if we keep constraining and not building housing that

[00:20:22] that will be the same as the effect of we build a lot of housing?

[00:20:26] If you'd let me finish my point, I was going to say.

[00:20:29] I've advised this new tactic.

[00:20:30] It's called interrupting.

[00:20:31] Yeah.

[00:20:32] But the reality, the reality in Seattle has been over the last decade plus that we

[00:20:38] have had a massive run up in housing costs.

[00:20:42] Right.

[00:20:42] And so I think that's likely to continue if anything, if we continue to

[00:20:47] have growth rates like we did over the last decade and there's a mismatch

[00:20:51] between demand and supply, we're going to continue to see more and more

[00:20:55] expensive housing.

[00:20:56] We're still not to San Francisco yet in terms of how expensive our housing is.

[00:21:01] Though it's become enormously more expensive than it used to be here.

[00:21:05] And so I do think building more housing is important, even if it doesn't lower

[00:21:11] cost, at least we will bend the curve on the rise in housing costs in a

[00:21:17] significant way.

[00:21:18] And I do think that's important.

[00:21:19] I don't know that we'll ever achieve a nirvana where suddenly it's like,

[00:21:24] you can be a dishwasher and earn minimum wage and find housing affordable

[00:21:29] in Seattle.

[00:21:29] That seems like a pipe dream at this point.

[00:21:33] But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to bend the curve.

[00:21:37] Well, let's make the transition here just by saying that if Shama Sawant were

[00:21:41] still in the council she would be shaking her head in disgust at the fact that

[00:21:46] the progressive left has now embraced some of the underlying principles of

[00:21:49] free market capitalism and the laws of supply and demand.

[00:21:52] It's disgusting to hear that kind of rhetoric coming out of both of your

[00:21:55] mouths is I think what she would say if she were here.

[00:21:58] Yeah, on that point, David, I think that is because you're putting your finger on a

[00:22:02] point that's worth unearthing a little bit, which is that even 10 years ago there

[00:22:08] was a significant contingent on the left, Shama being one of them,

[00:22:12] that really did come out of this sort of anti-displacement place that looked

[00:22:17] at growth and development with suspicion as a tool to make Seattle

[00:22:22] more expensive and to drive out lower income and minority communities.

[00:22:27] Yeah, well only because it's not completely wrong that when you tear down

[00:22:32] crappy old housing that's cheap and build new housing that housing is

[00:22:36] potentially more expensive. Of course we have a housing deficit but that is what happens.

[00:22:40] Interestingly, that was one thing that was cut out of the anti-displacement plan.

[00:22:43] I would say the comp plan still reflects some of that, Sunday.

[00:22:46] There's still a concept of high displacement neighborhoods which is why

[00:22:50] there are some areas that are just totally exempt from House Bill 1110.

[00:22:55] It's because of that principle and I agree. I mean it's not wrong.

[00:22:58] You have to figure out ways to prevent displacement or address it but yeah,

[00:23:03] I mean it's definitely changed a lot in the time since the time when John Fox

[00:23:08] was a very vocal presence arguing that tearing down any kind of existing housing is bad.

[00:23:15] Yeah, Nick Lakata who was by far the left populist on the council for years.

[00:23:21] Nick was a socket to developers sort of anti-growth kind of guy. He was an old school

[00:23:28] Seattle lefty. He wasn't an urbanist by any stretch. Nikita Oliver in their first race for mayor

[00:23:36] was coming from this sort of anti-development socket to developers kind of take and it was

[00:23:43] interesting they evolved four years later when Nikita was running or was much more

[00:23:50] sounding much more urbanist tune and I do think that's also emblematic or indicative of the

[00:23:56] shift that we've been talking about for the last couple episodes.

[00:23:58] We've gone over that territory before for close listeners to this podcast. It's like hearing

[00:24:04] Uncle So-and-so at the Thanksgiving dinner retelling the same stories.

[00:24:10] When I was working for Carter. Back in the old days, John Fox Place just opened up on Aurora Ave.

[00:24:18] Margaret Pageler once told me.

[00:24:22] And I should say I'm a fan of John Fox. I think he's done a lot of good in the city.

[00:24:26] I just don't agree with him on this particular issue, but we are both in favor of helping poor

[00:24:33] people and affordable housing. We just come out of a different way, I think.

[00:24:37] All right, we'll leave it there. That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice.

[00:24:41] She's Erica C Barnett. He's Sandeep Kaushik. I'm David Hyde.

[00:24:45] Our editor is Quinn Waller and you, the listeners are also our supporters when you go to patreon.com

[00:24:52] slash Seattle Nice as more than a hundred folks have decided to do so please chip in on that

[00:24:58] and help keep this podcast coming your way. And to everybody, thank you so much for listening.