Will Urbanism Win Seattle's city council races?

[00:00:00] Hello and welcome to the latest edition of Seattle Nice. I'm David Hyde, as always here with Erica C Barnett of Publicola Erica. How is your Sunday going so far? I had a day off yesterday, so I'm feeling great.

[00:00:23] Whoa! Listeners, you should know Erica does not take a lot of time off. Nor does Sandeep Kaushik. He's on his phone 24-7, even if you're having dinner with him. Sandeep, how you doing? I'm good. I'm good, David.

[00:00:35] Hardest working man in the political consulting business. I want to remind folks it is our fall membership drive, so if you want to help keep this podcast going, keep our wonderful editor employed through us at least, please go to Patreon. And how do you do it, Erica? I

[00:00:50] forget. It's like just go to Patreon. Patreon.com slash Seattle Nice. That's it. And you can sign up there. Today, special election episode, but we're going to take a twist and a turn from our usual and talk

[00:01:04] about a concept here. And the concept is urbanism. So how is this election shaking out for urbanists is the big question that we're going to be asking? But before we do that, I bet you

[00:01:17] there's somebody out there who's like, what the fuck is an urbanist, Erica? What does that even mean? Wow, this is a curveball. Define urbanism. I mean, basically it's wanting cities to be cities, which means dense, vibrant lots of housing in more places, lots of shops that are open,

[00:01:37] you know, longer hours, just kind of what you think of when you think of a vibrant city as opposed to a sleepy suburb. Okay, let's go with that as our working definition. And it's a big question and a sort of complicated question. Who wants to start just

[00:01:52] urbanism and this election generally? Well, look, I think we should, you know, by way of background before we get into the specifics of what's going on in this election, I would just start by saying,

[00:02:03] I think urbanism as a sort of, you know, political force in the city has seen, you know, enormous, incredibly rapid gains in the last really half a decade or so.

[00:02:18] It used to be not very long ago. I mean, look back at when Ed Murray was mayor and proposed opening up single family zoning, you know, even in just a kind of preliminary proposal,

[00:02:29] there was a huge uproar and backlash and he quickly, you know, backed away members of the council turned against it. And, you know, it was a kind of ratification at that point, which was 2016 or so that that, you know, touching single family zoning was one of

[00:02:45] the third rails of Seattle politics that no longer exists, right? There's been a rapid, rapid evolution of views towards pro growth, pro density views in the city of Seattle overall.

[00:02:57] Just a quick data point. Even two years ago, we saw that with the chamber did their first index poll and they asked, would you support adding more housing in your neighborhood? It had 64% support.

[00:03:13] Well, they just released their new version of that poll this month, and it's up to 69% support for adding more housing in our neighborhoods. So it's gone from being a kind of negative third rail

[00:03:24] to being a strong kind of more than two to one positive, right? So that's sort of the background and context I think of this kind of shift towards a pro urbanism position among the electorate.

[00:03:36] So I mean, in response to Sandeep's comments about polling, I mean, again, like, you know, I think that is true that people are sort of more likely to say that they support the idea

[00:03:46] of more housing in their neighborhood. But, you know, I think that also shows the limitations of polling to actually sort of get a sense of what's happening on the ground. I mean, in reality, yeah, the general idea and the vibe has gotten more popular. But I think urbanism

[00:04:02] as an actual practice and policy still is just kind of a vibe. I mean, we're not really doing it. Witness, for example, up in Wedgewood when the entire neighborhood seemed up in arms over the idea

[00:04:14] of some townhouses, which is already allowed. I mean, this was, you know, allowed before taking out this large tree that it was legal under the tree ordinance to remove. So when you kind of see urbanism in practice, people tend to still very much believe that for their neighborhoods,

[00:04:32] it needs to still be single family, sleepy suburban style. So I mean, I think we have to, and we'll get into this when we talk about the election. But I think we have to kind of look at

[00:04:41] the two different things like do people sort of know that they have to say they support urbanist concepts and do they actually support doing things that would provide more housing on the ground? Not all the candidates use the word urbanist to describe themselves, but I really

[00:04:57] want to get into this election here. So give me an example of a candidate who you consider, Sandeep, a strong urbanist, one of the stronger urbanists. And are there any anti-urbanists?

[00:05:07] I don't think that there is a candidate in this race that I can think of that sort of mirrors. So on the current council, I would say Alex Peterson sort of carries the flag for you know, the kind of anti-urbanist contingent, right? He's deeply skeptical of developers

[00:05:25] and growth, feels strongly about sort of protecting the integrity of single family neighborhoods, right? He's been that champion on this council and been a kind of boogie man for the urbanists as a result. And I don't really see anybody running full on in that lane,

[00:05:41] at least that I can think of off the top of my head. In that race, District 4, Ron Davis very much touts himself as an urbanist candidate. He has the endorsement of the urbanist website,

[00:05:52] you know? And Maritza Rivera, while I don't think she is an urbanist, she's also not really a nimby, right? She's somewhere staking out a kind of middle ground on those issues. And in fact, over one of the biggest issues that came up, Erica, you wrote this,

[00:06:08] Ups zoning the Ave, right? In the U district, you know, Maritza refused to sign a pledge that some of the more nimby focus and small business owners put forward saying pledging not to up zone the Ave.

[00:06:22] And Ron signed that, right? So my point being, I'm not seeing anybody right now that's running as a straight up anti-urbanist or nimby. So Ron Davis, I mean, you're absolutely right. This is

[00:06:35] kind of, I would consider him a little bit of a strange outlier example because I don't think that, there are other candidates who are sort of both touting their urbanist credentials and saying the

[00:06:46] word urbanist. And also not only pledging never to up zone the Ave or vote to up zone the Ave in his entire time in office, but also touting endorsements from Alex Peterson's aides and

[00:06:59] from some real kind of old school nimbies, nimbies. Toby Thaler is now Alex Peterson's chief of staff, but to me as a reporter, he's best known as the guy who is constantly filing legal actions against

[00:07:12] the city to prevent among other things, the Ed Murray initiative that you mentioned, Sandeep, to slightly up zone in a tiny slice of single family areas and then allow more density sort

[00:07:25] of on arterials and stuff. Toby Thaler challenged that for years. His name is all over appeals at the city hearing examiner just trying to prevent the most modest kinds of density and Ron Davis

[00:07:36] said, hey look, I got Toby Thaler's endorsement. I got the endorsement of Steve Zemke, who's the head of TreePak, which is another anti-growth group, Sarah Jane Siegfried, longtime neighborhood activist. So I don't know what's going on there except that I think Ron Davis is being

[00:07:51] pretty slippery. The word urbanist is not out there, but I think as a vibe it's in the ether in all of these races. I just don't think that that necessarily translates into,

[00:08:01] you know, I actually support allowing let's say a four-story building next to my house or in my neighborhood. What's at stake in the Ave in particular? Let's talk about that for folks who aren't familiar with that discussion and where are the two candidates when it comes to

[00:08:15] the no up zone pledge? Yeah, I'll take a crack at that. What's at stake is that in the U district and in District 4, remember that's represented by Alex Peterson, there is a very vocal and organized

[00:08:28] constituency that opposes up zoning, right? And the battle under Hala a few years ago again under Ed Murray to upzone the U district was a kind of fierce battle. There was a lot of pushback

[00:08:41] to the overall up zone and in that one of the consequences of that was that they carved out the Ave, right? And said we're not going to upzone the Ave at the time. And so it's been a kind of

[00:08:50] continuing source of friction and battle about what do we do with up doing the Ave. And there is a significant vocal led by some of the small business owners down there push to say no, we're not going to upzone the Ave. That's going to displace the existing

[00:09:04] businesses and what exists there. And I think, you know, Eric is right. I think Ron's just full on pandering to them, right? You know, and violating his principles. Doesn't he actually agree with them? Doesn't he agree with them that the Ave,

[00:09:18] can't you both be an urbanist and somebody who wants to preserve the Ave? Yeah, I mean, I don't know that we can read enough into that to say he agrees or disagrees. I mean, I think this particular group, it was like the University District Community Council,

[00:09:32] I believe, which is sort of standard traditional neighborhood group in a lot of ways. But you know, I think that the Ave is like a proxy. And I think the Ave in particular and the issues

[00:09:44] there are, you know, as Sandeep described them, small businesses don't want it to upzone. I think it's fine. And I think yes, of course, you can be an urbanist and be like, yeah, it's fine for, you know, some areas to remain, you know, sort of quirky little

[00:09:55] neighborhood districts. And it's one street, right? We're looking at the whole city. And probably it's low stakes for Rondevas to say I'm not going to upzone this one street or vote to upzone this one street. I mean, Ballard Ave, there's lots of, you know, places like that.

[00:10:09] In Vancouver, Canada, there's, you know, lots of streets that are one story in the middle of a very dense city. So I think it's, I think it's a low stakes thing to say. But I do think,

[00:10:19] I mean, just to repeat myself and agree with Sandeep, I think it's pandering to a group to say that under no circumstances will I ever take a vote? You're sort of saying that you will

[00:10:28] sell your vote to a group in exchange for support or at least, you know, a lack of opposition. And I think that's really problematic to be signing those kinds of pledges. And I think

[00:10:38] what Maritza said was not that she supports upzoning the Ave, but that she doesn't sign pledges like that because frankly, it's a ridiculous thing to do. Right. There's not even a proposal on the

[00:10:47] table about what the episode, you know, so to sign a blanket pledge saying site unseen, I will oppose any proposal as that ever comes down the pike on something does seem like a, you know, questionable commitment. Does this example illustrate that the conventional

[00:11:04] typologies of national politics from left to right don't really make sense when we're talking about a word like urbanism in Seattle because Maritza is clearly the more center right business friendly Joe Biden Democrat Trump supported. Oh, please.

[00:11:21] Look at the mailers but and Davis is clearly the more progressive, you know, less pro police, whatever you want to say, you know, radically permissioned. Right. And so I mean, does that show what the hell is urbanism? I thought it was this

[00:11:41] progressive thing. How can Maritza be more urbanist in this instance, more of a Yimbi than Ron Davis like you're saying it's because he's pandering, but doesn't it just kind of show that urbanism is almost like a meaningless word in the first place?

[00:11:55] No, I just think it's never been a left right issue and you know, people have tried to pigeonhole it into a left right issue. It's you know, that's just that's just never been true. I mean,

[00:12:03] we are urbanist though, the urbanist in Seattle is not as like a would say would disagree with you or no. Well, the urbanist is a website that got a URL that is, you know,

[00:12:15] the urbanist.org but they have a lot of positions on a lot of issues that aren't directly related to urbanism. Like urbanism is by definition being in league with developers who are often seen as these kind of right wing, you know, horrible forces against everything good

[00:12:31] in society by certain factions at the left and Ron Davis, interestingly enough and in his kind of slippery positioning has said that developers are evil. So that is an anti-urbanist position, but it doesn't it just has never cleaved, you know, cleanly to right and left because you're

[00:12:50] always saying when you're an urbanist, I want more development, you know, whether you want it in single family neighborhoods, whether you want it on busy, you know, polluting arterials, you're still saying I want development and that means developers and developers do kind of tend

[00:13:03] to be more right wing. So the urbanist describes Ron Davis as a progressive stridently, he says, running in District 4 on a progressive stridently urbanist platform. Isn't that phrase kind of used that way when Ron Davis describes himself as an urbanist? Isn't he also kind of saying

[00:13:21] yeah, I'm a progressive urbanist and that's what urbanist means. In agreement with Erica, there's been a split on the left in Seattle for a long time now between the kind of we need to

[00:13:33] grow, build, build, build right, the kind of urbanist left. And then there's a sort of, I would say a kind of farther left contingent represented by people at times like, like, Nikita Oliver for instance, when they first ran for for mayor in 2017 or Shama Sawant in some ways

[00:13:52] are prior to that Nikolakata, right? When he was on the council, that were more the, they're not like grow, grow, grow. They're the socket to developers left. They're like developers are evil. They're out to make money. They're causing displacement and we

[00:14:07] need to like, you know, socket to the developers right and that's where their energy has been put on that that faction, right of the left and that sees growth as inherently threatening the communities of color and poorer communities and sort of minority communities, right? So that's

[00:14:24] split spin around for a while. Well, I think that actually one of your examples gets back to, you know, why this is largely an aesthetic or a vibes thing because Nikita Oliver, you mentioned 2017, but they ran again in 2019 for city council and were very much

[00:14:43] more on the side of I support, you know, more growth. And I think that that was a real shift, as you said in the last, you know, five or so years to people saying that they support more

[00:14:53] growth. Now, if we can talk about what that actually means, I think we can maybe get into some of the other races because there is there is a question that they keep getting asked

[00:15:04] at all of these candidate forums, which is which is such a it's a weird question for me to hear because it's such a wonky seeming question, which is what version of the comprehensive plan do you

[00:15:13] support? So without getting too deep in the rabbit hole of the, you know, the different alternatives. Basically, this is the planning document that dictates or sort of over, you know, determines how we're going to grow in the future. So there's alternatives five. And

[00:15:30] then there's a alternative six that was proposed by advocates. And basically, they get 10 seconds and most of them say I support alternative five. And I would be willing to bet that in the majority of cases, a strong majority of cases, they couldn't describe what specifically alternative five is.

[00:15:49] It's just that's what you're supposed to say. And then in some cases, like I think Ron Davis says I support alternative six, which I am also willing to bet he could explain in great

[00:15:58] detail because, you know, that's that's the kind of the alternative that the the urbanists and the wonk support. So the day and the actual difference between the two is pretty substantial. It's basically like four plexus versus four story buildings. But I just think that, you know,

[00:16:13] now it feels like you have to say alternative five, you can't say 123 or four. Does that mean that we're actually going to get a bunch of four plexes or four story buildings in the case

[00:16:22] of alternative six? Probably not. So while I'm glad that people feel compelled to say that they are urbanists, I would like to see some actual policy on the ground. And we haven't seen that

[00:16:31] with the city council. So I'm just not really encouraged as an urbanist myself that that like this is going to translate into action or that it's particularly meaningful. Yeah, I'm going to push back on that a little bit. I mean, first of all,

[00:16:45] context here, the fact that that alternative five, which is the most sort of quote unquote urbanist proposal formally on the table is the one that, you know, a bunch of the candidates are lining up behind and nobody's going more nimby than that, right? One of the

[00:17:01] other alternatives I think is indicative of something. The other thing to point out here is that HB 1110, right, the legislature in this last legislative session passed, I thought, I think a really major, major law about land use across the state and big cities across the state,

[00:17:16] particularly Seattle, that now mandates four plexes and be allowed in Seattle in what were previously single family zones. So the ramifications of that have not sort of filtered through yet. The law just got passed, you know, back in April. And, you know, once it goes into

[00:17:34] effect, the change will be gradual, but it does change the sort of facts on the ground in single family neighborhoods in Seattle that now, you know, four plexes are it's manned. That's the blow end, right? That's the baseline now. That's the law of the state, right?

[00:17:52] And the question in Seattle is, are we going to go past that, right? Are we going to be even more urbanized and add more density and stuff? And I think there's a, to your point, Erica, there's a significant contingent of advocates that are advocating for that.

[00:18:03] There has been more resistance about sort of the pace of urbanist change, right? Are we going to stick with the four plex thing? Are we going to go to this kind of alternative six idea,

[00:18:15] you know, that advocates are trying to put forward that would really open up almost all of the city to significant up zones, right? I mean, that's the debate. Well, one of the things I wrote down in my notes for this episode is our four plexes real,

[00:18:30] question mark. And the reason I say that is like it is easy to say, oh, we have zoning capacity to build so much. I mean, this is actually something the NIMBs have been saying for many, many years. We have plenty of zoning capacity in the city of Seattle

[00:18:43] that we don't need to up zone anything. We just need to, you know, wait patiently for the zoning capacity to be realized, right? Well, that's never happened. And so when people say, oh, it's so great, we're going to have four plexes everywhere.

[00:18:55] That's also what we said about backyard apartments and yes, a lot of them have been built, but it hasn't meaningfully increased density. And my real question is like, is this actually going to happen? Are developers going to decide that it will

[00:19:07] be profitable for them to instead of building a massive single family house and selling it for a few million dollars to build a four plex? And, you know, with all the sort of extra permitting and just difficulty and challenges, I mean, it's just it's harder

[00:19:22] to build density in the city than it is to build a house. And so are they going to find it profitable? And that is the question that's really a lot more important than what the zone

[00:19:31] to capacity is because capacity is meaningless if it's not built out. And we know that they find apartment buildings to be profitable. I mean, if we allow apartment buildings, they build them. Right. And I agree with that 100 percent, the devil really is in the details here

[00:19:45] and the comp plan is going to matter and the kind of how restrictive the zoning codes are and the rules are make a huge difference in what gets built or doesn't get built. Let me give you

[00:19:56] the classic example of this was, you know, eight or 10 years ago, we had a sort of massive wave of apartments getting built like buildings with like very small apartments where the residents of those would kind of have shared communal kitchens, but, you know, lived in,

[00:20:12] you know, small kind of sometimes, you know, 200 square foot sort of apartments. And, you know what, there was a huge demand for those. That's why they were getting built because they were affordable to people even though they were market rate. They were, they were something that, you know,

[00:20:26] single people, older people like there was a massive demand for and the city council, that previous city council had a freak out about them and basically changed the regulations and rules to essentially make, made them unprofitable to build. And they just like stomp that whole

[00:20:43] thing down right just by tweaking the dials and levers on what the regulations were around apartments. And it was like an abrupt halt to all building of a apartment. I think we should go

[00:20:54] back and revisit that. And like, you know, if there's a market for those sorts of places, I don't know why we're stopping, you know, or putting roadblocks in the way of constructing different sorts of housing that people want. Right? But you're right that the rules that

[00:21:11] get adopted are really going to matter here. And there's a lot more shenanigans that happen sometimes at that granular level because, you know, land use gets pretty wonky and nobody's really paying attention to the detail, not nobody, but the general public's not paying attention

[00:21:26] to the details. And so that's where the rubber beast is rode on stuff, right? Yeah. And I think that there actually are differences between the candidates if we teased them out. And I have not asked the specific question of the candidates. I can't say like,

[00:21:39] this is what each candidate would say. But just in general, I think that the candidates have very different positions in some races. If you said, should we legalize single room occupancy, you know, let's say in all areas where apartments are currently allowed,

[00:21:54] should we bring back SROs, which were basically, you know, very, very cheap housing for people, you know, who might otherwise be homeless? And if you said, should we allow those everywhere? Should we allow them in Magnolia Village? Should we allow them in the middle of the heart of

[00:22:09] Greenwood, you know, et cetera? I think there's a lot of candidates who would say hell no. So yeah, the devil is very much in the details. And, you know, even if we're not talking

[00:22:18] about upzoning single family areas, there's a lot of stuff that we could be doing to actually, you know, address the affordable housing crisis because that is what we're talking about. You know, and I think the candidates would not really agree on all those things,

[00:22:29] even if they do say these vibesy things about, you know, supporting alternative five and oh, sure, like I would love to have, you know, four Clexes in the neighborhood. And, you know, Maritza Rivera in District Four said that I believe in, you know, at least one debate.

[00:22:42] I think the one that you were moderating, David, but she also said, as long as they sort of fit in with the neighborhood and look like houses. And the thing is, you can't really have an apartment building that looks like houses.

[00:22:53] So as soon as you get above that kind of, you know, single family-esque type of density, people start having objections to it because it looks different and it brings, you know, people that are not as high income into neighborhoods that are used to being,

[00:23:06] you know, kind of exclusively single family and in some cases exclusively higher income. What about that question of Yimbi versus Fimbi, Sandy? We are all Yimbi's now in Seattle, but are the candidates Fimbi's? Can you define Fimbi? Public housing in my backyard.

[00:23:25] Oh, I really, I truly didn't know the definition of that. So thank you. Yeah, I just see it. I feel bad. I think you caught me off guard. And wait, is your question or are you saying

[00:23:36] there's more? What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is, is that part of your argument is essentially that we are all Yimbi's now to some degree. Eric is pointing out that there are, though, significant differences still between the ultra-urbanists. And I'm saying one of the

[00:23:51] dividing lines might be, you know, we're all Yimbi's now, but are we all Fimbi's? If you said to Sandeep Kashik, I'm running for office on a platform of public housing in every neighborhood, in district whatever, what advice would you give that candidate?

[00:24:07] Well, I would tell them that they're going to get some, they are going to get some pushback in some more, you know, traditional, probably more upscale kind of single family neighborhoods, right? There's going to be more resistance to that. Right. As I mentioned before,

[00:24:19] I'm board chair at DSE this year. And, and, you know, when you want to cite, say, a permanent supportive housing building, right, one that's going to house chronically homeless people that have significant issues and needs, right, there is pushback to building that

[00:24:35] housing still, including in Seattle. Now, I don't think it's the resistance and the, and the pushback that you get in local neighborhoods is as strong as it used to be. I mean, I do think we've even seen a shift there, but I think you're raising a good point

[00:24:50] that this isn't like, yeah, wait, this is to Erica's vibes point too. Yeah. Everybody sort of feels they've got to be kind of on the Yimbi side, but there's still some pretty, some real differences, right, between how far people want to go on that front, right? I mean,

[00:25:06] we talked about Ron Davis. You know, we could also, we kind of mentioned Alex Hudson. We can bring back, you know, Alex Hudson is somebody who's much more on the kind of, hey, you know, she's

[00:25:17] running on the fact, and I should say I'm working on her raise, so I'm hardly a neutral, but she said she's running on as a, as a selling point, the fact that she cited two homeless

[00:25:26] shelters, helped to cite two homeless shelters in the neighborhood that, you know, she ran the neighborhood association of. She's clearly over on one side of this sort of urbanist debate, right? And then there are other candidates that are going to be much more, you know, like, yeah,

[00:25:43] alternative five, but as Erica says, but, you know, or I don't know about those appodments, man, that seems like we're cramming too many people in one bill, you know, and stuff like that, right? That's where the debate is going to happen now.

[00:25:55] When you get into like District Five, which is far North Seattle, I think that, you know, you're really going to see some differences there with like, with Kathy Moore, who is, you know, kind of the probable front runner up in District Five, not supporting stuff like,

[00:26:11] you know, four story apartments, much less SROs in the middle of Wedgewood, for example. And that really is what it's about. I mean, it is like, this is a districted city council.

[00:26:20] We exist in a city of districts, and it really is about allowing stuff like that in every district and not just in, you know, for example, District Three, where Alex Hudson's running, but up in Wedgewood, in Finney Ridge, you know, in Magnolia,

[00:26:34] just to name a few randomly chosen neighborhoods. Yeah. I mean, look, there's still real debates here about how far to go, but I do think the Overton window has shifted really remarkably rapidly on urbanist stuff. And if anything, it's still continuing to shift towards more growth.

[00:26:51] Right? If you look at all of the polling, it says that housing affordability and affordability generally is, you know, pretty much consistently the third issue, right? I mean, homelessness and public safety are at the top of the list, right, for what's front and center on people's

[00:27:07] minds. But there's a very much kind of, you know, right behind that or a fair bit behind that, but nevertheless, we're getting really strong interest is this issue around, around housing, growth, affordability? What can we do to, you know, density, those kinds of issues come to the

[00:27:25] fore? Well, I have to say, I mean, I if you had asked me this two years ago about sort of where we are as a city on density, I would have said that I am, you know, optimistic. And

[00:27:35] I'm still, you know, generally optimistic because I feel like we have to grow. And at a certain point, it just becomes a pressure cooker and you don't have any choice but to allow housing. But I really

[00:27:45] do feel like it has settled into this just kind of general sense that everybody, yeah, okay, we're fine with density, can we move on? And, and I think that, you know, looking at polling,

[00:27:56] again, like the fact that people say affordability is a big deal. Well, why do they say that? I mean, we don't really know from polls. But more importantly, density and housing is like a

[00:28:05] long term project. So it doesn't actually matter whether people, you know, this year say affordable housing and next year say it's potholes, because it's a really long term project just to even build, you know, one housing development in the city takes years and years. And so, I mean,

[00:28:22] first of all, we shouldn't be looking at polls on something that is long term year to year, because we have to just commit to it and do it even if it goes down in the polls for the next

[00:28:31] election. And, you know, nobody cares about affordable housing according to the polls, like that's why, you know, we need people who are actually, you know, willing on the ground to take votes that make a difference in the amount of density that we're going to have. And then,

[00:28:45] you know, who do things like, you know, increase funding for the, for the planning departments so that they can expedite permits faster, you know, instead of just saying we need to expedite permits, you know, actually doing something. And those are long term projects,

[00:28:57] they're not really election related. And they're not poll related. You know, it's just something we kind of have to have to do and commit to doing. That's it for another edition of Seattle Nice.

[00:29:08] Thanks so much for listening. If you want to donate, remember it's your chance to keep this podcast going. Keep our editor Quinn Waller going by going to patreon.com forward slash Seattle Nice. And thanks everybody for listening.