Hello, I'm your host, Brian Kalanan.
What's next for the CHOP, the Capitol Hill Organized Protest?
And can the Seattle Police Department move back into their East Precinct office?
Is it time to defund the police and consider new taxes on businesses and capital gains?
A lot to talk about.
And those questions are just the warmups.
Council members Lisa Herbold and Andrew Lewis join me with some answers right now on Council Edition.
It's not about just throwing the size of the police department to have better public safety outcomes.
It's about examining what it is that we're asking officers to do.
If you really want to get to the core of inequality in America, that road really begins with taxing capital gains.
All that and more coming up next on City Inside Out, Council Edition.
And here we are with Council Members Herbold and Lewis.
Thank you both very much for joining me at what I know is a very busy time for the City Council.
Council Member Herbold, I want to start with you and talk about the CHOP, the Capitol Hill Organized Protest.
You said recently at the Public Safety Committee meeting that you chair, the current situation is unsustainable.
We've had multiple shootings in that area, including one involving the death of 19-year-old Lorenzo Anderson.
Police and firefighters h getting into the site and up on Capitol Hill who ar because they felt abandon left their east precinct questions here.
Do you th response to protests over chop to establish itself f the chop is unsustainable, you play in disbanding it
Thank you, Brian, for that question.
I think by the question you asked, you've been following my line of questioning of the police department.
I really do believe that the situation could have been avoided if there hadn't been so much what I feel is really manufactured conflict around maintaining the space What began as a fight over whether or not people should be able to march down the street in front of the East Precinct has now become a situation where the protesters are occupying the blocks around the precinct.
From my understanding and from the times I've been down there before there was a CHOP, people just wanted to march by.
They had no intentions of occupying the entire space around the CHOP.
the decision to leave the East Precinct altogether.
We don't know who made that decision.
The mayor says she didn't make it.
The police chief says that she didn't make it.
And so, what led to a building full of city employees leaving that building if they did not get an order to do so and not coming back?
I think these are all the things that have led to the situation that we're in right now.
In my role as public safety chair, I've been really trying to encourage folks that I know are participating in meetings with the mayor's office to talk about both how to wind down the occupation of the CHOP, but in the interim, for me, what is most important, because I recognize that might still take some time, is ensuring that emergency services can get in there.
The fire department has a policy.
This is not unique to the CHOP.
Their policy is whatever there is a potential of violence, and that's when there's a DV incident that they have to respond to because somebody's hurt or because there's a car accident and people are arguing about whose fault the car accident is.
They don't go out there to help address that medical emergency unless they're escorted by the police department.
That's because they're really focused on the patient, right?
They can't be looking around and making sure that everything that's going around behind them is OK.
They have to be really focused on the patient.
They're not armed, and they're not trained to deal with interpersonal conflict like that.
So that's why it's really important that CHOP leaders in the city continue conversations about how to basically ensure that folks can get in there, because it's not just folks who are involved in the CHOP who might need health or emergency services.
It's the people who live in the area.
It's the people who work in the area.
It's the people who have visited in the area.
And the reality is, is whether or not you're talking about gun violence or violence in the hands of police or a health condition, a myriad of health conditions, it is black lives that are most at risk with this current situation.
Thank you for that.
And I'll come back to you in just a minute.
But Council Member Lewis, I know you visited the CHOP when it was called the CHAZ back on June 7th with Council Members Herbold, Straus, Mosqueda as well.
I'll put the question to you by using a quote from Mayor Jenny Durkan, who recently said at a press conference, It is time for people to go home.
It is time for us to restore Cal Anderson and Capitol Hill so it can be a vibrant part of the community.
The impacts on the businesses and residents and the community are now too much.
So as of the taping of this program, Cal Anderson Park pretty much no longer part of the protest site proper.
But do you agree it's time for people to go home?
And if so, how do you tell that to people who are still there and clearly still have concerns about racial inequality and police use of force?
You know, first off, it's good to be here.
Thanks for having us on.
You know, I think the most prescient thing that I've heard in the last couple of days and talking about the long-term goals here is from Andre Taylor when he said, you know, CHOP isn't a place, CHOP is an idea.
And I think that's what needs to really be at the core, at least for us as policymakers, is look, the foundation of why we are here is the brutal legacy of racially biased policing in the United States.
And the massive amount of power that we have as members of the Seattle City Council and the mayor to make real systemic lasting differences in that.
So I think that we can carry that forward in listening to Andre Taylor's words and the words of so many other folks in this community, that the underlying premise of why folks have been demonstrating, and I believe too, will continue to demonstrate, is to make those meaningful changes And I look forward to engaging with that in the budget process.
I look forward to people continuing to agitate for that change.
And I don't think it matters where they're doing it.
I don't think that it matters if they're doing it at the CHOP site or somewhere else.
They will continue to make their voice heard.
And I think that we need to keep that same focus that Andre used, saying, you know, it's about the idea.
It's not about a particular location.
And I think that is resonating with the demonstrators.
I can't speak for them.
But from what I've been seeing and hearing from organizers and folks that I'm friends with, Uh, centering the idea is in continuing to move th progress.
Let me let me s council member lewis beca heading into this whole c reform as you're talking of course recently passed banning crowd control we like tear gas, etcetera.
Those new laws are important, but I'm trying to figure out how the council can really get at the heart of reforming how police do their jobs.
Kind of what you're talking about here.
The city, as you know, recently withdrew its petition to remove the federal court ordered consent decree regarding police use of force, which has been in place for eight years.
And I'm just, I'm just wondering, this is a debate that's been going on for so long.
Is it time to go back to the drawing board when it comes to police reform?
What do you think?
Council Member Lewis, you first, please.
Yeah, you know, I really think it is because when we really dig into this, what we are really talking about is right-sizing our first response, right?
And I think the police themselves, actually, at a certain level, would really appreciate an analysis of this, of what we are asking them to go out and deal with, and if it's a good use of their time.
Also, if it's just a good use of city resources.
I mean, like, when we have a heart attack or a stroke, we get a paramedic to respond to the scene.
When we have a building on fire, we send the fire department.
Why are we sending the police to respond to someone that's in a mental health crisis where an armed response is not necessary?
Why are we having police be the primary folks that enforce traffic laws in the city of Seattle?
City of Philadelphia just passed a charter amendment last fall basically making all of their traffic enforcement unarmed community service officers.
So I think that there's a lot of examples that we can look at.
Some of those examples are right here that can form a good We have a community service officer program that we started and that we're building up this year.
We have the HealthONE program, firefighters and paramedics, which do proactive public health work.
And honestly, you know, go back to the 1980s and 1990s.
One of the biggest things patrol officers were responding to were retail theft calls in the downtown court across the shoplifting.
You know what?
They don't respond to those calls anymore because we developed a retail theft program put that on loss prevention officers in big retail stores to be able to complete and upload those reports and release people at the scene instead of arresting them and having a patrol officer be that agent intercepting them.
So we have a long history of redefining how we do first response.
We've got to build on that.
And we've got to have a public health informed approach.
And we've got to be making sure also, and this can be a topic of a future show, that we're doing it in conjunction with making progress on our long overdue regional issue of dealing with chronic homelessness in a public health informed sustainable way.
And I am going to touch on that too in just a little bit.
Thank you for bringing that up.
Council Member Herbold, I'll go back to you because you have decades of experience with the Seattle City Council as a council member, as a legislative assistant.
Before that, I asked that question about trying to go back to the drawing board when it comes to the work that's been going on.
for many, many years when it comes to police reform for the city of Seattle.
Is that what we're talking about here?
Have things disintegrated so much that we do need to go back to the drawing board?
I mean, I know we're right in the middle or on the brink of, I should say, police negotiations for a new contract coming up here.
I'm just trying to figure out how these two sides of advocates who want reform and police officers who are trying to figure out what their job is all about, are those sides any closer together after all these protests?
Yeah, I think it's really important to think about the language that folks are using, people actually aren't calling for reform.
Reform is what we've been doing for decades.
People are calling either to defund the police department.
Some people are calling for us to dismantle policing.
I like to think of it as rethinking public safety.
It's broader than just how the police do what they do.
It's whether they should be doing everything that they're doing, right?
And so it's really about rethinking the roles that the institution of policing has in our society and in particular in our city.
And I think that's very different than reforming all of the things they do without questioning whether or not they should be doing those things.
I like to use a quote from Dallas Chief David Brown, he said, every societal failure, we put it on the cops to solve.
Not enough mental health funding, let the cops do it.
Not enough drug addiction funding, let's give it to the cops.
Schools fail, give it to the cops.
That's just too much to ask.
Policing was never meant to solve all of these problems.
So the scope of policing has become so large.
And I think it also impacts the ability, their ability to do the things that we want them to do, like being first responders, like closing cases.
We have found that even as nationally, even as the size of police departments have tripled, their case closure rates nationally have reduced.
So it's not about just growing the size of the police department.
to have better public safety outcomes.
It's about examining what it is that we're asking officers to do and reducing the scope, shrinking the number of things that they do.
And as Council Member Lewis mentioned, we're analyzing 911 calls, we're analyzing some of the specialty units, and beginning to ask ourselves, if we take those dollars that we spend on, for instance, 911 response, when 20% of 911 responses responding to somebody in a complaint around homelessness, if we invest those dollars in a different kind of response to school resource officers, right?
If we take those dollars that are being spent on school resource officers in low-income schools with higher numbers of people, of children of color, and we invest those dollars into those communities, we're gonna have different outcomes.
Okay.
I want to make sure that I'm specific about one thing with regard to the chop and I'll come back to the budget question in just a little bit.
Council member Herbold specific to that east precinct.
Do you have any more clarity as to when officers might go back in there?
And again, just getting down to brass tax here.
How do you do it?
You have people that are still lined up outside of that precinct there.
I know I don't want to see another conflict between police and protesters there, but that could indeed come if police want to take that precinct back.
Yeah.
So one of the things I said to the chief yesterday is, you know, there are these conversations happening between the mayor's office and organizers at the CHOP.
I think the police department has to be at the table where those conversations are happening.
And to my understanding, that's not occurring right now.
uh...
so uh...
you know in when when i when i mention that to the chief she's she's like i you know i i i will go if i'm asked to go but i'm not gonna i'm not going to outshine my mayor uh...
but if what we're trying to do is to have a conversation about the future of the east precinct uh...
those those leaders as organizers uh...
have to be talking uh...
directly to representatives of the police department so we can have and understanding and have a set of expectations.
If police aren't involved in those conversations and they're just talking to the mayor's office, I think we're going to keep missing each other like we've been doing for the last three weeks.
Got it.
Councilmember Lewis, I wanted to touch on an issue you brought up earlier.
You, of course, chair the Select Committee for Homelessness for the City Council and that population of homeless people, they moved into the CHOP really as that operation took over those six blocks of Capitol Hill there.
It's this whole question of asking people to go home when they don't have a home.
That's always been an issue in Seattle.
Now you've got this layer of police protests on top of all this.
I think this presents a real challenge, a multifaceted challenge for the city.
I'm trying to figure out what you and the council are going to do about it, homelessness specific to what's been happening in the CHOP.
Yeah, well, you know, whether it's in the CHOP or anywhere else, I mean, we have really seen very visibly during the COVID period, a massive proliferation of unsanctioned encampments, the NAV team having stood down, it's just become a lot more visible.
What that really starkly presents to me is that our current approach has just been moving a lot of folks around, and we haven't been getting a lot of folks into exits on the other side.
And the NAV team has kind of kept people up and moving around, and they have been exiting some folks from homelessness.
But we are seeing, with the NAV team stood down, this massive proliferation of unsanctioned camping, really laying bare the problem that we face with chronic homelessness.
Yesterday, I addressed this issue with the city budget director and my colleagues, and I got the first presentation of the mayor's balancing package.
And I've made it really, really clear that a really big priority for me, really spinning out of our discussions around the NAP team that we had towards the end of May, is to increase the number of placements to exit at least into a transitional situation.
So we know that we have a massive backlog in terms of permanent supportive housing.
But if we could shift our backlog from where it is right now, where we have a lot of people that are living chronically homeless in tents on the street, and shift folks into being in tiny house villages, or maybe some kind of hoteling strategy like we're using through COLE.
Or maybe we expand DESC's navigation center that has wraparound services that's 24 hours open.
But making sure that we're having more placements and more exits so that the people that we have doing outreach, including the navigation team, reach out workers, they have places that they can offer to get people inside and off the street.
That is really the only way that we're going to get away from having these unsanctioned encampments and really have people in Seattle living with dignity.
is to expand placements like that.
I recently toured Camp Second Chance.
Tiny house villages are a great way forward to do that.
It costs a little bit over a million dollars a year to operate one village.
That's money well spent.
We expanded that permitting language early this year.
I'd like to see more of them, and I'd like to see more of them in the budget this summer.
Got it.
Let's go back to the budget and Councilmember Herbold, you talked about this earlier, this concept of defunding the police.
And it means a lot of different things to different people.
I think that's clear.
You recently saw that presentation from the police department about, hey, if you actually cut us by half, then we'd lose hundreds of officers or whatever else.
I just want to make sure that I put this in perspective and get you on record with this one.
And we actually got an Instagram message about this, concerned about losing officers.
This person wrote this, I feel as if we do defund the police, there needs to be a closer look at private policing, such as security, because some wealthier neighborhoods might hire more people to patrol the area if there's a lack of police presence.
That whole concept of police presence, I know it means a lot to a lot of people.
It's meant a lot on Capitol Hill as response times have varied with the CHOP being in that area there.
What do you say to that with regards to perhaps losing some officers that might be working the street?
You touched on this earlier.
Sure.
You know, I don't from from just a look at my precinct.
I mean, my my district in and specifically the southwest precinct numbers.
I don't see a lot of proactive policing.
What I see is that based on the number of officers that are available to work any given beat at any given time and the annualized calls for service, the analysis I do is that shows that officers are literally going from call to call.
They are responding to one 911 call and then going to another.
The coverage is so thin.
So again, I think what we should be looking at is narrowing the kinds of calls they respond to.
Like I mentioned earlier, there's a national study that shows 20% police time is spent responding to calls associated with homelessness.
A huge number is related to mental distress or social disorders.
I think we need to focus on reducing the types of calls that officers respond to if what we really want them to be able to do is to do more practical policing.
All right.
Thank you for that.
Councilmember Lewis, back to you on this budget question specific to police.
The mayor's recent proposal, you talked about this a minute ago, did include some cuts to police, some of which were in play actually before some of these protests started.
But when it comes to the SPD's budget, how do you respond people who say defund the police and cut that funding in half?
We actually got a message on this one too.
It reads like this.
How do you propose keeping Seattle victims of crime safe, represented, and served going forward with the push to defund both police and courts.
At what point is dismantling the justice system a slap in the face to crime victims like me?
I wonder if you can respond to that, Andrew.
Yeah, well, you know, this is an important issue as someone who used to be a prosecutor in the Seattle Municipal Court.
You know, I know firsthand places where we can certainly make a lot of overdue improvements, but places where we also do need to preserve our capacity to maintain public safety.
So I think the first answer, Brian, is I'm looking forward to having a a real process to find what the right number is.
And you know, I know that that's not going to be super satisfying to a lot of the advocates and demonstrators, but what I've said in responding to the arbitrary 50% cut line is saying, look, I don't know if it's 60%.
I don't know if it's 30%.
I don't know if it's 50% until we've analyzed the 911 calls to see where we're responding to until we have really made decisions strategically on how we right size our first response.
I think that we need to keep first response and our duty to adequately provide first responders at the forefront of our thinking on this undertaking of completely restructuring how we do policing, like beyond reform, completely restructuring.
But that doesn't mean that we're reducing first response.
That just means that we're creating new types of first responders and new types of exits, you know, from, as Council Member Herbert was talking about, chronic homelessness and some of the other issues that we have police responding to at a really high rate that they're sucking up a lot of their time.
So I think that that has to be part of the process to make sure that as the person that called in, you know, that we are not undermining our first response obligations.
We're just right sizing them to make sure that in some cases, you know, you have got, you know, mental health professionals responding, that you have got, you know, EMTs.
Maybe we expand the HealthONE program.
Maybe we expand the Community Service Officer program.
Making sure that that's in there, too.
Also, making sure that we are funding structural things on the back end.
There's a very thoughtful letter sent out by the Department of Public Defense the other day talking about some back-end changes that we can be making in the courts.
I think that's an overdue conversation.
That's one that I certainly have a lot to say about that's separate from just the police department and that we really need to grapple with.
Investing more in diversion programs like Choose 180, community passageways, and making sure that we are standing up a well-resourced community court.
We're going to be coming in to practice this spring and summer and making sure that that truly is a public health-informed response.
And then if those things are successful, maybe we do make carceral cuts.
Maybe we revise our contract with King County over the King County Jail because we're not using as many spaces there.
We've got to be creative and we've got to reevaluate all these things.
And it doesn't stop with the police.
It begins there, but it doesn't end there.
Thank you for that.
And I think creative is what it's all about when we're talking about the budget.
Council Member Herbold, I'll go back to you here.
Two pieces here.
So the council, just to put this in perspective for everybody, is working on revising the budget for this year to deal with the COVID emergency.
The mayor sent you a blueprint about that.
The council is also looking at new ways to bring in revenue in the future.
A payroll tax.
Once again, I wanted to talk about this dubbed jumpstart Seattle.
You are co sponsoring this measure along with council members Louis Strauss and Gonzalez Council member Mosqueda leading the charge on this.
Looking at jumpstart here, at least I'll throw a few quotes your way here from viewers here.
Why is jumpstart collecting so much less revenue than the morale is so want tax, which we know is the so called Amazon tax.
And why is there a sunset clause?
So that's one piece of this.
We also have this We continue to believe taxing jobs is bad public policy, and it's especially ill-advised as we enter what is likely a deep recession and an unprecedented rise in unemployment.
So some people want more money coming in.
Others say this is a tax on jobs.
Why now for a payroll tax at this time?
As it relates to both the first part of the first question and the second question, the answer is the same.
It raises less money and it's intended to address the criticism that this isn't the right time to sort of blanket tax employers for the number of jobs that they have.
The reason is this is a much more finely tuned proposal than my previous payroll tax or even the Morales Salon payroll tax.
We aren't just taxing per number of jobs for large businesses earning or with more than $7 million of payroll.
we are only taxing the jobs that are of a high income.
So that does two things.
That results in less revenue, but it also is intended to mitigate the concerns that people have of, you know, what happens is if you're taxing a business that has 200 employees and they're all making just over minimum wage, that's a business with a payroll of $7 million a year.
Is that really the kind of business that we want to be taxing right now when we don't even know whether or not a business like that might survive the recession?
And so that's why this tax is really focused on large businesses and only taxing those businesses for the upper income jobs that they have.
And so it's much more finely tuned.
The question about the sunset, I think that the sunset is intended to do two things.
It's intended to incentivize businesses who don't like a city payroll tax to work with leaders in the state legislature and to ensure that we are addressing statewide our upside down tax system.
So, if they do that in the next 10 years, I think it would be acceptable to allow the payroll tax to sunset.
The other, I think, point that's really important for folks to realize as it relates to the sunset is a city council in 10 years is not going to let that sunset go into place if there isn't another progressive revenue.
think people need to understand is we're baking in an additional $200 million a year of investment in services that people in this community desperately need.
We are not going to be able to take that out unless we have another source of progressive revenue.
Got it.
Thank you for breaking all that down with us.
Council Member Herbold, Council Member Lewis, I'll go to you here and feel free to share your thoughts on jumpstart if you'd like to briefly.
But I'd also like for you to explain your work on a capital gains tax, which would be, as I understand it, the first of its kind at a city level around the U.S. here.
How does that work?
How do you get around the state's prohibition on income tax with this?
I know it's a lot to cover, but if you wouldn't mind touching on that, please.
Yeah, well, thanks for asking me that question.
I mean, the first important thing to realize is, you know, while it would be the first at a city level, we really got to acknowledge, as Councilmember Herbold discussed, that we have the most progressive tax system in the entire country.
We're one of only nine states without a capital gains tax.
And the other thing that's important to realize is it's an excise tax.
And our excise tax authority is a lot more clear than the income tax authority that we more you know, sort of granted by the Division I Court of Appeals.
But it's an excise tax.
This is a tax on the sale of goods, in this case, stocks and bonds.
I haven't formally submitted the bill yet.
I'll do a shameless plug here for my town hall next Tuesday at 2 p.m.
with former Secretary of Labor Robert Rice.
She'll be joining me to talk more about this publicly, and I'll be sending out some information on social media about that soon.
But, you know, if you really want to get to the core of inequality in America, that road really begins with taxing capital gains.
Their capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate.
Folks that are extremely well off in this country are primarily compensated in capital gains.
So that's really kind of where I begin with that.
And like, you know, Olympia has had a bill for many years, for over a decade, that has made its way through there.
They haven't been able to pass it yet.
Totally comfortable with repealing our capital gains tax in the event we pass one, in the event that we do get a state capital gains tax.
But, you know, Like the payroll discussion, I don't think that we can wait anymore.
I mean, we have such pent-up need.
I think that, you know, if it's at like a 1%, 2%, 3%, if it's at a low rate, I think it's totally reasonable to explore taxing capital gains.
And happy to have conversations with our colleagues in the community about how we structure it.
But, you know, I put out a fairly modest proposal to begin the conversation, raise $37 million.
It'd be a flat 1%.
and that would put money into permanent supportive housing and the goals that the business and community-led Third Door Coalition has been advocating for.
So I think it's eminently reasonable.
We would combine it with other regional sources of revenue to meet that goal on permanent supportive housing.
It is not designed to compete with either of the payroll tax proposals.
It's designed to be complementary.
As you said earlier, you know, I'm a co-sponsor of Jump Start Seattle.
I'm very much supportive of working in that space.
to pass that tax, which, incidentally, 97% of businesses in Seattle would not be taxed by the Jump Start Seattle proposal.
Important thing to remember.
So this is a conversation we need to keep having, and I look forward to having it.
Thank you very much.
And I know I'd like to start wrapping up the show here.
I know the City Council has been working on so many weighty issues over the past several months here with regard to the COVID emergency that we're in the middle of right now, with regard to the budget emergency that we're dealing with right now.
As you go through that budget process, I know what's going to be happening through the end of July here.
Some thoughts about that.
And Lisa, maybe I can start with you.
Are we starting to see some sort of light at the end of the tunnel?
I mean, so many people are waiting for some sort of news, some leadership from the city or wherever else to give them some good news, something to show that we're perhaps turning a corner.
Do you have any thoughts about that as we wrap up the show?
You know, as it relates to the health emergency, I am not confident that there is in the very near term a light that I see at the end of the tunnel.
I think I'm glad that we are increasing the numbers of tests that we're giving so that we can get a handle on the on the problem.
And overall, Washington state has has recovered quickly.
I'm glad to see that we're doing contract tracing.
And all of that will really help here in Washington State.
The numbers of infected people identified across the nation seems to be on the uptick.
And it seems to be on the uptick in a way that coincides with reopening.
And so that is very, very concerning to me.
I'm proud to be working in a city where we're really focused on the economic needs, the emergency needs of folks impacted by the COVID crisis.
That is the bright light, I think, for Seattle residents is that we are really laser focused on people's food needs, small business needs, addressing the needs of renters, and also the needs of our older populations in this time of social distancing.
So I think the bright light is not necessarily about the end of COVID-19, it's really about local government's ability to respond to the needs associated with it.
Thank you for that.
Council Member Lewis, some final thoughts here as we talk about what's ahead for the council, what's ahead for the City of Seattle, what's ahead for our world really as we look ahead here through the COVID crisis and the economic crisis that we're in the middle of right now.
Are you seeing some sort of bright light out there?
Well, you know, I think we should take stock that summer's finally here and we're getting some nice weather and that's obviously something I always look forward to.
You know, I just always look at especially when I'm looking nationally at what other jurisdictions are dealing with and the response to the advice of public health officials.
One thing that I've always really, through this crisis, drawn inspiration and really taken stock of is the fact that my neighbors, you know, the people of District 7, the people of the city of Seattle, have been doing a really good job of wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, of following the advice of public health officials, And, you know, it's something that we're taking for granted right now, but looking nationally, that's not the case in every jurisdiction.
And I am just, I'm so proud of my neighbors.
I'm so proud of the city.
You know, these are hard times, but we're going to get through it.
And, you know, it all begins with us doing our part, even if our part is only wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.
That is critical.
It is working.
Keep doing it.
And, you know, when I was out at those demonstrations, like over the last couple of weeks, to a person, every single person wearing a mask.
And the initial rates of transmission from those demonstrations were very low.
So we know that it's working.
And we know that even when people are out there agitating for change, they're listening to public health guidelines.
And that's been inspirational.
All right.
Well, thank you both very much for joining me here on Council Edition.
And also a special thanks to our show editor, Ralph Bevins.
He's retiring after 21 years with the Seattle Channel and many more years in television before that.
Great to work with you, sir.
I'm Brian Kalanick.
We'll see you next time on Council Edition.