NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021

Jessyn Farrell talks with NPI about her 2021 candidacy for Mayor of Seattle

2021 Seat­tle may­oral can­di­date Jessyn Far­rell is a tran­sit advo­cate and senior Vice Pres­i­dent at the non­prof­it group Civic Ven­tures. From 2013 to 2017, she rep­re­sent­ed the 46th Leg­isla­tive Dis­trict in the Wash­ing­ton State House. She pre­vi­ous­ly ran for may­or in 2017, com­ing fourth in the Top Two elec­tion. She joined me for an inter­view on June 11th. This tran­script has been light­ly edit­ed for clarity.

Ruairi Vaugh­an, Ever­green State Elec­toral Ana­lyst (NPI): All the peo­ple run­ning for May­or of Seat­tle are pret­ty unique indi­vid­u­als, but there’s some­thing that sets you apart from the crowd: you ran for the job four years ago. Out of over twen­ty can­di­dates in the 2017 elec­tion, you’re the only one who came back for anoth­er shot. So my ques­tion is, what made you come back to the cam­paign trail, and why are you the only per­son who did it?

Jessyn Far­rell: There are glib answers that I can cer­tain­ly give, but I won’t. You know, I think most­ly it’s that I’m so frus­trat­ed; so many of the issues that were big issues in the 2017 cam­paign around polic­ing, home­less­ness, cli­mate change, and gun vio­lence are still big issues and they’re only got­ten worse. I am run­ning because we need some­one who has the chops to move the ball forward.

I think I’m that person.

RV: Why do you think you’re that person?

JF: That’s the inevitable next ques­tion! First of all, I would just say that this is a change elec­tion. Peo­ple are extra­or­di­nar­i­ly frus­trat­ed with city gov­ern­ment and with the folks who’ve been in gov­ern­ment – and there are peo­ple in this race who have been in gov­ern­ment, in city gov­ern­ment in particular.

2021 Seattle mayoral candidate Jessyn Farrell

2021 Seat­tle may­oral can­di­date Jessyn Far­rell (Pho­to cour­tesy of Jessyn Far­rell for Seat­tle Mayor)

We need a fresh start and a fresh per­spec­tive on a lot of these chal­lenges, but I real­ly do believe that expe­ri­ence mat­ters. This is not a learn on the job kind of posi­tion, being the may­or in this kind of moment.

I have worked as a leg­is­la­tor, pass­ing big bills with Repub­li­cans, and I have been in the exec­u­tive lev­el of an agency, so I have that admin­is­tra­tive experience.

Also, we need some­one who’s fun­da­men­tal­ly recep­tive to con­cerns of the pub­lic and I’ve been an advo­cate and I’ve helped do big things from that side as well, and I think that those kinds of expe­ri­ences are what we need right now.

RV: You men­tioned your time at the Leg­is­la­ture. What would you say your most impor­tant achieve­ments in your time as a state rep­re­sen­ta­tive were?

JF: Well it’s both being able to focus on prob­lem solv­ing and find­ing that place where there is val­ues align­ment and you can move the ball forward.

I think about the oil by rail safe­ty bill that we passed; it’s the strongest set of reg­u­la­tions in North Amer­i­ca, and we did that with Republicans.

Nego­ti­at­ing paid fam­i­ly leave, cre­at­ing accom­mo­da­tions for preg­nant work­ers. You know, it was actu­al­ly legal to fire some­one for being preg­nant before 2017, when [State Sen­a­tor] Karen Keis­er and I passed a bill to change that.

So, it is absolute­ly around find­ing that cre­ative space where we’re focus­ing on find­ing prob­lems, but it’s also about draw­ing lines, tak­ing stands, and cre­at­ing path­ways for actu­al­ly deliv­er­ing on our values.

I think about the show­down that I cre­at­ed in the leg­is­la­ture in 2015 when the gov­er­nor, the Democ­rats, and the Repub­li­cans had agreed to some real­ly bad com­pro­mis­es on the trans­porta­tion pack­age [Con­nect­ing Washington].

I very much want­ed to get that passed – it was about autho­riz­ing Sound Tran­sit 3, there were a lot of real­ly great things in it for my dis­trict and across the state around bike and pedes­tri­an invest­ment – it was a real­ly good pack­age, but not at any cost. One of the things I was just not going to live with was this swip­ing of $500 mil­lion of Sound Tran­sit mon­ey to basi­cal­ly plug holes in the state budget.

So I basi­cal­ly threat­ened to put the entire pack­age to a ref­er­en­dum unless we kept that $500 mil­lion in the Puget Sound region and put it towards sup­port for vul­ner­a­ble youth. I drew the line in the sand, shut down the leg­is­la­ture for a day and at the end there was a path­way to get to yes, and peo­ple got there.

That’s all to say that cre­ative prob­lem solv­ing mat­ters and also draw­ing lines and stand­ing up for our val­ues real­ly mat­ters, ad we need both in our mayor.

RV: One of the city’s biggest prob­lems, and one of the most con­tro­ver­sial val­ue-based issues, is obvi­ous­ly home­less­ness. How does your plan to deal with home­less­ness — well, first­ly, what’s in it? And how does it define you from the rest of the field?

JF: You know, there is actu­al­ly a lot of con­sen­sus around what the solu­tions are and I bet, if you look at most of the can­di­dates, we’re say­ing the same thing: “Build more hous­ing! A lot more hous­ing!” Includ­ing 3,500 units of per­ma­nent sup­port­ive hous­ing and a cou­ple thou­sand units of inter­im housing.

There is a lot of con­sen­sus around that.

There is a lot of con­sen­sus around deliv­er­ing bet­ter ser­vices to peo­ple who are liv­ing out­side, around drug treat­ment, around health care, around sanitation.

So, the solu­tion set is not that con­tro­ver­sial, and I think it’s time to stop debat­ing what the solu­tions are. And I will final­ly say, let’s stop the sweeps, because we know it is inhu­mane and ineffective.

What’s real­ly miss­ing, though, is account­abil­i­ty to those metrics.

I would love for the pub­lic to hold me account­able at the end of four years and say, did we actu­al­ly build that 3,500 units of per­ma­nent sup­port­ive housing?

Did we actu­al­ly deliv­er 2,000 units of tiny homes and hotels? — which, we’ve learned in COVID, is a real­ly effec­tive way to get peo­ple inside.

Did we part­ner with the state and the opi­oid cri­sis response plan and actu­al­ly get peo­ple things like sub­ox­one, which some­times requires dai­ly admin­is­tra­tion by pub­lic health pro­fes­sion­als? Did we cre­ate enough case work­ers and trust­ed com­mu­ni­ty part­ners to get to know every sin­gle chron­i­cal­ly home­less per­son by name? — so that we can actu­al­ly build the trust and get them the ser­vices and the hous­ing that they need. So, to me, it’s real­ly less about the con­sen­sus solu­tions and more about the relent­less dri­ve around imple­men­ta­tion, and that’s where my back­ground in trans­porta­tion – and, real­ly, focus­ing on doing what we say we’re gonna do – real­ly matters.

And I guess, relat­ed to that though, solu­tions scale to the size of the prob­lem. We pat our­selves on the back for incre­men­tal­ism all the time in this city. You know, we praise our­selves for doing eighty units of per­ma­nent sup­port­ive hous­ing when we lit­er­al­ly need to be deliv­er­ing thou­sands of units. And I’m the only can­di­date in this race that has deliv­ered big-scaled solu­tions on our biggest issues.

RV: What do you think is stand­ing in the way of cre­at­ing those big-scale solu­tions with the cur­rent administration?

JF: Well, I think there is a real issue around turf bat­tles and credit.

And there is just a basic inabil­i­ty to work with the coun­cil, hire great peo­ple with­in the admin­is­tra­tion, and then empow­er them to go do the work.

The may­or has to be both a great admin­is­tra­tor and be able to work with the coun­cil to deliv­er them both. And then final­ly, hav­ing trust with the public.

I think all of the hid­ing the ball around the deci­sion mak­ing with respect to pub­lic safe­ty is a huge prob­lem. This is a moment when trust in our city gov­ern­ment is real­ly low, and the next may­or has to be real­ly focused on rebuild­ing trust with peo­ple, and part of that is just trans­paren­cy around deci­sion making.

RV: You men­tioned the rela­tion­ship with the City Coun­cil. Where do you think May­or Durkan has gone wrong in how she’s dealt with the City Coun­cil, and what would you do instead? How would you approach that relationship?

JF: I just think the proof is in the pud­ding, both on the side of the coun­cil and the May­or. Where are the big scale solu­tions? Why haven’t we moved forward?

So in terms of going wrong, I think some of the basic skill sets around cre­at­ing align­ment around a vision of what it is we’re try­ing to do, lever­ag­ing the resources of city depart­ments to be able to deliv­er on that, work­ing with the Coun­cil mem­bers in their dis­tricts to meet the needs of par­tic­u­lar neigh­bor­hoods and com­mu­ni­ties, (because we obvi­ous­ly have a very diverse set of inter­ests and needs across the city). Those are just some very basic skills that the exec­u­tive should be able to deploy with the coun­cil, and that exec­u­tives and leg­isla­tive branch­es do togeth­er all the time when there is a good work­ing relationship.

I’ll just add a very par­tic­u­lar exam­ple of that: I worked at Pierce Tran­sit in the last Reces­sion, when we had to very sig­nif­i­cant­ly restruc­ture our ser­vice and had to cut almost 30% of our bus ser­vice because of the decline in sales tax revenue.

There was a real­ly strong ini­tial desire to just do a peanut but­ter approach, where you cut ser­vice in sub­ur­ban Pierce Coun­ty as much as you cut ser­vice in urban Pierce Coun­ty; which of course was com­plete­ly inequitable and racial­ly unjust, because those urban com­mu­ni­ties had much high­er reliance on tran­sit, mar­gin­al­ized com­mu­ni­ties, and low­er incomes.

So we took a val­ues-based approach where we real­ly learned what the pub­lic val­ues about tran­sit, did a lot of work­ing with the pub­lic to fig­ure out how to imple­ment that. And it meant that we were able to have that board – which had both sub­ur­ban coun­cil mem­bers and urban elect­ed [offi­cials] – get to agree­ment on pre­serv­ing ser­vice in the urban part of the coun­ty and tak­ing deep­er cuts in the sub­ur­ban part of the county.

Now, we don’t want to cut tran­sit ser­vice at all, but that’s an exam­ple of how using val­ues and real­ly focus­ing deeply on imple­men­ta­tion helps get peo­ple into more of a prob­lem solv­ing mind­set and find align­ment and make hard deci­sions at the end of the day.

RV: You men­tioned that you don’t want to cut tran­sit at all – what do you want to do with tran­sit and how are you going to bring your expe­ri­ence with Pierce Coun­ty to bear in Seattle?

JF: So we are going to go big on transit.

I am com­mit­ted to get­ting to net zero car­bon emis­sions by 2030; it is time for actions, not words. I have three young kids who are real­ly wor­ried about cli­mate change, and I know that a lot of us know that we are in a cri­sis and tran­sit is a real­ly impor­tant strat­e­gy in help­ing peo­ple get out of their cars.

I would say there are three things that are real­ly impor­tant to focus on: one, deliv­er­ing a hun­dred miles of tran­sit-only lanes so that tran­sit is even more fre­quent, reli­able, and equi­table across the city; two, imple­ment­ing free fares, because that is anoth­er way to make deliv­ery of tran­sit more equi­table and safe for peo­ple, par­tic­u­lar­ly black and brown mem­bers of our com­mu­ni­ty who fear being over-policed because of fare enforce­ment; and num­ber three, keep­ing Sound Tran­sit [3] on track. This dis­cus­sion around realign­ment and push­ing out deliv­ery of Sound Tran­sit [3] is some­thing I don’t support.

We are going to have to fig­ure out where to find the fund­ing and make sure we are deliv­er­ing the sta­tions across the city and the regions when we said we were going to deliv­er them. So those are three of my tran­sit priorities.

RV: So you want to get to net zero by 2030. Apart from tran­sit, what else can you do as may­or to get to that goal?

JF: Seat­tle is at its best when we are being a leader and a lab­o­ra­to­ry to show the coun­try and the world how to do things, and we can absolute­ly show the coun­try how to do this. That means tak­ing a real­ly com­pre­hen­sive approach.

I will hire a deputy may­or who is chief cli­mate offi­cer, who is empow­ered to work across depart­ments and with the com­mu­ni­ty to imple­ment our cli­mate pol­i­cy – we have a very com­pre­hen­sive plan on our website.

But in addi­tion to tran­sit, it means build­ing a lot more afford­able hous­ing – 70,000 units across the city – because it is inher­ent­ly more car­bon effi­cient when peo­ple are able to live close to their jobs, their shop­ping, and oth­er activities.

It means con­vert­ing our cur­rent build­ing stock and our new build­ing stock from nat­ur­al gas. That can be a pret­ty thorny polit­i­cal prob­lem for sure, but we all know that’s what has to be done and I’m not scared of thorny polit­i­cal prob­lems. It’s most­ly an issue of find­ing the resources to do it.

And it means a just tran­si­tion, mak­ing sure that every sin­gle per­son has access to the oppor­tu­ni­ties of the green econ­o­my, and real­ly get­ting in front of the inter­lock­ing inequity that has come from sys­temic racism and trick­­le-down eco­nom­ics. To me that means in par­tic­u­lar, redefin­ing what the green econ­o­my means; care­giv­ing jobs like child­care, elder care, and health­care should be con­sid­ered green jobs because they are inher­ent­ly low carbon.

They should have access to the full set of poli­cies that cre­ate eco­nom­ic stability.

RV: You men­tioned that Seat­tle is a leader and a lab­o­ra­to­ry eco­nom­i­cal­ly and in terms of pol­i­cy. What would you do to bring the jobs of the future – what­ev­er Seattle’s next big indus­try is going to be – how will you bring those jobs to our city as Mayor?

JF: Well one thing that I’m real­ly focused on is this idea of uni­ver­sal zero to five child­care. It is obvi­ous­ly good for our youngest peo­ple in our com­mu­ni­ty, the sci­ence is very clear on that, but it is also a real­ly impor­tant eco­nom­ic issue and com­pet­i­tive edge issue. As we emerge from COVID, a lot of peo­ple are not going to go to work in the same way they did before.

We are in some ways com­pet­ing with not just San Fran­cis­co and Austin, but also places like Boise and oth­er small­er com­mu­ni­ties around the country.

But no mat­ter where work­ers are, you’re going to have kids who are going to need child­care, so it is a com­pet­i­tive edge for us to real­ly go big on what afford­able, acces­si­ble child­care means. So that’s why we are going to be intro­duc­ing a pro­gram to scale up to uni­ver­sal free zero to five childcare.

RV: That sounds like a great plan!

JF: As a new par­ent, that’s a good one, isn’t it?

RV: Mov­ing onto the issue of polic­ing, you men­tioned how you want more case work­ers and com­mu­ni­ty part­ners engag­ing with dif­fer­ent pop­u­la­tions in the city. As May­or, you’ll have the respon­si­bil­i­ty of pick­ing the new Chief of SPD – what is going to be on your hir­ing checklist?

JF: I’m going to start by artic­u­lat­ing what my North Star is on pub­lic safe­ty, because one of the things that has been so lack­ing from the cur­rent May­or and the Coun­cil is the vision: what is it that we’re try­ing to achieve for pub­lic safety?

For me it is that every sin­gle per­son in our com­mu­ni­ty should feel safe.

And for par­tic­u­lar­ly our black and brown com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers and fam­i­ly friends. too often there is harm. Think about Charleena Lyles who was killed in 2017 dur­ing the last may­oral cam­paign when she called for help on 911 and was killed by the police. So that is a fun­da­men­tal val­ue; every per­son should feel safe as they go about their day to day lives.

Pub­lic safe­ty has to mean so much more than just a tra­di­tion­al polic­ing response, it has to mean eco­nom­ic, cul­tur­al, and social sup­port that cre­ates tru­ly thriv­ing com­mu­ni­ties. And so, the next police chief has to be a part­ner in achiev­ing that vision, and in par­tic­u­lar have a skill set around orga­ni­za­tion­al change, because SPD is going to have to trans­form the func­tions that the orga­ni­za­tion is in charge of, the rela­tion­ship to account­abil­i­ty and transparency.

We’ve seen a lot of dis­ap­point­ing actions by both the Mayor’s Office and the top – I’m think­ing around textgate. We’re real­ly going to need a skill set around trans­for­ma­tion and I will be look­ing for some­one who has done that in the past and is able to bring those expe­ri­ences to bear here in Seattle.

RV: You said that SPD is going to have to reform; are you going to sup­port the City Council’s effort to cut the SPD’s budget?

JF: So I said ‘trans­form’ very delib­er­ate­ly, because while reforms are impor­tant, there are func­tions that fun­da­men­tal­ly need to be changed around cri­sis response, for exam­ple, around trans­porta­tion enforcement.

We can get to a place where we’re using few­er cops on the street to still achieve safe­ty using oth­er mech­a­nisms. So I’m very focused on transforming.

As far as cuts go, one of my cri­tiques of what hap­pened this sum­mer is that it was not val­ues-based, and it was not direct­ed in the ser­vice of a vision of what pub­lic safe­ty can be in our community.

So there were things that were cut, like per­son­nel in the region­al domes­tic vio­lence unit who are tasked with imple­ment­ing our extreme risk order pro­tec­tion law, which helps us to remove guns from dan­ger­ous peo­ple like abusers.

That is a func­tion that is real­ly impor­tant to con­tin­ue and invest in, but there are oth­er func­tions, as I men­tioned, that we real­ly need to fun­da­men­tal­ly be trans­form­ing and be using oth­er mech­a­nisms of ser­vice deliv­ery that cre­ate bet­ter safe­ty and have bet­ter, less harm­ful, out­comes for folks.

RV: Jessyn, thanks for your time!

Vot­ing in the August 2021 Top Two elec­tion will begin in under two months, with bal­lots due back by 8 PM on August 3rd, 2021. The top two vote get­ting can­di­dates will advance to the Novem­ber gen­er­al election.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: