Primary Elections Results So Far, Big Tech Is Hiding AI Debt, and Chief Barnes’ Legacy Reviewed

This is CityCast Seattle. I'm Jane Ceehoo, and here's what Seattle's talking about. As the second quarter of the year comes to a close, we'll review the state of Seattle's tech giants. Plus, we'll take a look at Sean Barnes tenure as police chief. But first, results from Tuesday's primary election are trickling in. And here to discuss, we have Erica C. Barnett, independent journalist, co-founder of Publicola, and co-hosts of the podcast Seattle Nice. Welcome, Erica. Thanks, Jane. Good to be here. And we have Alex Halverson, tech reporter at the Seattle Times. Hi, Alex. Thanks for having me, Jane. Of course. So at the time of this recording, we only have results from the initial drop, which were posted at 8 p.m. on election night. Were you all a part of that initial batch? Well, actually, I don't know. I got my ballot confirmation that they sent you through text messages, which is super helpful, like three days ago. So I don't know. The batch came in like super late last night, you know, at least for election watchers. So I'm not sure what all was in it, but I voted pretty early like I always do. Good for you. Alex, did you vote early or were you a late one like me? Probably more on the late side. I don't know. I'm a big like... set it and forget it. But I don't know what sort of batch I'm part of. Gotcha. Yeah, I just checked and I don't think my ballot would have been counted in the initial drop because I didn't take to the drop box until noon. So that drop reported an 18% turnout, but we can likely expect higher numbers given how last minute everyone is, including me. I am definitely part of the problem. I think it's likely we're going to get to a higher number than 18%. How much do we think things will actually shift? To give myself away, as a local, local person here, I looked at mostly state legislative races, which do not look like they're going to shift too much. The 43rd, the 46th, those are the two competitive seats up in North Seattle and Capitol Hill area. And incumbents are winning both of those races pretty handily so far. In the City Council and County Council races, it's a little bit closer. Those could move a little bit. Generally, later results are more progressive. So Neeloo Jinks is currently winning in the Seattle City Council 5th District election, which is an open seat. And in the race for the council seat on the county council, formerly held by Girmai Zahalai, you know, Rebecca Saldanya is ahead. Toshiko Hasegawa is a little behind, but they're pretty much neck and neck at this point. And so both of those are going to move through to what will hopefully be a little more interesting general election. I mean, were either of you surprised to see any of these initial results?

I guess this is maybe like reading Twitter too much, which I don't advise anyone do. It's kind of a like necessary thing, I think, if you're a reporter, unfortunately, to keep your eye on that. Right. It just seems like there's so much anger toward incumbent politicians like in general. It's interesting to see them doing well. But again, that might just be some sort of manufactured discourse I'm seeing on Twitter and maybe people. People are okay with it. I mean, Erica probably knows more than I do seeing these results. I think that Washington State does not often see the same kind of, especially again in these like more localized races. I know we're talking about state races, but, you know, Jamie Peterson has been the incumbent in the 43rd forever. Jerry Pollitt has been the incumbent in the 46 for a long time. And they generally tend to win pretty handily every single time. I don't see a lot of, you know, super anti-incumbent sentiment on. that level. I think there is a lot of local, you know, anti-incumbent sentiment on the city council and pro-incumbent, but they're not really up this year. So I think that is more of a national thing that's happening in other states than it is here. And I don't have like an easy explanation for that, except that we don't elect Republicans in Washington State by and large. So there's not going to be a lot of swing back and forth. It seems like there's a big contingent that's trying to make Jamie Peterson the sort of like proxy for um the washington state millionaire's tax and seeing him ahead does that to you show kind of what the state's sentiment is behind the millionaire's tax it seems like the people who are against it are of course the most vocal in the room um or should we not be looking at his race as a sort of proxy for it You know, whenever you're talking about, like, a legislative district, it is such a small slice, even of Seattle. So you're not even talking about, like, how Seattle is going to go. You're talking about how Capitol Hill and the rest of the 43rd are going to go. So, yeah, I mean, I just think that is, like, one of the most progressive districts in a progressive city in a pretty progressive state. So I wouldn't draw too much from that, the millionaires. tax, you know, quote unquote, tax on income above a million dollars. It's up on the ballot in November. I really think that's up in the air at this point. I'm going to be a little over my skis here, but there was a race in Michigan or an election in Michigan that was sort of a referendum on their income tax, which like... In most states, the idea of an income tax is not anathema the way it is here. And voters there overwhelmingly said, no, we want an income tax, not sales tax. So, I mean, that's a national issue. Obviously, we're different here in Washington State in that we've never had an income tax. But I just, I thought that was kind of interesting. In other states, people do like the idea of a more progressive tax. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And in the 43rd, that's... what I will be watching as these late ballots come in. I know Savio Howell ran a pretty robust campaign against Peterson, but it seemed like Peterson really did step up and try and do some campaigning himself. I'm curious what you all see as the...

longer-term strategy here as we go into the general. Yeah, I mean, Peterson, I think, made a good case for himself. And I think that, you know, despite like running a robust campaign and, you know, and really doing a lot of door knocking, you know, I think that the issue was that Xavier Howell didn't really present the case for why Peterson needed to go so badly. Like, what has he done that's so bad? He just, you know... came off of this millionaire's tax victory in the legislature last session. He is, you know, rightly tagged with that. I mean, if people, you know, oppose the millionaire's tax or whatever, then that would be, you know, a negative for him, but it seems very popular in his district. So I think that, you know, again, it's hard to say what that means for the tax itself, but I think Peterson is pretty popular and seen as very effective. One thing I find interesting about Jamie Peterson is it doesn't feel like this big enemy of corporations. Like I've heard, you know, executives at Microsoft and Amazon, maybe not speak glowingly about Jimmy Peterson, but they describe them as someone, you know, they like working with, they're willing to work with. You talk to like Brad Smith at Microsoft. And the way he talks about Jamie Peterson is much different than how he talks about like a Bob Ferguson or something. And just sort of Microsoft's approach with the legislature. It seems like they've been able to work with Jamie Peterson in a way that suits them. So it's sort of interesting just from the outside seeing and sort of straddle this line, you know, being the sort of progressive candidate, but also not being necessarily an anti-corporate candidate. Oh, for sure. He's like, he's a, I mean, he's a corporate lawyer. Right. Yeah. I mean, I would not, I would not characterize him as like, you know, especially progressive in the, you know, in the sense of like the Seattle range of progressivism to liberalism, whatever. But, you know, I just think that he is, he's perceived as being effective. And like you said, Alex, you know, a guy who can work with businesses, you know, I mean. Sabio Howell tried to make that internegative, you know, saying that he is a corporate shill and maybe he is, but he is, you know, just kind of blandly liked, you know, at a minimum by a lot of people. Alex, I'm curious also if you have any insight into how the tech world is feeling about the 46th. So currently, Palette is leading the race there in this primary. Davis and Dreher are trailing behind, but early results suggest it could be Palette. and Dreher. And I know if you look at the campaign contributions for Pollett and Davis, it's nearly all Washington folks down the line, but for Dreher, it's a lot out of town folks, including donations from people who identify themselves as affiliate with Anthropic, Waymo, Open AI. And I know Dreher is running on this platform of wanting to regulate AI, but I'm curious if the tech world has had much of a response to what that race is looking like right now. I do find it interesting that, you know, these out-of-state companies like Waymo and Anthropic are getting into races here. But I don't know if it's too surprising. I mean, Anthropic is establishing a pretty large office here in South Lake Union. And, you know, that's going to be a huge engineering hub. So Seattle's going to be an important part of their...

you know, when they're eventually a public company, their corporate strategy. And, you know, I think they'd like to have a say, or at least they think they'd like to have a say in the political races that could shape policy around how they do business. Waymo as well. You know, Waymo is testing pretty aggressively in Seattle. It's kind of funny. All these autonomous car companies say Seattle's a really great place to train because of the terrain and weather. But it's a large market, and Waymo eventually wants to expand here and offer a huge service. Eric, what do you make of this? I didn't know that until you said it just then, Jane. I will say personally, I mean, anybody who's taking money from or being, you know, targeted by Waymo and Anthropic and those types of companies is going to be the kind of candidate I view with some skepticism. They don't give money to specific candidates for no reason. So, and I, you know, and I think Waymo is like a plague on the streets of cities like Austin, like L.A., like San Francisco. I mean. You know, I think they're one of the many things that tech companies say we need that we don't need that are going to end up costing consumers more money in the long run. And maybe the people that were targeting Jamie Peterson for taking corporate contributions can turn their attention to the 46th district race. Although I do think Jerry Pellett is probably going to win. They are not giving money to the income and they're giving money to this upstart challenger who, you know, also clerked for Brett Kavanaugh. Now he did. you know, ask for more scrutiny of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination after the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford became more clear and came out in public. But I have a lot of skepticism for that particular candidate. And this information just kind of like adds to that pile. Mm-hmm. Well, results are going to continue to trickle in as ballots are counted. According to King County elections, final results will be available by August 19th. But pretty soon we're going to get precinct level results, which I think would be interesting to look at. But given the joys of mail-in voting, it just means it's going to be another few days until we have definitive final results. Let's take a break. And when we come back, let's talk about how Seattle's big tech companies are doing.

We are halfway through the year and businesses are reporting their Q2 earnings. And there's been some big movement in these Seattle tech giants. Alex, you reported that Amazon brought in $200 billion in revenue the second quarter, a 20% increase from last year. These days, I have trouble keeping track of Amazon's many ventures from, you know, hosting a huge amount of the Internet's data to even like health clinics now. What divisions are driving that huge profit? Yeah, a lot of what's driving that revenue is expanded cloud growth, right? Amazon has a lot of divisions, as we know, they are probably most modern conglomerate at this point between all the industries they like buying up. But the two main drivers are still their logistics business and the e-commerce store and Amazon Web Services, their cloud computing division, which hosts most of the Internet. And so what investors are looking for each quarter and each fiscal year is... more and more cloud growth. And the logistics side is growing as well. People are buying more from Amazon than ever. Their prime day sales are performing better than ever. More people still are signing up for Amazon Prime. I don't know how that's still possible, but more people are still joining Amazon Prime. And they're getting groceries delivered now, which all helps the e-commerce business. But this cloud growth is really what's driving a lot of that revenue. And especially for Amazon, because the logistics business is so costly, like they have to pay for warehouses. fuel, the workforce of its logistics, but arm is so massive. It's really costing, sometimes rarely at this point, but sometimes it doesn't make money. Now, the cloud side is extremely profitable. That's driving a lot of profit growth as well. Now, it's sort of weird as Amazon, I think, reported something silly, like $63 billion this quarter. That's a little bit of a misnomer because a lot of that was actually... a jump in the valuation of its investment in Anthropic. A lot of what these big companies are doing now, they put a huge stake into companies like Anthropic. Microsoft did this with OpenAI and Anthropic. Amazon did it back in the day with Rivian. And these private companies, when they get evaluated really high, these companies that invested in them can then report that investment growth as profit. So without that Amazon pulled in about like $7 billion in profit. And again, what that's showing is they're bringing in more money than ever. So more people are kind of gravitating to their cloud products. But the cost of AI is really weighing down these balance sheets. I mean, they're spending more than they ever have, and it just continues to grow. Yeah, so some recent reporting from Bloomberg found that there are a lot of tech companies, including Amazon, that are bundling their debts, especially debts around building like data centers, for instance, into these off-balance sheet entities. So this was the same strategy that Enron used to hide its debts from investors and lenders before its collapse, which is a little bit worrying, perhaps. But I know Bloomberg reported that Amazon has something like... $474 billion in liabilities and $210 billion in commitments. Microsoft also has a lot of money stored away in this way, invested in this way. Do we know how much of a factor this plays into the overall health of these big tech companies? I'd be hesitant to say whether this is...

as worrying a sign for these companies as it was for Enron. These companies are way larger and make more money than Enron ever did. One key thing is that a lot of these companies still have pretty decent free cash flow, right? Or they did, at least, meaning they have a lot of money coming in that they can play around with. And these companies have always held on to a lot of debts, how they finance tons of things, you know, offices back in the day. pre-AI data centers warehouses for Amazon. What's happening now is that rate of spending has just, it's gone up exponentially. And there's these things called capital expenditures, which is basically what companies spend on future investments. So for these companies right now, that's data centers that, you know, will be in operation for a few years. It's mass amounts of GPUs and CPUs, which are, you know, reductively high-powered computer chips to sort of power AI, for lack of better words. And they're spending so much and CAPEX is going up just by insane amounts. Like Microsoft and Amazon together are on track to spend like $400 billion just in data centers and computer chips this calendar year alone. And in previous years, it was less than half that. So they have to do different things to sort of fuel that spending. A lot of companies are leveraging debt. They make enough money that they know or think they'll be able to pay it off later. But what's happening for some companies is their free cash flow is like plummeting. That's happening a little bit for Amazon, a little bit for Microsoft. But what's really worrying is for companies like Oracle. Google had negative free cash flow this past quarter. A finance expert might say I'm being a bit reductive here, but, you know. When you run into no free cash flow, you know, you're running out of money quarter to quarter. Right. Okay. So I was going to ask like, okay, so revenues are up, but, you know, spending is also up. Yes. And you've also reported on a lot of these recent layoffs. So you reported that Microsoft's headcount fell for the first time in a decade. They laid off. 15,000 people last summer and they recently laid off another 600 employees as part of a restructure of its Xbox division. But meanwhile, they're reporting $90 billion in Q2 revenue and a 31% increase in profits compared to last year. I mean, Amazon 2 has laid off 30,000 people in the last year, many in Seattle. And just this week, Zillow laid off 500 employees ahead of... their Q2 earnings report on Wednesday. I mean, what does it mean that these companies are bringing in this much money, but still laying people off? Is that a cash flow problem or is there some bigger thing happening here? I would say it all comes chalked up to trying to control costs, especially in a time when spending is just out of control. And what I mean by out of control is Microsoft's getting a little bit better at this, but. You know, they'll tell investors, hey, we expect to spend X amount in CAPX next quarter and probably for the rest of the fiscal year. But a lot of these tech companies, when that next quarter comes up, they say, oops, we spent a little more or a lot more than we thought. And we're going to have to up that sort of guidance again. And to keep Wall Street happy so that Wall Street's not looking at you and saying, okay, are you guys going to run out of money? You've got to control costs quarter to quarter. And a really easy way to do that is payroll. And there's other reasons, too.

These companies, a lot of them, especially like on Microsoft or Amazon, they probably did overhire during the pandemic. You know, they had to get so much the world online that... Once the world was online, you might need fewer employees to sort of maintain that digital connection for everyone. I don't think we're at a situation right now or Microsoft or Amazon is one-to-one replacing employees with AI. I just don't think the technology is quite there yet. So a lot of this is just about costs. I feel like often these conversations about, especially the cloud and a lot of tech is very like, it's in the ether. Yes. But remembering that there's a real. physical and human cost to all of this, like with payroll, for instance. I'm curious what you all think. Especially curious to hear from you, Erica, what do you feel like the overall volatility of the tech industry means for Seattle right now? You know, you were talking about the physical infrastructure of data centers. So let's just use that as an example because it is, you know, huge cost. You know, I know that there is a tremendous pushback against data centers right now across the country. And, you know, and they're being poisoned on communities that do not want them. I don't think if you pulled, you know, the United States that most people would want a data center next to their... homes. And so I do think that there is a question of is this sort of endless growth that tech companies seem to rely on to sustain themselves and sort of, you know, endless promises about AGI, artificial general intelligence, forgot the acronym for a second because it's bullshit. This phantom, you know, fantasy that we're being peddled about AI. I mean, I think it's going to come crumbling down. But even if it just, you know, if the bubble pops a little bit. you know, these tech companies are so over leveraged. And our economy is so over leveraged on a few large tech companies that I do think that, you know, this is, you know, this is all incredibly risky. If more communities start passing legislation against data centers, as Seattle has done, at least temporarily, and as other communities have done, I think we're going to see a problem, you know, when. They are saying that scalability requires basically taking over vast tracts of land to build these incredibly energy consuming data centers. Just looking at the political side of it, I think there's going to be enough pushback that it's going to cause friction with these companies and maybe eventually cost them some money or force them to not build everything they want to build with absolute permission from every local government like they've been used to. Alex, as you've been sitting in these. Q2 earnings reports. Is there any acknowledgement of that from these companies or? Microsoft to its credit has, you know, they want to be the benevolent tech giant as much as you can be. And they are getting better at acknowledging sort of.

People's problems with it, you know, whether that's concerns over people just not wanting a data center community, the massive resource it takes to both build and maintain a data center. And, you know, they put out a lot of PR about how they are trying to sustainably build them, they say, or, you know, saying if there's a jump in rates, you know, utility rates, we'll cover that. Also, hey, you know, we won't take any property tax subsidies. When we build these things, these will be a... net benefit to your community. You know, they're trying to say these things. But outside of that, you know, a lot of these companies, especially Amazon, they're just trying to project as much confidence and bullishness in AI as possible. And I think another part of that friction that Eric is talking about is not only like people not wanting data centers in the community, but at a certain point, These companies are so over leveraged, you know, Wall Street is going to expect a return on investment within a few years, and that depends on adoption and people using the technology, both at the consumer level, but really crucially at what they call the enterprise level, which means like companies. who already have giant contracts with Microsoft or Amazon, either signing new contracts that, you know, are a jump in pricing because they have AI features or adding on technology onto their existing contract and services. And that's how Amazon makes so much money, right? They have these huge AWS contracts with McDonald's, Netflix, the U.S. government, and it's not just a flat rate. There's like the subscription costs, there's the service fees, there's, you know, there's a cottage industry around getting your AWS bill lower because it is so costly. So they're trying to do that with AI. But I think a lot of the friction is going to be people being like, this isn't worth the cost for me. I think it's going to happen to the consumer level now, right? Like people use AI or chat GPT because it's free. Are people going to use it when that company has to charge $40 a month to, you know, justify its burn rate? I don't know. I think that's a sort of friction they'll run into. Well, I'll just end this segment by saying, you know what the best AI is? Your brain. It's pretty good. Your brain. All right. Let's take a break. And when we come back, we'll talk about the legacy of Sean Barnes as police chief.

Less than a week ago, Sean Barnes resigned as police chief after SPD in the mayor's office faced criticism regarding their response to the Seattle Center shooting. As we discussed the other day on the podcast, Barnes received more than half a million dollars as a settlement with the city, which likely included an agreement for neither side to disclose the specific reasons for Barnes' dismissal. But... One factor undoubtedly was the discussion around Barnes frequent travel away from the city, which is something that Erica reported. So, Erica, you initially reported that Barnes had been away for nearly seven weeks already this year and that his family lives in Chicago. And then when the Emerald's Connor Nash confronted Barnes about this at a press conference, Barnes had... quite an emotional response to it, which made headlines as well. So, Erica, you just published a piece reviewing some of the other controversies around SPD while Barnes was in office. How is his tenure going to be remembered? Well, I mean, we'll see because right now I think there's a real effort going on by Katie Wilson's political opponents to sort of memory bank or, you know, what do they call it? Memory hole. Memory hole, thank you. To memory hole, a lot of the stuff that, you know, people have been raising objections to about Barnes for a very long time. I mean, all of a sudden, you know, you would think he was the greatest chief of all time that he, you know, was here constantly working for the city. But Katie Wilson. probably wanted to fire Barnes to begin with, did not do so when she started and got some criticism and some praise for that. But Barnes controversies, I'll just name a couple. One is... All the controversies, SPD was engaged in with the LGBTQ plus community, including a violent crackdown on counter protesters who were at an anti-trans rally in Cal Anderson Park. He passed over a gay lieutenant who was the acting captain of the East Precincter, which is in Capitol Hill, and instead promoted an infamous. A cop named Mike Teigen, who is both anti-trans and got disciplined for, among other things, driving onto a sidewalk full of protesters in 2020. He also oversaw crackdown on nude sunbaters at Denny Blaine. His chief of staff was reported by somebody that he fired and who is now suing to have said, we're not here for the gays. So that's like a whole huge category in which I think Barnes showed himself to be out of step with the culture of Seattle. He's a small town cop who, you know, was in Madison, Wisconsin for a while, but mostly in the deep south. Another issue is, you know, whether he believes an alternative response through the care team. There is a lot of friction between him and the chief of the care team over, you know, whether social workers will be allowed to respond to 911 calls. They're basically not.

He has failed to recruit more women to the police department. And in fact, the number of women in each new class has gone down. So there's just... But he wanted 30% women before 2030. Well, so that's a national campaign that SPD signed on to before Barnes was chief. But he was kind of credited with doing that in Madison. And I think incorrectly credited because it happened before he was, you know, before his tenure. And so, you know, I mean, that was one of Bruce Harrell's selling points when he appointed Barnes with no public process. There's a long list that is just kind of being forgotten right now. And everyone is acting as though the reason he was fired was... I reported on his time out of town, and then Connor Nash from the South Seattle Emerald asked him about it, and he had to be taken away or escorted away by his chief of staff. I mean, if a department head started screaming at a reporter, you know, and shouting him down and sort of getting in his face, you know, chest out in that physical way, they'd be fired. And the fact that Katie Wilson didn't just immediately fire him for that, I think, is a sign of restraint. But, I mean... Even if you don't think so and you think that's appropriate behavior, a lot of people seem to, there's lots of other reasons that he was probably on his way out the door. Yeah, it was not a good look. So, Erica, you mentioned that Barnes got credit for doing this 30 before 30 goal in Madison. I mean, Barnes was a fourth police chief since 2020. And I'm curious how much of what happened under his tenure actually falls on him versus him inheriting the department that his predecessors shaped. Well, I mean. There is a good question about whether any police chief can shape the culture of SPD in a positive direction because it's just one person. The cops don't necessarily respect you. And I mean, the culture is just like so ingrained. But I will say, I mean, you know. Under Barnes, and because of Barnes's purported alleged behavior, you know, SPD is being sued by at least four people for discrimination. He certainly didn't change the culture at the top. I'll say that. And if anything, you know, from what I've heard, I mean, just almost made it a little more toxic. There's only so much a chief can do, but I think that this particular chief was probably not the right fit for Seattle. Alex, before we move on, any impressions from... watching this all play out. Got a laundry list of questions. But I'll only say if you. Erica, you implied that Harold's process to hire Barnes was pretty opaque. Do we think because of that and because of everything since? And I think a big reason people had a problem with the aftermath of the shooting was just how non-transparent the entire communication process was. Do we expect?

Katie Wilson do have a more transparent process in hiring the new chief? Or, I mean, how do you see that going and what kind of candidate do you think she goes for? I mean, too early to say what kind of candidate she goes for because, you know, this is kind of a bad job and it's hard to get candidates, which. Does she make the next one live here? I don't know. Can you do that? Yeah. I mean, well, so, yeah, so Barnes, his family home is in Chicago. He visited there a lot, as we mentioned. I mean, I think the process is going to be much more transparent. And hopefully, from what I'm hearing, a little more open than even previous processes that did have some transparency to me. I mean, the way that Harold appointed Barnes was really out of stuff. with the way even the city has done it in the past. Usually there's three candidates. They do some sort of, you know, public dog and pony show. People can ask some questions. Harold just appointed Barnes. It was really opaque. From what I have been told, you know, this process is going to be, there's going to be like a committee and lots of public hearings. And I think most importantly, I mean, there is like. There's a way that we do these processes where we hire a consultant, and it's usually one of the same consultants. It's like Surar, former temporary police chief who really pushed for Barnes, or it's Elizabeth O'Toole, who now has her own consulting firm, another former police chief. And those processes tend to kind of get the same kind of people, these people that want to be sort of celebrity chiefs and surround themselves as an entourage. you know, maybe be out of town at conferences all the time like Barnes was. I don't think that's what's going to happen this time. I mean, I don't have details yet, but that's the kind of sketchy outline that I've heard so far. Right. I know Wilson, in her initial announcement about this to the public, said that it's going to be an open and transparent process. And we'll see how long that takes. So in the meantime, we have Andre Sales as the interim police chief. I know he also apparently. is from Wisconsin and still goes back there often. Was he one of the people that Barnes brought up here? Erica? Not only was he one of the people that Barnes brought up. He was police chief in a small town just outside Illinois in Wisconsin. His family continues to live in Illinois. He is one of the people that got a big recruiting bonus along with Barnes and along with Barnes Assistant Chief Nicole Jerome Powell that was intended for rank and file officers, $50,000 recruiting bonus that the city created to recruit more cops to be on the ground. And sales. took that bonus, as did Barnes and one of his other new recruits. So, yeah, he's not without his own controversy. And as you said, his family home is also not in the state. Interesting. He said he lives in East King County, but I've heard it's Sammamish, like a lot of other police chiefs. Well, it seems like he's probably going to be interim for a little while. And we're just going to have to watch as Wilson starts the process to find a permanent.

new police chief. That's all for today here at CityCast, Seattle. Alex Halverson, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Jane. And Erica C. Barnett, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. I'm your host, Jane See Who, and just a quick note that today is going to be my last episode for a week or so. I am going on vacation. I could not be more excited, but I'll be leaving you in the very capable hands of our thoughtful, hilarious, and very smooth contributor, Marcus Harrison Green. So I hope you all enjoy listening to Marcus for the next week. Listeners, we want to hear from you. Send us your news tips, your questions, your hot goss, your thoughts about anything we talked about in this episode. You can send us an email at Seattle at citycast.fm. You can also text us or leave us a voicemail at 206-8803931. Until next time. See ya, Seattle.