♪♪
-Welcome to "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
After the closest primary race in state history,
Democrat Dave Upthegrove is set to face off
against Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler
to be our state's next commissioner of public lands.
-Too many of our forests have been undermanaged
or outright neglected.
-Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler was voted
out as our state's third district congresswoman
after supporting former President Trump's impeachment.
But she won the primary for state public lands commissioner
with a platform of wildfire prevention
and well planned timber harvests.
-We're going to provide revenue for our schools
and our public services,
and we're going to protect the environment
and our precious natural resources.
-When every vote gets counted, we're going to win.
-Democrat Dave Upthegrove squeaked by in the primary
by a record low 49 vote margin,
but the King County council chair hopes
his climate protection focused agenda will win big in November.
-Voters of this state have strong conservation values,
and I'm going to bring those values with me into this job.
-Dave has been a champion for the environment.
-The commissioner should be a champion
for the people of the state.
-As state party leaders clash over the priorities
for the public lands job, what are the candidates saying?
-I'm planning to manage our public lands
in the public interest.
-We hear from both sides.
-I don't think our economy and our environment
are mutually exclusive.
-The push for public lands commissioner
next on "City Inside Out."
♪♪
And welcome once again to "City Inside Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan,
and I am joined by both candidates for state
public lands commissioner,
Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dave Upthegrove.
Jaime, thanks a lot for being here,
-It's a pleasure.
-And Dave, great to have you too.
-I'm excited. -Let's do this.
Alright, so we had a coin toss before the show.
Jaime, I'm going to start with you.
An opening statement,
tell us why you're running and keep it to a minute please.
-Yeah.
So my husband and I are raising our three kiddos
in what is the path of the Yakult Burn down
in southwest Washington,
and it stood for over a century
as the largest forest fire in Washington State history.
But in just this past decade,
that horrible record has already been surpassed three times.
Too many of our forests are under managed
or outright neglected,
and they are turning into crowded diseased tinderboxes
just waiting for a spark.
Fires run rampant every summer.
They're emitting tons of carbon into the air,
and they're making home insurance more unaffordable,
making housing here even more of a challenge.
So I've decided I'm not going to leave my kiddos
or your kiddos a legacy of burning forests
and choking smoke.
You know, I serve Southwest Washington in Congress,
and I worked hard to responsibly manage our federal forest
to remove the dead and the diseased trees
that serve as the fuel for the fires
that plague us every summer
and to quickly fight the fires when they do occur.
And my hope is to bring some of those same priorities
to our state as commissioner of public lands.
-Thank you very much for that. Dave, a minute, if you would.
-Thanks.
You know,
after the closest primary in Washington State history,
I secured a spot on the November ballot by 49 votes,
and I think a lot of voters are relieved
that instead of having two Republicans advance,
voters will actually have a choice.
And the choice is a stark choice.
I'm planning to manage our public lands
in the public interest,
for all the people of the state of Washington.
And my agenda is simple.
I want to protect our clean air, clean water and habitat.
Improve wildfire prevention and response.
Increase recreational opportunities on state lands
and do that all in a way
that honors the principles of environmental justice
and tribal sovereignty.
As a long time member of the Republican Congress
in Washington, D.C.,
my opponent frequently voted against the public interest
in the management of natural resources
and instead on behalf of the private corporate industries
that fund her campaigns.
Voting to rollback clean water protections.
Voting to gut the Endangered Species Act,
take us backwards on climate. In fact,
the National League of Conservation Voters
gave her an F rating.
We have a stark choice in this race.
-Thank you very much.
We're going to dive into some of those issues.
-Yeah, I'd like to respond to those.
-If you would, please. Yeah, go ahead.
-Awesome. -Yeah, go ahead.
-So I am, in my time in Congress,
I worked very closely with Democrats or Republicans,
whoever wanted to solve problems.
Which is why in this race, not in previous races,
because I'm not running for Congress,
I'm running for commissioner of public lands.
I've been endorsed by the Yakima Tribal Nations.
Why I've been endorsed by leaders like Willie Frank,
who is former chair of the Nisqually Native Americans.
From, you know, labor groups like the AWPPW
and the IPUAT have all endorsed my race.
Not because they see this as a Republican or a Democrat seat
but they see it as a management seat.
Someone who wants to work with tribal nations
and with our communities to make sure we're returning
an investment and a value to the people of Washington.
Most importantly to our schools.
The common school trust is why we selectively harvest
and sustainably managed our forest lands,
and my opponent,
due to extremist voices that are in his ear,
are saying we need to put those lands aside and walk away.
That's going to be to the tune of $2 billion
to our public school kids.
Not just up in certain places in the state,
but in all these different counties, including King County.
There's over $25 million of funding
to our schools in King County
that opponent supports setting aside.
I don't think our economy and our environment
are mutually exclusive.
We actually can do them both well,
and that's what I'm looking forward to doing.
-Dave, I feel like there might be a response there.
Did you want to respond to that please?
-Sure, it's hogwash.
My plan is to fully fund our public services,
including our schools.
We don't need to pit the environment against our economy.
I think the real question is which one of us
up here really supports public education.
In Congress, my opponent voted time and time
again to cut education funding,
particularly Pell grants for low income kids in her district.
In fact, the National Education Association,
gave her an F rating on education funding.
And if the Education Association can't trust her,
why should the people of the state of Washington.
-Okay, I want to make sure
that I get into some of the land management issues
here because that's a very important part
of what we're talking about here.
And especially if I could,
let's talk about legacy forests in our state.
These are not old growth forests.
Both the candidates here want to protect those.
But we are talking about older, more mature forests.
They cover about 77,000 acres in different parts of our state.
Jaime, I think you touched on this earlier,
but why are you focused on these legacy forests
and what do you want to do with them?
-Well, actually, I'm focused
on the entire forests and Washington State.
And let me put this in perspective.
Eight hundred thousand acres of forests in Western Washington,
of that 800,000 acres that the trust manages,
over half are set aside,
and I support that for conservation purposes,
for old growth purposes, for habitat purposes.
That is going to be secured
under my administration in this role.
There's about 49% left,
and my opponent proposes pulling about 10% out of that.
And what does that mean?
Why is that important?
That by law is supposed to be selectively harvested over time
and in a very environmentally smart way,
and that money is supposed to go to schools.
My opponent is saying let's set that 77,000 acres aside today,
and the schools will make themselves whole at some point.
He doesn't have a plan for it.
That's a big difference in this race.
If there was a gubernatorial candidate
or a legislative candidate in Washington State
that was going to cut $2 billion out of education,
it would get a lot of attention.
So don't let my opponent's smoking mirrors about Congress,
a race I'm not running for, fool you.
This is about Washington State school kids and
Washington resources.
-Okay, I wanted to try to bring this focus back
to legacy forests, which I think is where we're at.
-The 77,000 acres.
-Yeah, for at least a little bit.
I think it's a good snapshot of what this is about.
Dave, did you have a response to that?
I wanted to try to focus on this legacy forest piece,
especially because I think you have heard some criticism
about it in your position there.
-Yep, my interest is in following the science
and taking an independent approach
that balances our responsibility to our environment
and to generate revenue for public services.
And what I envision is ensuring
that we have a diversity of age classes
and stand types across the landscape,
young forests,
old forests and some of these older forests
that are not quite old growth store the most carbon.
They have the most biodiversity.
They have an outsize impact on our climate.
and my proposal is to defer harvest of these.
And in the short term, harvest other parcels.
That's the good news in every county in the state.
We have lots of other timber we can harvest in the short term
to generate funding for our schools and local governments.
In the long term,
when we get out a decade or two,
this will put a little pressure on that trust.
And I've proposed
that we use existing funding sources
like the natural climate solutions funding,
the trust land transfer program maybe say
capital bonds to grow our trust holdings,
particularly private timberlands,
at risk of conversion.
Fun fact, about 70% of our forestry,
seven-zero, takes place on private timberlands.
The state overseas about 30%.
Sometimes they will, after they harvest, will sell that land.
That's a great opportunity
for the states to purchase those property, replant the trees,
put it back into forestry.
We've done this successfully before in the I-90 corridor.
A lot of those working forests in the mountains
to Sound Greenway or our former private timberlands.
-Can I follow up on a point that Jaime made earlier though.
If you don't allow for more logging and thinning
in some of these different forests or ban that,
you might make these forests more prone to disease and fire
and things of that nature.
Can you respond to that piece?
-My plan is to nurture and steward these forests
healthy for the next generation.
And if that requires management for disease and wildfire,
I absolutely support that.
What's important to recognize
is on the west side of these west side evergreen forests
are less fire prone than the younger plantation stands.
They are more fire resistant.
You know, if you've walked into these,
you know what, they're the,
these are the forests have the ferns and the lichen
and the sun breaks through and the moisture.
And so yes, we can manage them for forest health,
but they're more fire resistant than plantation forests.
-Jaime, I know you want to respond.
I just want to make sure that I work in a piece here
that Dave said earlier.
And I know he said it in debates
before with this approach to legacy forests,
you're handing the keys over to the timber industry.
I want make sure that that I work in that--
-That you use his talking point.
-Well, it's a criticism.
-That's a talking point. That's a talking --
-Yeah, please.
-So I think it's important to recognize that my,
my information comes to the UN experts on climate change,
right.
This is the IPCC's recommendation is that we use
smart climate forestry to manage our forests
and then to use those wood products here in Washington.
So he may be quoting the timber industry.
I'm quoting the UN climate experts,
the EPA and the USDA who,
and the major universities on the West Coast
who say that using our high standards of forestry,
we can do both, take care of the forests
and utilize it for our own benefit.
Tribes have been doing this for thousands of years.
They know the benefit of stewarding the resources
with a generational purpose,
but also having some benefit to rural school kids
in Washington State,
which is by law a fiduciary responsibility of this role.
The other thing I would say is you just talked about
how what side forests re not more prone to fires.
That's actually counter, that's counterfactual.
In last year, for the first time in recorded history,
we had more fires in Western Washington
I'm from the west side,
than in Eastern Washington than ever before in recorded history.
Climate change is here.
Like we can take the bull by the horns
and use innovation like they do in Nordic countries,
like they do in Finland, right, very climate smart.
But you can make our forests more healthy.
And if we do that,
our forests are carbon like storage workhorses.
They sequester carbon, if they're healthy.
If our forests are unhealthy, they burn.
Seventy-five percent of the owl habitat that was set aside,
which is the set aside
and walk away plan that my opponent is talking about,
has burned in California.
I don't want to see that happen with our state forests.
-Thank you.
I want to move on to another complex issue,
and they're all complex here, aren't they?
When it comes to the Department of Natural Resources and carbon
sequestration, DNR has been talking about setting
aside 10,000 acres for this.
The land would not be logged.
The trees would absorb carbon dioxide.
That translates into credits
that will be sold into carbon markets.
And in those markets,
companies buy credits to offset the pollution they're creating.
That cost hopefully incentivizes them to not pollute so much.
It's controversial.
It's caught up in a lawsuit right now brought
by Lewis County, Skagit County, a timber industry group.
Dave, can you talk to me about carbon sequestration
and your position on it?
-Sure. I support moving forward
that pilot project as a pilot project.
I think it's important to pursue strategies
that allow us to capture financial benefit from all
of the ecosystem services a forest provides.
And this is a chance to kind of get a system set up
and tested administratively.
I am more interested, however,
in seeing us participate in carbon markets
using different techniques.
This is a conservation technique.
We've seen more success in California carbon market
by getting carbon credits for improved forest management,
meaning changing the way you're managing your forests in ways
to store more carbon.
That allows us to continue that active forestry
while also doing things better and getting carbon credits.
So I think that's a stronger, longer term plan,
but I do want to see this pilot project play out.
See if it works,
see if we can get some infrastructure in place.
-Jaime, your thoughts on carbon?
Sequestration. -Yeah.
I think we, I'm good with demonstration projects
because they lead us to science.
It either works or it doesn't, or we can find improvements.
And I'm not afraid of following science to the truth.
I think the biggest challenge though,
and he just referenced California's carbon markets.
So from 2000 to 2020,
all of California's carbon reduction efforts,
all that they've done to reduce their output,
was undone in one year of forest fire activity in California.
So the 2020 forests fires undid 20 years' worth
of carbon reduction efforts, and that's the main point here.
This role is an executive position.
It's not legislative,
and it is to manage our forests for their health in stewardship.
And if we go the way of California,
where we're setting aside land, setting aside land,
and we're not doing the forest health work.
We're not doing the riparian work.
We're not making sure
that timber money is coming back into the forest,
to the forestry health work, then it will deteriorate.
Those fires are coming here.
Climate change is real. We can adapt.
We can change our approach in terms of forestry.
We can make sure that we're planning
more fire resilient species that are native, right.
We can begin to plan and adapt for the future.
I want to empower Washingtonians,
not shrink back in fear and say there's nothing we can do.
-Let me jump in there,
because I wanted to talk a little bit more about wildfires,
certainly a concern.
West side, east side, central Washington,
everywhere in our state and throughout the northwest.
So the DNR is saying Washington is
in a forest health crisis right now,
which leads to more catastrophic wildfires.
That's why the agency launched the 20 year
forest health strategic plan in 2017,
bringing together dozens of organizations
to increase fire resilience, protect local communities.
Jaime, I wanted to talk about this plan.
Is it working?
If you're elected, do you kill it, do you keep it?
What do you got?
-You know, I intend to maintain
and build on the current Democratic commissioner
of public lands plan in this space.
I think she's done a really good job.
She's first got the money to,
to kind of triage and stop the fires.
But she's also put in place
a plan to get upstream of those fires
and do the prevention work. And that where I, you know,
that plan took bringing together groups,
tribal nations, you know, community members,
concerned groups, and they got a plan in place
and they're executing it, and it's going well.
They're almost halfway done with it,
and they have in, in record time.
I want to bring that model to Western Washington,
to our forests to make sure that they're healthy and resilient.
Some are going to be set aside.
You know, I'm not going to touch all growth.
I'm not going to touch, I'm not going to pull out
of conservation the land that's there.
But in order to safeguard that,
we need to make sure that the other pieces
that are harvestable in a sustainable way
are actually harvested so that the fire is, there's a break.
And so that the habitat and the landscape
and the watershed are more healthy.
That is the science behind what I'm working on.
-Thank you very much.
Dave, some thoughts about the forest health strategic plan.
Does it, is it working? Does it need some changes?
What do you want to do with it if you're elected?
-I agree.
I think this is a positive legacy of Commissioner Franz
and her work with the legislature
to secure significant ongoing funding for forest health.
And I, and I want to not only continue,
but also build upon that.
I want to see more prescribed burns.
I want to see more commercial thinning,
noncommercial thinning as a tool.
Not only for preventing the risk
and the rate of spread of wildfire,
but also for the health of the forests.
And it also can generate byproducts
that you can make energy out of.
We do need to move this work to the West side.
You don't need to clear cut in older forest
to manage it for forest health.
You can go in and pull out underbrush, clear branches
and engage in those kind of thinning activities.
And I think that's really important work.
-I wanted to follow up if I could
because I've been thinking so much beyond wildfires
about natural disasters this week,
especially with what's been hitting the Southeast part
of our, of our country.
And I wonder, I don't know, give me a scale of one to 10.
How prepared is the state of Washington
when it comes to these major natural disasters?
Do you have a thought on that?
I was working on that scale of one to 10.
Do you have a thought there?
-I don't know if I could give you the number,
but I can tell you there are regional efforts
where it's emergency folks, it's county folks,
it's state and federal folks
who have emergency processes in place.
But those are for unplanned,
right, we know that fires are coming for our forests.
We can plan to mitigate that disaster.
That's why, we don't have to be California,
where it goes up in smoke.
If we do some of the thinning work,
if we keep the things that were planted for harvest harvested,
we're going to make sure to return 2 billion to our schools,
not pull it out.
And we're going to keep the forest healthy.
This either/or mentality has not worked on our federal forests.
It's not working in California or Oregon.
I want to make sure that we're passing on to our kids
and our grandkids what makes this place special?
We are so unique. We need to protect it.
-Some thoughts about this big scale natural disaster,
is our state ready?
I asked for a one to 10 scale there,
if you want to give it.
Go ahead.
-I don't know enough to give a number either.
I do know it's an important responsibility,
both on wildfires.
The department also has responsibility for geology.
And that means both reviewing the landscape
when we're going to make management decisions
like timber sales to make sure
that we are doing it responsibly to prevent landslides.
It also means doing some of the research to predict
and plan for earthquakes.
And so it's kind of a forgotten office sometimes
in the Department of Natural Resources that geology office.
We need to work collaboratively in partnership
with the Emergency Management Agency and fulfill
the unique roles that the agency might have
in these different types of responses.
-And I know both of you have been talking a lot about timber
and managing land in the different debates
that you've been so joyfully encountering
over the past couple of months here.
But I wonder, Dave, keep going down that path if you would.
There's a lot more to this job of commissioner of public lands
than timber sales et cetera.
And I just want you to expand on that if you could.
-Sure the Department Natural Resources does manage
a couple of million acres of timber lands
but also a million acres of agricultural lands.
And we have a responsibility to steward those responsibly
so that the next generation can continue
and try to prevent the loss of ag lands.
We manage our aquatic lands,
almost all the state owned aquatic lands.
And there's an opportunity there to both generate revenue
and to steward them responsibly.
You know, we don't want to be the generation
that loses the orca or the king salmon.
And so if the agency does have a breadth of responsibility there,
and I think it's important
for any commissioner to hire exceptional,
talented, diverse staff in every sense of the word
ideologically and life experience
to help guide the management of this large agency.
-Got it.
And Jaime same question to you
in terms of what else the job entails if you were to get it
and these other roles
that go beyond timber and land management, et cetera,
which I know you've been talking about a lot.
-Yeah, I think forest health is not in a bubble by itself.
It actually impacts watershed health.
So aquaculture,
this agency is tasked with aquaculture management as well.
And I have a real vision to improve our salmon habitat,
to improve the streams.
You know, when I was in my last role, I,
I secured funding
and help restore over 9,500 miles of salmon habitat
in streams and along waterways. And that's a big,
that's a big deal to those of us who live here.
We want to make sure that we're passing that on.
And I think that the DNR,
through its work near and on streams,
whether it's complexity, whether it's gravel beds,
whether it's, you know, getting rid of noxious weeds,
can look for gaps where the Fish and Wildlife
is not doing that stream and restoration work.
I think, you know,
a good example is DNR has worked really hard
to pull the coverts out, the fish passage.
And granted, that was a suit brought by indigenous peoples
to force their feet to the fire.
But DNR has done it.
A lot of the private forest landowners have done it.
King County,joined a suit in King County,
the council that my opponent chairs,
joined a suit with the state
to push back on having to replace those fish
passage culverts.
That is a very big deal when it comes to Chinook and steelhead
that are the mainstay of substance for orca population
but also just iconic for the Northwest.
Protecting wild salmon populations is something
I worked very hard on in Congress,
whether it was bringing 65 million to our coast
or 50 million to help with the Puget Sound cleanup.
We need to make sure that DNR isn't just forestry focus,
but they recognize that forest and fish go hand in hand.
-Dave some thoughts about that.
It sounds like there's a direct mention of something
you did with fish passages.
I wanted to make sure you got a chance to respond.
-Sure, I strongly support moving forward
with removing fish passage barriers.
In fact,
I was really proud
as the leader of the King County Flood Control District
to personally develop
and implement a new grant program to fund those,
that fish passage repair.
I think there's a lot of areas in the region
where big, ambitious goals have been set
and we're still making progress.
And the question is, are we going in the right direction?
And the answer is yes.
And my opponent, based on her record in Congress,
when I continue here, would take us in the wrong direction,
consistently siding with corporate donors
that fund her campaigns,
doing things like pushing the Keystone Pipeline.
Exempting oil companies from reducing their liability there.
So the notion that she would paint herself
as an environmentalist
when she votes against the environment
almost 90% of the time in Congress
I don't think paints an accurate picture.
-Let me -- let me add to this,
because I'm not running for Congress.
And those issues are not directly related
to Washington State, and we could talk about those.
But what is related to Washington State
is the King County chair.
You had the ability to help with fish passage.
Why did you join the suit to stop the county
from repairing those fish passageways
for our endangered Chinook salmon?
Why did you do that.
In addition,
you were as the chair of the King County council,
you guys set a goal of reducing carbon emissions.
You missed your goal by 75%.
So you're talking about ideas.
I'm talking about outcomes.
I helped restore fish passage.
Our work on forests is helping with capturing
and sequestering carbon.
And that is my plan for this department.
This is important.
-Yeah, I understand.
I just want to make sure that Dave had a chance to jump in.
-Oh.
Sure, the county executive, not the county council,
makes those litigation decisions.
We're not involved in that.
So I can't speak to their rationale for it.
I can say that we are one of the leading counties
for reducing carbon emissions.
Yes, we set some ambitious goals,
but at least we're going in the right direction.
My opponent opposes the Climate Commitment Act,
wanted to pull us out of the Paris Climate Accords,
has consistently voted with the fossil fuel industry.
And votes do matter.
When we're in legislative office,
our votes are how we use our power.
They're an expression of that's how we take action.
And it is a statement of our values.
And we don't know all the issues
that are going to come up in this office.
And voters ought to know what are the values
we're going to bring to those decisions.
-Thank you.
I wondered if I could talk briefly with you
about your campaigns.
Dave, I'll start with you.
Your campaigns raised over $1 million as of early October,
has dozens of endorsements.
Are there three you could help provide to our viewers
just to give them a snapshot of what you're all about?
-Sure.
I'm proud of my endorsement from the Sierra Club
that spot for clean air, clean water and habitat.
I'm proud of my support from the Washington Education Association
for my support of public school funding
and proud to be endorsed
by the Washington State Council of Firefighters.
They know what's at stake
and know that I'm prepared to keep our, keep our state safe.
And that's on top of, you know,
endorsements from dozens of labor unions,
the State Labor Council and support from 10 or more tribes.
But those are three that I'm most proud of.
-Thanks, I'll jump over to you, Jaime.
You've raised about $600,000 for your campaign
as of early October.
You have a lot of endorsements too.
Pick three, please.
-So I, I would,
I'm going to use the endorsements
that aren't from what you would expect.
So the Yakima Tribal Nation endorsed me.
I've been endorsed by other tribal leaders, right.
I've been endorsed by labor unions,
and I've been endorsed by the working families
who are in these communities
that are directly impacted by my opponent's
extreme plan to pull land out of benefit, out of circulation.
This is where I think people also need to pay attention.
I come from the Republican side out,
yet I've earned the support and that's
because I've worked with Democrats in Congress,
I've worked with Democrats at the local level,
to advance solutions for issues
I'm not worried about platitudes or talking points.
I'm worried about the 9,500 miles of salmon habitat
I've helped restore or the 50 million
that I've helped bring to the Puget Sound watershed.
And as lands commissioner,
I will work with anyone to make sure
that we come up with solutions for the problems
that are facing us.
-Thank you.
It is time for a closing statement.
This has been a great discussion.
Jaime, you're up first.
If you could keep it to a minute, please.
-Yeah, absolutely.
So I would ask folks to go to jaimeforlands.com.
This is one of the most important races
that most folks don't know exists.
But it's one of those
where it's really shouldn't be Republican or Democrat.
This shouldn't be a partisan race.
This really isn't about platitudes.
This is about results. And as a member,
as someone who has worked for folks in Washington State,
we've delivered real results,
whether it's salmon habitat restoration,
whether it's forestry and riparian zone work,
whether it's making sure that aquatics and shellfish
have help in fighting against invasive species
and protecting native shellfish,
and working with our indigenous cultures to respect
both their cultural rights.
But to make sure that we're taking in their advice
and their consultation
as we manage and steward Washington State lands
for this generation
and hopefully for many generations to come.
-Thanks. Dave, you get the last word.
-Thanks.
This is a race about what values do we bring
to the management of our public lands.
And the value I bring is a belief
that we ought to manage these public lands
and the public interest for all the people
of the state of Washington.
Supporting a commonsense agenda, protecting our clean air,
clean water and habitat, wildfire prevention response.
The old Boy Scout in me
wants to expand recreational opportunities
on our public lands.
This is an agenda for the people.
My opponent's agenda is the logging industry's agenda,
and she has consistently supported the positions
and legislation that takes us in the wrong direction,
that is aligned with the corporate interests
that fund her campaigns.
And you know, she was previously endorsed by the Tea Party.
This is not a moderate I'm running against.
In fact, she even said to a magazine,
she said I wouldn't call myself a moderate.
Her local newspaper in a previous election,
said she was far to the right.
I think the voters of Washington
want an independent minded science based leader.
-Okay, thank you both for this and we will be right back.
What are people saying on social media
about the race for commissioner of public lands?
One person writes...
Another person comments...
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an email at contact@seattlechannel.org
or find us on social media.
Great to have that input.
Thank you both as well,
and we will see you next time on "City Inside Out."
♪♪