Say it with me: affordability, homelessness, public safety. Apparently it’s just really hard for my opponent and his backers to accept that voters have noticed and are responding to his failures on these quality-of-life issues. /

Unsheltered homelessness in Boston is WAY lower than in Seattle: “Only 6 percent of the region’s homeless population is unsheltered, far below the national average of 40 percent.” Meantime, a whopping 58% of the Seattle area’s homeless population is unsheltered. That’s the highest in the country.

If this was primarily a backlash election against incumbents in deep blue cities, Michelle Wu in Boston would be fighting for her political life, too. But she’s coasting to reelection. Why? Because she’s seen as a fighter for affordability, and Boston is one of the safest big cities in the country.

Yes, younger voters overwhelmingly support my campaign, and sure, the youth are the repository of idealism. But you know what else? They’re the ones who feel the affordability crisis in their bones, who can’t imagine building a life here because rent, food, childcare, everything costs so much.

Yes, I talk about progressive revenue on the campaign trail. But I haven’t been shouting about taxing billionaires. Rather, I talk about how we can address the City’s massive structural budget deficit, which has widened as Harrell repeatedly kicks the can down the road and adds one-time spending.

There’s no doubt that Trump’s election and an out-of-touch Democratic party establishment are factors in this race, and also that young voters aren’t enchanted by Harrell. But far and away the issues with the most “heat” in this campaign are affordability, homelessness, and public safety.

Horsey, meantime, blames the imprudent youth:

This is really disappointing reporting from @kuow.org. They could have followed up after the interview to ask me to actually review the 990 forms (which I didn't have in front of me during the interview!) and explain what they saw as a discrepancy. Instead they just ran the story. /

As the article noted, I was listed on TRU's 2022 tax form. That’s because we filled out the full version of the 990 form that year, not the EZ version — and on that one, you do have to itemize certain staff (though not all) regardless of salary level.

Those forms do report the total amount TRU spent on salaries and benefits (about $150k each year) but they don’t report individual employees BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED.

In fact, on the 990EZ form TRU filled out in those two years (linked to from the article), you only have to list employees who “received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization.” My salary was under that amount, as was the salary of TRU’s other employee at that time.

It claims that TRU’s 2023 and 2024 tax filings are “at odds” with my personal financial statement from the city because they show that “Wilson hasn’t drawn any money from the organization in the last two years.” This is simply FALSE.

TRU's tax forms from those years DO report the total amount we spent on salaries and benefits (about $150k each year) but they don’t list individual employees or their salaries BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED.

In fact, on the 990EZ form TRU filled out in those two years (linked to from the article), it's only required to itemize employees who “received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization.” My salary was under that amount, as was that of TRU’s other employee.

It claims that TRU’s 2023 and 2024 tax filings are “at odds” with my personal financial statement to the city because they show that “Wilson hasn’t drawn any money from the organization in the last two years.” This is FALSE.

All the cautions in my earlier statement still apply. As mayor, I’ll be excited to move forward with this if we've developed a solid plan with strong community buy-in, one that solves a real problem & is a wise use of resources relative to other things we could be doing. That’s just good governance.