This week on the GeekWire Podcast: A study commissioned by the City of Seattle says the city is not in decline but is in danger — finding that 10 companies, nine of them in tech, pay three-quarters of the payroll tax on large employers, and that the tax structure uniquely penalizes the hiring of senior, high-compensation workers.

The report says Seattle should be most concerned about AI but most active in cleantech, the one industry the city can actually shape, since it owns the electric utility and controls permitting, building codes and land use.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Times and Newsday sue Microsoft and OpenAI, accusing them of copying hundreds of thousands of articles to train their AI models, putting Microsoft’s hometown paper against a company that helps fund some of its journalism.

And Apple’s first foldable arrives as the iPhone Duo, reviving the name of the dual-screen phone Microsoft gave up on in 2023, with Surface fans arguing Apple took more than the name.

Which leads us to a new GeekWire Trivia Challenge about the Microsoft products that Apple later turned into categories. Stick around to the final segment to see if you can figure it out.

Subscribe to GeekWire in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Audio editing and production by Curt Milton.

A roster of top Seattle business leaders and regional CEOs is demanding urgent action from City Hall on public safety, calling on Mayor Katie Wilson and the City Council to roll out a concrete 100-day action plan backed by measurable goals and transparent progress tracking.

In a letter sent Thursday, executives from major area employers — including Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, F5, Alaska Airlines, Zillow, and others — urged city leaders to protect and expand public safety funding amid growing skepticism that the city currently has an effective strategy to address crime and homelessness.

The push centers on findings from an August joint public-opinion poll of registered Seattle voters, which revealed that while every proposed safety measure drew at least 75% support across all demographics, only 34% of respondents expressed confidence in the city’s current strategy.

Pointing to severe staffing shortages — noting Seattle has just 1.31 sworn officers per 1,000 residents, far below peer cities like Denver, San Francisco, and Boston — the signatories argued that budget decisions must directly align with measurable safety outcomes.

The effort was spearheaded by major regional business leadership organizations, including the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Challenge Seattle, and the Washington Roundtable. Their leaders — Joe Nguyễn, former Gov. Chris Gregoire, and Rachel Smith — jointly signed the appeal alongside dozens of local chief executives spanning technology, retail, healthcare, and sports franchises.

“Voters are asking for action, on a timeline, with results they can measure,” the coalition wrote in the letter, emphasizing that their recommendations reflect a broad consensus across the city. “This is not a narrow or partisan agenda, it is a shared baseline that Seattle residents and the business community are asking their elected leaders to deliver both now and as a sustained priority.”

The letter outlines a series of immediate and short-term actions the group is asking City Hall to enact, backed by overwhelming support in their poll:

CCTV surveillance: Activate CCTV cameras in Pioneer Square, the Stadium District, and other high-event areas to deter crime and assist law enforcement.

Foot and bike patrols: Establish regular police patrols on foot and bicycle in areas facing persistent public safety problems, specifically citing Little Saigon (90% poll support).

911 response accountability: Recommit to a standard 7-minute priority 911 response time, backed by transparent reporting when targets are missed (90% support). The letter noted data from Nordstrom showing only 29% of 911 calls from its flagship downtown store yielded a police response, compared to 100% at its Bellevue and Southcenter locations.

Drug treatment and diversion: Direct CARE Department specialists to offer treatment and shelter first, but require law enforcement to arrest and prosecute repeat offenders who repeatedly refuse help (82% support).

Open-air drug markets: Require SPD and the City Attorney to establish a clear, prioritized pathway for shutting down open-air drug markets (81% support).

Encampment bans and timelines: Institute a policy banning encampments within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, or schools, and mandate that the city clear encampments in those zones within 72 hours (79% support).

Among those who signed the letter: Brad Smith, Vice Chair & President of Microsoft; Jeremy Wacksman, CEO of Zillow; François Locoh-Donou, CEO of F5; Matt McIlwain, Managing Director at Madrona Venture Group; Julie Sandler, Co-founder & Venture Partner at PSL Ventures; Matt Oppenheimer, Chairman of Remitly; Erik Nordstrom, CEO & Co-President of Nordstrom; Brian Niccol, Chairman & CEO of Starbucks; Ron Vachris, CEO & President of Costco; Ben Minicucci, CEO & President of Alaska Air Group; Mike Sievert, Vice Chairman of T-Mobile; and Ada Healey, Chief Real Estate Officer at Vulcan Real Estate.

The business community’s coordinated push arrives during a pivotal moment for public safety policy in City Hall, where political tensions over policing and crime response have flared in recent weeks.

While overall violent crime and homicides in Seattle dropped during the first half of 2026 compared to last year, high-profile violent incidents continue to fuel public and commercial anxiety. Downtown, Belltown, and high-foot-traffic corridors have experienced recent spikes in gun violence and fatal altercations — including multiple homicides in Belltown and Westlake Park in early September alone.

At the same time, the Seattle Police Department continues to grapple with acute staffing shortages following years of officer departures exceeding hiring goals. The persistent deficit has left response times stretched thin, prompting deep frustration from major employers and pushing retail hubs to demand a more visible police presence.

Policy friction between the Council and Wilson’s administration has also intensified. Debate has centered on the rollout of public surveillance technologies — where the mayor’s office recently paused CCTV camera expansions pending a data privacy audit — as well as ongoing friction surrounding the leadership of the police department.

Responding to the letter, Wilson told GeekWire that her administration shares the business community’s commitment to public safety, noting that “many of the specific requests they made are well underway.”

Wilson highlighted expanded foot and bicycle patrols in neighborhoods like Little Saigon and Belltown, 3,500 police officer applications currently in the queue, and an upcoming gun violence reduction strategy set to roll out next week. While noting that SPD data shows homicides and shootings at 10-year lows, Wilson acknowledged public impatience.

“We have far too much crime and public disorder and people have a right to be frustrated,” she said. “I, like everyone in Seattle, want to see that progress happen faster and steadier.”

The safety campaign comes on the heels of a 127-page independent economic study commissioned by the city, which warned that while Seattle boasts an “almost peerless” tech workforce and key AI assets, its economy is in a fragile position due to heavy corporate concentration and tax policies that penalize senior hiring.

The study noted that Seattle’s tax base remains vulnerable if major employers opt to relocate or grow outside the city limits, reinforcing the business coalition’s argument that public safety is closely tied to the city’s long-term economic stability.

An independent study commissioned by the City of Seattle says the city’s tax structure is unique among its peers in the way it “specifically penalizes the hiring of senior, high-compensation workers,” with that penalty falling overwhelmingly on large tech employers.

Overall, Seattle’s business taxes are actually in line with competing cities, write researchers from the economic consulting firm Formation in the new report. But Seattle’s taxes are “particularly distortionary when it comes to hiring high-wage employees,” they add.

Mayor Katie Wilson helped design the tax, known as JumpStart, before taking office. But even the strongest supporters of new local and state taxes would concede that Seattle is “reaching the limits of how much it can tax the industries and people that it is depending upon to drive its growth,” the researchers write.

Another risk for the city is the resulting concentration of the tax base. Three-quarters of the payroll tax on large employers comes from 10 companies. Nine of them are in tech-related sectors.

A big company shifting 10,000 workers out of Seattle would cost the city about $50 million a year in payroll tax revenue, the researchers say in an accompanying slide deck, without naming Amazon explicitly. That’s more than a quarter of the $175 million deficit the city projects for next year.

In that way, much of the city’s financial future depends “on the marginal location and compensation decisions of a handful of employers,” the report says. Because much of the taxed compensation is vesting stock, it adds, the city’s revenue is exposed to “the single most volatile attribute of these firms — one the city has no ability to forecast or influence.”

Reducing that dependence through growth is the bigger point of the report.

The 127-page assessment, called “Seawall: Building a Resilient Seattle Economy,” goes well beyond the topic of taxes. The title refers to Seattle’s rebuilt waterfront seawall, engineered to hold back the water and also let marine life take hold. The researchers offer this as a model for protecting the city’s economic base while building a more diverse economy on top of it.

A decade of growth lifted wages at every level of the income spectrum, the report finds. Few other U.S. regions spread prosperity as broadly. But the same growth made Seattle far more expensive, especially for families.

Fast-forward to today, and the report sees an economy that’s dangerously concentrated, “significantly more AI-exposed than the national average,” short of the electricity it will need, and no longer producing mid-sized companies.

In danger, not in decline: The report is also careful to point out the city’s unique position and strengths. Seattle’s tech workforce is “almost peerless,” it says: 23% of the nation’s AI engineers are based in the region, and output per tech worker is more than double the national average.

The region also has the rare combination of a big tech industry and a strong manufacturing base.

Seattle “may not be in decline, but it is in danger,” the researchers write — “not because it is losing its place in the industry, but because the industry could undergo a radical change, and arguably already is.”

The concern that Seattle is becoming “the next Cleveland,” raised in a GeekWire column in February by Seattle tech veteran and angel investor Charles Fitzgerald, is “likely hyperbolic,” the researchers write. (They acknowledge that it “caused quite the stir this past winter.”)

The report points instead to Portland and Los Angeles as the more relevant warnings, citing Portland’s pileup of new business taxes and Los Angeles’ failure to turn a deep talent pool into jobs.

Fitzgerald responded Wednesday evening on his blog, Platformonomics, writing that the city “has finally acknowledged there is such a thing as an economy.” His main objection was who wasn’t in the room: “No businesses were involved, but that seems to be the norm hereabouts on economic matters.”

The report’s acknowledgments list dozens of interviewees, including the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Roundtable and the Tech Alliance. No large tech employer is among them.

Ryan Donahue, a co-founder and managing partner at Formation, said in an email that the researchers interviewed many business representatives but no large companies directly, saying he expected a predictable message from their government affairs teams.

The person who led the report’s tax and cost analysis previously ran Amazon HQ2 recruitment at the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the agency that landed the project for Arlington, Va., Donahue said, providing insights into how firms like Amazon weigh those decisions.

A path forward: The report recommends that the city focus on five industries: artificial intelligence, cleantech, maritime, life sciences and space. Cleantech is the priority, the report says, because Seattle owns or regulates much of what the sector needs, from Seattle City Light to building codes, permitting and land use.

The Seattle Office of Economic Development commissioned the report from Formation in 2025, under then-Mayor Bruce Harrell, to examine the drivers of the city’s business climate.

Harrell’s successor, Mayor Wilson, released the report Wednesday afternoon alongside an executive order convening a task force of business, labor, community and civic leaders, directing the city to improve permitting pathways, and calling for a proposal to create a Seattle Strategic Initiatives Fund.

In releasing the report, Wilson’s office said the findings “are independent and are not City policy.” But speaking on KUOW-FM’s Soundside as the report was released, the mayor called it “fantastic,” describing it as “super nuanced,” and urging listeners to take the time to read it.

The cost of a hire: JumpStart, the payroll expense tax, applies to large employers based on the compensation they pay to high-earning workers in Seattle. Approved by the City Council in 2020 and in effect since 2021, it was created to fund affordable housing, small-business support and climate programs, but the city has increasingly used it for general government operations.

Wilson helped create the tax before running for mayor, saying on her campaign website that she “played an instrumental role in designing and passing” the payroll tax.

Under JumpStart, hiring a software engineer at $650,000 in total compensation costs about $17,000 a year more in Seattle than in Bellevue, the report says. For an employee earning more than $1 million, the difference exceeds $33,000. San Francisco imposes no per-employee tax at all, and New York City’s equivalent is less than $6,000, according to the researchers.

That $17,000 reflects the tax’s top rate, which this year applies only to employers with about $1.3 billion or more in Seattle payroll. Two or three companies at most are in that tier, the report says. At the city’s lowest rate for that pay level, the same engineer would cost about $11,800, according to Seattle’s published rates.

The rate rises with an employee’s pay, and a company that crosses one of the city’s payroll thresholds pays the higher rate on every qualifying worker, not just the next hire.

“No other comparison city has a tax with both of these features,” the report says.

An issue of perception: Business leaders interviewed for the study described JumpStart as a problem “not primarily for its cost but because the process of enacting it communicated that the city’s governing orientation is fundamentally extractive.”

The researchers add: “Whether or not that characterization is fair, it is the operating perception, and perception shapes location decisions.”

But the researchers stop short of recommending a change. Taxes have “modest effects on firm location and expansion decisions,” they write, and Seattle is unlikely to lose its biggest employers to other regions, because the alternatives are either more expensive or have weaker talent.

“The Eastside is the only real threat in that regard,” the report says.

The study is blunt about what is at stake in keeping those employers. “If they leave,” it says, “Seattle won’t become more equal, it will just become poorer.”

What to do about taxes? The report does not recommend raising or lowering that top rate. Research on how firms respond to local taxes draws on thousands of firms across dozens of jurisdictions, it says, and “cannot tell us how any one firm will respond to any one tax change.”

With two or three firms in the top tier and “one firm by far the most dominant,” the question “is fundamentally a question about how that single firm will react.” It adds, “That is not a question this report, or the literature it draws on, is equipped to answer.”

GeekWire has contacted Amazon for comment on the report.

Other tax options that have been floated — vacancy taxes, wealth taxes, head taxes beyond JumpStart, expanded gross receipts schemes — are “either disallowed under state law or would, if enacted, likely push out the firms and workers Seattle most needs to retain,” the report says.

And once the state’s new 9.9% tax on income above $1 million takes effect in 2028, Seattle earners above that level will face a combined state and local marginal rate of about 10.5%. Pushing meaningfully above that, the report says, “would be a high-stakes tax experiment.”

Where Wilson stands: The mayor has already conceded the Bellevue point. “I don’t think it’s good that it is less expensive to do business in Bellevue than in Seattle,” she said in May. “We’re going to be taking that into consideration.”

She defended the tax in June, crediting it with helping Seattle recover from the pandemic and cautioning against blaming downtown’s problems on any single cause.

Her relationship with the tech community has been rockier. At a Seattle University event in April, asked about that state tax, Wilson said concerns about wealthy residents leaving were “super overblown” — then waved and said, “the ones that leave, like, bye.” The moment drew national coverage and criticism from Seattle investors.

A bet on cleantech: Taking a step back, the report says Seattle’s best opportunity is in cleantech, a category it defines broadly to include clean energy generation, energy efficiency and sustainable production methods and materials.

The shift is already showing up in local venture funding. Cleantech and energy companies took 3% of the venture capital raised by Seattle-area private companies from 2016 to 2020, and 20% from 2021 to 2025, according to Crunchbase data cited in the report. Three companies — TerraPower, Helion and Group14 — account for 70% of that.

The city “should be most concerned about AI but most active in cleantech,” the report says.

AI will ultimately be more important to Seattle’s future, the researchers explain, but the city has almost no ability to shape it. Cleantech is different: Seattle owns the electric utility, writes the building codes and controls permitting and much of the land.

The city can also use its own purchasing power to create a market for what these companies build, the report says, pointing to a New York program that used public housing demand to bring a new cold-climate heat pump into production.

To reach the top tier of cleantech ecosystems, the report says, Seattle would need a dedicated entity putting at least $5 million a year into growing the sector, funded through ratepayer charges, philanthropy, corporate sponsorship and competitive federal grants.

What’s next: According to the city, Wilson’s executive order calls for the task force to convene industry roundtables in the coming months. The report’s own first-year list runs to ten items, including a business-led commission on the city’s fiscal exposure, with an emphasis on AI, and structured visits with 50 companies across the five industries it identifies.

Others include naming a senior staffer in the mayor’s office to run the city’s AI agenda, and a childcare cost-sharing pilot split three ways between employee, employer and city, with the city’s share paid out of JumpStart.

On taxes, the report’s primary recommendation looks beyond City Hall. It urges Wilson to build a cross-partisan coalition of mayors and county executives to press Olympia for new municipal revenue tools, including changes to the state’s 1% cap on property tax growth.

A caller on KUOW asked Wilson whether there’s a limit to how much Seattle should grow. She said she shares the concern, then pointed back to the report, which she said makes clear there is “no graceful path” for Seattle to cool down its growth.

“We can’t go back to the ’90s,” she said.

Seattle is in the final stages of becoming the first city in the country to ban so-called “surveillance pricing” in grocery stores. Experts disagree about whether it will actually save consumers money. 

The proposed Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance would ban grocers from setting variable prices for individual consumers based on their personal data, both in-store and online.

This was one of Mayor Katie Wilson’s biggest campaign promises, and it comes after Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey passed the first state-level surveillance pricing regulations this spring. The City Council will hold a public meeting this Friday, Aug. 21, to hear amendments to the proposed ordinance.

The bill has received fierce criticism from tech and grocery industry representatives who say the ordinance would prohibit personalized discounts that benefit customers.

A City Council Central Staff Memo, which was first circulated last Thursday and will be presented at Friday’s meeting, raises some of those same concerns. Despite opposition from one councilmember and requests for major amendments from another, the bill seems well on its way to getting the requisite votes.

Impact on consumers

At the heart of the controversy is a disagreement about whether personalized pricing harms or benefits consumers. 

The use of algorithmic pricing by Instacart last December met with so much backlash that the platform stopped using it. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation had found that Instacart varied the total cost of the same cart at a Seattle-area Safeway by roughly $10, with only 8% of shoppers getting the lowest price. Those were randomized experiments to test price sensitivity rather than prices set from individual profiles, and Instacart stopped offering the technology behind them in December after the investigation was published. 

In brick-and-mortar stores, electronic shelf labels have not yet been shown to offer individualized list prices. Instead, grocers such as Krogers and Albertsons personalize the effective price through the distribution of individualized digital coupons to loyalty club members. 

The federal government is moving to regulate those. The FTC on Wednesday proposed an enforcement policy that would treat undisclosed personalized pricing, including discounts, as a violation of federal law, and opened it for public comment. 

Amanda Dalton, who represents the Northwest Grocery Retail Association, said personalized discounts make groceries cheaper overall. Her organization was involved in drafting the bill but ultimately testified against it out of concern that it would prohibit those deals.  

“We support what the council is trying to do as it relates to using personal information to drive higher prices,” Dalton told GeekWire. “Where we diverge is the need and ability to continue what we call pro-consumer common practices that are happening in grocery stores every day, like discount programs, coupons, fuel rewards, student discounts, and volume based deals.” 

Contrary to messaging from some industry advocates, the current bill does allow some discounts. Loyalty programs, volume-based discounts, third-party manufacturer coupons, and discounts based on a broad identity, such as students or seniors, are all explicitly permitted. 

Industry groups predict, however, that the liability exposure will make it too risky for stores to continue to offer those deals.

“There will be hoops that companies need to jump through to deliver those discounts, and a lot of legal exposure to liability,” Drew Ambrogi, a policy manager at Chamber of Progress, said.

As a solution, industry groups including Chamber of Progress, TechNet, and NWGRA have suggested that the bill be amended so that algorithmic pricing is prohibited for raising prices but is permitted for lowering them.

Advocates on the other side worry that would gut the bill entirely. 

“That creates an incentive for retailers to inflate the list price and offer personalized discounts to each person based on their individual willingness to pay,” said Grace Gedye, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports. 

UFCW 3000, which represents workers at major grocery chains, has also endorsed the bill, opposing individualized pricing regardless of whether it raises or lowers prices. 

“It’s easy to figure out when your neighbors are getting a different price,” said union member J’Nee DeLancey, who works at Ballard Town and Country. “We grocery workers will have to handle the fallout of angry, confused customers.”

Loyalty programs

One Kroger and Albertsons-funded group called Protect Seattle Savings has claimed, online and in mass text blasts to Seattleites, that the proposed ordinance “puts your loyalty rewards program on the chopping block” — a claim that is not backed up by the bill itself. 

In fact, the bill does exactly the opposite: it includes a carve-out for loyalty programs that allows retailers to use a customer’s purchase history to determine pricing so long as that customer has opted into a loyalty program and the criteria for the discount are disclosed. 

That exception has drawn criticism from the NWGRA, which warns it may unintentionally penalize consumers who can’t afford to join the loyalty program. On DoorDash, for example, users have to pay $10 a month to be a “DashPass” loyalty rewards member. If DoorDash is only allowed to offer discounts to those members, then the bill may unintentionally make orders more affordable only for customers who can afford the membership fee.

NWGRA is calling on the city to expand the carve-out so that a retailer can offer purchase history-based discounts to non-loyalty members as well. The Central Staff Memo circulated last week highlighted the push from industry to preserve the use of purchase history for all customers, but wrote that it is “difficult to ascertain whether the limitations on personalized discounts would result in a net cost increase for consumers,” since consumer data could be used to raise prices as well as lower them. 

Input from industry

Supporters of the regulation say they’ve already made significant compromises with industry. Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who sponsored the bill, initially planned to ban electronic shelf labels, as New Jersey did, but dropped the provision after grocery workers said the new labels made their jobs easier. Now, the Seattle bill simply prohibits a store from using electronic shelf labels to display a price that has been determined using algorithmic pricing.

Another compromise was the narrowing of the regulation to exempt small grocers and convenience stores. The bill will apply only to grocers with 20 or more retail locations globally, as well as mixed-use retailers that sell groceries, like Costco; and delivery services, like Instacart and DoorDash. 

Councilmember Rinck said the bill is the product of engagement with retailers, and that she hopes to keep them on board.

“We were at the table with grocers, and the proposal changed in response to their business concerns,” Rinck said. “We will be watching what folks in industry have to say about the legislation and amendments this Friday.” 

Private right of action

The last major sticking point is the proposed enforcement mechanism, which industry representatives criticize for being overly aggressive. 

The bill splits enforcement between the City Attorney’s Office and consumers. Both avenues allow civil penalties of up to $3,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for subsequent offenses, plus damages. The private right of action can only be pursued against stores with 25 or more locations instate, and civil penalties for a single collective action are capped at $1 million.

“The private right of action will have a chilling effect on the offering of discounts altogether,” Ambrogi said. “What is not explicitly banned by the bill may be presumptively banned because a business’s compliance department doesn’t think it’s worth exposing them to ambiguity.”

Dalton also opposes the private right of action for being too broad. Customers can seek damages for being offered an individual price, even if they did not buy the product in question. 

“Our argument has been for clarity and simplicity,” Dalton said. “Now you’ve got a $1 million class action threat on every single product in your grocery cart.”

Consumer advocacy groups say the expansive private right of action is what gives the bill teeth, pointing to the similar clause in New Jersey’s surveillance pricing ban.

“If it was only public enforcement, there are practical limits on how frequent enforcement could be,” Gedye said. “Compliance might not be as rigorous as it would be if any consumer who thinks they’ve really been harmed by this practice can start looking into it and potentially initiate a case.” 

City Attorney enforcement

The Central Staff Memo warned that the City Attorney’s Office may not be up for enforcing this law, either. Stores will be required to retain records on prices and discounts for three years. The bill charges the CAO with the task of auditing stores and ensuring compliance with the record keeping requirements. 

Unlike the law that passed last year regulating algorithmic rent-fixing in Seattle, this bill does not enlist a city agency to help the CAO with enforcement. The regulation also applies to a far larger potential pool of complainants, and it does not arrange for additional funding in its fiscal note. 

“The CAO may have to develop new systems and procedures to handle intakes directly and may not have capacity to conduct thorough investigations that would involve analyzing large volumes of data,” the memo said. 

In response, a CAO spokesperson told GeekWire their office does not share the memo’s concerns  and is in “full support” of the proposed ordinance.

“The City expects that grocery retailers will voluntarily comply with the legislation once it’s adopted, which includes a 1-year phase-in while the City will inform and educate retailers about the bill’s provisions,” a CAO spokesperson told GeekWire. “We anticipate the expected level of work can be managed using existing resources and funds recovered through litigation.”

The council will vote on the bill in September after they return from recess. But first, Friday’s committee meeting will reveal which councilmembers are in support of the legislation and what kinds of amendments will be considered. 

Councilmember Rinck said she “feels good” about getting the bill passed, and looks forward to making Seattle the first city to regulate algorithmic pricing on groceries. 

“Government gets a bad rap for being reactive,” Rinck said. “This is an opportunity for us to be proactive in trying to regulate this kind of practice before it really takes hold in our city.”