Archives for February 2008

The Seattle Community Council Federation is sounding the alarm. The threat?

Apartments and condos, apparently:

Over the holidays, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) quietly issued a Declaration of Non Significance (DNS) on what it bills to the public and Council as a “Multi-Family Update.”

“Multi-Family” means apartment buildings or condos. “Multi-Family” doesn’t not mean single family housing, which makes up three quarters of the residential zoning in the city.

Adrienne Quinn, the City’s Housing Director, perhaps unwittingly, misrepresented the code changes to City Council when she described them as “some proposed changes to the multi-family code, really more clean-up”

Actually this “cleanup” is a total rewrite of all of the development standards for all the multi-family zones, a complete change in the comprehensive plan.

One person’s “clean up” is another’s “earth-shattering bureaucratic change”, so I’ll let this one slide for the moment.

Most important, it destroys the consensus reached after a long process in 1988 and 1989, when the city rewrote the code to deal with ugly, excessively dense conditions created by the city’s 1980’s attempt at an “experimental code.” The 1989 process took over a year and had an enormous amount of citizen input. Now the planning staff proposes to bring back the very problems that caused the 1989 rewrite—and even worse—to break all the promises made to communities who agreed to take Urban Villages.

Holy fucking shit, Batman! A consensus reached in 1989? What was that, like, two decades ago? (I was in second grade, for fuck’s sake!) We have to have the same fucking rules as 1989… after all, it’s not like anything has changed, right? Gas is still eighty cents a gallon? A hundred and eighty thousand bucks will buy you a house in any neighborhood in the city, right? Of course!

What kills me about these NIMBY types is that they fear ALL change. EVERYTHING new is suspect. Condos are evil, apartments are bad, mass transit will bring “undesirables” to the neighborhood, so on and so forth.

I’ve seen these folks in action. They’re the folks who fought the monorail because they didn’t want “those kind of people” (Blacks? Hispanics? Dan Savage?) taking the train to Ballard. Another group is lobbying hard against replacing the 520 bridge because there might be more “traffic” in their neighborhood (even though the neighborhood in question is far, far away from the bridge). In Magnolia, neighbors protested the building of- can you guess? A methadone clinic? A homeless shelter? Neither. The protest was over- get this- cottage housing. Wow.

What’s more, the SCCF have their meetings in a Homeland Security facility. Their meeting site is the NOAA site near Montlake. If you want to get in, you have to call somebody or be on the pre-approved list. It’s almost like they don’t want young kids like me showing up…

It’s a good thing that people in this city are committed to their neighborhoods. I just wish that the neighborhood folks realized that they live in a city. I’d love to one day be able to buy myself a reasonable flat in one of these neighborhood. But if we jihad against this zoning changes, I’ll be left with Mill Creek, Algona, or worse, Bothell. As someone who’d like to stay in the city, the reactionary “Lesser Seattle” folks are making that harder and harder.

Talk about a bad investment…

Romney launched his campaign almost a year ago in his native Michigan. The former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist invested more than $40 million of his own money into the race, counted on early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire that never materialized and won just seven states on Super Tuesday, mostly small caucus states.

Romney spent about $136,000 per delegate… and that was just his own money. I guess that’s why he ran on his business experience.

The most important issue to me is health care. When liberals denounce the Iraq occupation, and demand that our troops be brought home, I nod in agreement.

But when Gov. Gregoire extends WA Basic Health to cover more people, or when presidential candidates talk about just how they’ll cover the 45 million uninsured, I pay attention. It’s not that I don’t care about the war, or think it’s less important. I don’t. But the inequality of our health care “system” has been a war in and of itself. It’s a war that has cost our government billions, has put millions of Americans needlessly into debt, and has caused angst and heartache at the kitchen tables of so many.

It’s between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. How are their health care plans different?

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.

But what’s wrong with Obama’s plan?

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else.

Every person needs health care, and mandating it is the only way to get it done. What Obama is offering is a system that is signifigantly flawed, right out of the gate.

Krugman continues:

But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

Obama’s political sensibility is so fucked up that I bet he doesn’t understand the nature of the health care debate. It is going to be a knock down, drag out fight, and if Obama’s health care plan isn’t ready to go in Day 1, then he’s going to get hosed.

A few weeks ago I got a water bill from the City of Redmond. The bill listed the “Previous” meter reading at 191,800, the “Current Read” as 192,000, and “Consumption” as 1,000. Hmmm…. A calculator verified my hunch that the math was somewhat fuzzy. And an examination of earlier bills showed that, previously, the computer had always done the math correctly.

Last year, during the same two-month billing period, we had used about 1,000 cubic feet of water, but we had had a houseful of guests for an extended stay over the holidays. This year our normal two-person household had been reduced to a one-person household for the billing period and was even reduced to a zero person household for about 1/3 of that time while I was visiting the second person on the east coast.

When I called the water company they had a very simple explanation for their fuzzy math. The reading just seemed too low to them. So they figured the meter was stuck and “estimated” I used 1,000 cubic feet based on last year’s consumption.

“What! The! Fuck?” I was thinking as I politely explained the largely empty house during the billing period. I felt like I had just been pick-pocketed by my friendly city government and water provider. I suggested to the person on the phone that they should at least denote on the bill whenever they’ve entered an “estimated” amount. I mean, who the hell sits down and does the math from the raw meter readings every bill? “But…but…but” they had sent a meter reader out twice, she protested, as if that could somehow differentiate between a stuck water meter and an empty house.

In any case, I got the extra 800 cubic feet knocked off of my bill—all $11.68 of it. (Hey…it was the principle.)

A week later…a maintenance crew shows up and replaced the meter in front of my house. Uggggh!

The whole episode seemed like a big waste of time and resources—if they had simply called to ask about water usage in that billing period they’d have saved the expense of the second meter reading, the costs of sending a two-man crew to replace the meter, and the cost of the replacement meter.

I suppose one could use this as an example of the government being both inefficient and incompetent—you know…the way certain uninformed and hypocritical Wingnuts do in the comment threads all the time. In the big scheme of things my Redmond Water Utility experience is a drop of water in an ocean of government inefficiency and incompetence. Here’s the big picture version of my little story….

Fun game: What one is Carl?

…goes to the Garden Show.

For months now I’ve been joking that the Democratic nomination would all come down to Washington, postulating an unlikely scenario in which the candidates come out of Super Duper Tuesday in a two-way (or even three-way) tie, and the nation looking to WA caucus goers to set the momentum heading into the next leg of the campaign. Well whaddaya know… many a truth is said in jest.

And so why aren’t I more excited?

I guess, it’s because unlike much of the campaign thus far, there isn’t really a lot of suspense about what’s going to happen on Saturday. Obama’s been kicking ass in the caucus states, and he’s likely to repeat that success both here and in Nebraska, while his overwhelming support amongst black voters should serve him well in the Louisiana primary. Then comes another caucus in Maine on Sunday, followed by another good day for Obama on Tuesday as Maryland, D.C. and Virginia voters go to the polls, and almost surely extend his delegate lead. Then on the 19th we get a caucus in Hawaii and a primary in Wisconsin… two more contests that seem to favor Obama.

Yup, it’s all downhill for Obama in February, until he slams headfirst into the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and their 389 delegates, and then Pennsylvania’s 188 delegates on April 22, leaving us with one of three scenarios. Either Obama picks up enough speed and delegates throughout February to lead him to some big upset victories in delegate rich states, and eventually the nomination, or Clinton retakes a delegate lead she never relinquishes. Which brings us back to Washington.

The challenge for Obama supporters is not simply to win this Saturday but to win big, which in a caucus scenario requires both turnout and persuasion. Washington state has been home to a lot of Edwards supporters and a lot of fence sitters, both of which currently describe me, and thus there are a lot of voters still up for grabs. I’m slightly leaning toward Obama for purely pragmatic reasons (I think he’d do better for down-ticket candidates) but on Saturday afternoon the Clinton folks in my precinct will have every opportunity to convince me. And if there’s an opportunity to convince somebody like me — a guy who usually has a strong opinion on pretty much everything — I’m guessing the situation is a lot more fluid than most people imagine. For Obama to have a chance of smashing through Clinton’s structural advantages in the big states, he’s going to have to win convincingly in February. And that all starts Saturday afternoon in Washington. I don’t believe Clinton can win WA, but if she makes it close, that’s more than good enough.

Which brings us to that third scenario, which no, I didn’t forget, and explains why I’m feeling a bit more anxious than excited this morning. There is now the very real likelihood that Obama does well in February, does okay, but not great, in the big states, and heads into the August convention with a small lead in pledged delegates, but not enough to overcome Clinton’s superdelegate advantage. I know “real” journalists are drooling over the possibility of a brokered convention, but this could be disastrous for the Democrats. If superdelegates and/or disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida end up determining the nomination contrary to the ultimate choice made by voters at the caucuses and polls, there could be a crisis of legitimacy that could damage Democratic prospects up and down the ballot. (A Clinton/Obama ticket would be the obvious solution, and a killer combination for November.)

How likely is this scenario? Certainly no more likely than the situation we’re in now. Which makes Saturday’s caucus all the more important.

So you rabid Obama supporters (yeah, I’m talkin’ to you Howie), it’s time to put up or shut up. You better kick ass on Saturday, or prepare to deal with the consequences.

Ron Paul had a disappointing finish in Alaska, placing 3rd behind Romney and Huckabee. I think the most fascinating thing about the Ron Paul Revolution is that if Paul officially drops out now, half his supporters will be deciding whether to support Obama, while the other half will be deciding whether to assassinate him.

I had missed this news from a week or so back, but Gene Johnson from the AP (who is a friend and co-rec soccer teammate of mine) alerted me to this hilarious bit of irony on Seattle’s new strip club:

There’s no word yet on whether neighbor-appreciation night will include black robes and gavels, but Seattle’s first new strip club in 20 years is going in less than a block from the federal courthouse.

And from his chambers on the 14th floor, U.S. District Judge James Robart — who struck down the city’s ban on new cabarets two years ago — has a bird’s-eye view.

“There is some irony there,” said Marty McOmber, a spokesman for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels.

Déjà Vu Showgirls is planning to open the club, the city’s fifth, in the basement of Fantasy Unlimited, an erotic boutique and movie theater less than a block from the courthouse.

As long as I live, I will never understand the weird hang-up this city has with strip clubs.

Finally, opium production our attempts to eradicate opium in Afghanistan continue to fuel the Taliban. As always, the AP report fails to mention several relevant points. The first being that the reason that the Taliban can impose a 10 percent tax on the opium production is because our eradication efforts allow them to set up a protection racket. The second being that unless western nations can greatly reduce the demand for the illegal drugs that rely on the opium production, a woman in a burqa will be planting the Afghan flag on the moon before we ever succeed in stopping it.

On the Today Show this morning, Democratic strategist Paul Begala said, “If McCain wins, he’s running for a third term for Bush. He wants to make Bush’s Iraq war permanent, Bush’s economic program permanent.” To which Pat Buchanan responded, “He will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” Think Progress has the clip.

One thing you gotta admire about Buchanan… he always speaks his mind.

Obama. Maybe I’ll change my mind once I sleep on it, but I’m pretty sure Obama was the big winner. Sure, maybe Clinton won a few more delegates — or maybe not, nobody seems to be exactly sure — but anybody who thought her nomination was inevitable certainly doesn’t anymore.

So yeah, it was Obama.

I’m live blogging from the Montlake Ale House, and the big news here is that Elizabeth is back. And oh yeah, Obama is the projected winner in IL & GA, and Clinton is the predicted winner in AR, OK and TN. Meanwhile on the Republican side (as if anybody cares) McCain has scored early victories in NJ, IL, DE & CT, but Huckabee is doing well throughout the south, with victories in WV and AR, while Romney’s likely going to pick up quite a few more states than MA and UT.

Oops, food arrived.

UPDATE [6:22]:
Finished eating. It was the Buffalo chicken burger. It was okay. Also, Clinton has been declared the winner in NJ and MA, two states where the early exit polls predicted a slight Obama lead. Clinton as gets NY, as expected, while Obama picks up DE and KS (and probably AL, though nobody’s called it yet.) Of course, what really matters is the delegate count and its unclear how that is breaking down thus far.

UPDATE [6:30]:
I does look like those early exit polls everybody was posting (including me) are not holding up. Both Romney and Obama have lost states the exit polls suggested they might win, while Obama’s margin in GA is turning out to be much narrower. Oh… and the networks haven’t done it yet, but I’m calling ID for Obama.

UPDATE [6:47]:
I’m sitting on pins and needles waiting for the Utah polls to close. Or maybe that’s just my sciatica….

UPDATE [7:00]:
Romney wins Utah! (I told you so.)

UPDATE [7:03]:
MSNBC calls ND for Obama. And UT.

UPDATE [7:05]:
The graphics on MSNBC are making me dizzy.

UPDATE [7:55]:
It looks like Obama is going to win a majority of states, but then, we don’t elect presidents by the square mile. We’ll see what happens in CA, but right now it’s looking like Clinton will win the delegate race tonight, the only question is by how much, and how that will be represented in the press.

UPDATE [8:00]:
CA has closed; “too close to call” for both parties. Meanwhile, Obama has claimed MN and ID. Is it interesting that Romney and Obama are winning many of the same states?

UPDATE [9:21]:
Clinton wins CA. But Obama will end up winning 12, maybe 13 of the 22 states in play tonight, so he wins, since of course, we elect presidents by the square mile. (Or so Republicans wished.) Or at the very least, Obama is still very much alive in this race.

UPDATE [9:56]:
Crowd is thinning out at the Ale House. Early night. Anyway, Obama got AK and MO (just barely) giving him 13 states to Clinton’s 9… unclear how that influences the media narrative, and no clear idea about the actual delegate count, as many of Obama’s wins were in caucus states. In fact, Obama kicked ass in the caucus states… that tends to indicate either a strong ground game, or an activist movement. Considering he was up against Clinton, I’m guessing the latter.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an extraordinary evening of electoral politics under the influence. We officially meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Many of us will show up at 5:00 pm (when the place opens), and enjoy the excellent cuisine while watching the election returns.

Tonight’s theme song? Alice Cooper’s Elected, of course:

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Romney wins Utah, and big!

Other than that, early, early exit polls suggest we’re gonna have a barn burner tonight, possibly in both parties. (Actually, if the early exit rumors are real, it could be a very good night for Obama, except if anybody says that publicly and it’s not a good night for him, then folks are gonna start yelling fraud again.) Use this as an election night open thread for now, and then I’ll probably live blog for a while from DL, until I get bored with it.

UPDATE (3:41):
Oh what the hell, here are the totally unverified “first wave” (so don’t get your hopes up or down) Democratic numbers making the rounds in DC:

Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37
Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45
Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26
California: Clinton 50, Obama 47
Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45
Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42
Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26
Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30
Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48
Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46
New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47
New Mexico: Obama 52, Clinton 47
New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43
Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31
Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41
Utah: Obama 61, Clinton 40

Matt and Tim explain the numbers over on OpenLeft.

UPDATE (4:10):
The polls closed in Georgia ten minutes ago, and CNN has already called it for Obama. No surprise there, no idea of how the delegates will be split, and no call on the Republican side, which is being reported as a three-way race. So far, consistent with the exit polling.

With the presidential candidates jetting around the nation today putting their final campaign touches on the Super Duper Tuesday, I thought “Jet City” voters might be interested in their transportation choices. Mitt Romney was spotted flying around the south on a Boeing 737-400 yesterday, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have chartered ATA Boeing 737-800s… and then there’s the familiar Ron Paul Blimp.

And what about that great American patriot, John McCain? He’s flying a French-built Airbus A320.

I’m just sayin’.

Yeah, I know most of you are focused on today’s Super Duper Tuesday contest, but with both the Times and the P-I ignoring Rep. Dave Reichert’s pathetic fundraising report (Really? It wasn’t worth a single mention?) it is apparently left to me to cover what could be the biggest local story of the election season: Reichert and the Republican’s slow-motion collapse in Washington’s 8th Congressional District. And while Seattle’s two dailies haven’t seemed to notice yet, the inside-Beltway media certainly has, with first The Hill placing Reichert amongst the most vulnerable GOP incumbents, and now The Politico warning that Reichert may not be able to count on the NRCC to pull his ass out of the fire this time around.

Six House Republicans holding seats that are being eyed by the Democratic majority are confronting the new, brutal reality of their party’s fundraising slump. They are limping into highly competitive reelection races with less cash than their Democratic challengers.

The latest fundraising reports are a gut punch for this six-pack of GOP incumbents: Reps. Christopher Shays (Conn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), John R. Kuhl (N.Y.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Jean Schmidt (Ohio) and Bill Sali (Idaho). With the exception of Sali, all represent swing districts.

But it’s also a blow to a House Republican conference that for years has prided itself on using aggressive fundraising tactics and mandates to make sure all of its incumbents held a significant money edge for their reelection.

A senior aide to a prominent House Republican requested anonymity to explain the significance of this fundraising downturn. “You’re going to see all these members in tough shape,” the aide said. “You have all these seats out there that are so expensive because of the money we’ve put in in the past. We might not be able to save some of these guys that we brought back last time.”

In the deft political hands of the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn, WA-08 was a cash cow for the national party, a safe seat in a wealthy suburban district that reliably pumped dollars directly into the NRCC and other campaigns. But over the past two cycles, Reichert has transformed his district into a congressional money pit, a political fixer-upper in constant need of expensive repair and maintenance. That “anonymous” comment from a “senior aide” to a “prominent” House Republican…? That was meant as a warning to Reichert and the others: either get your house in order and start paying your own bills, or prepare to find yourself out on the street, sleeping under bridges with our nation’s veterans.

Really.

It seems inconceivable that the GOP would abandon a district that has never elected a Democrat, but facing a structural disadvantage that makes 2006’s Big Blue Wave look like a swim at the beach, Republicans are going to have to resort to triage.

These latest fundraising numbers, combined with a raft of Republican retirements, explain why many top Republicans are bracing for the possibility of losses in November that could stretch into double digits.

At a time when the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee needs incumbents to raise as much money as possible, members who fall behind financially cannot count on receiving assistance in the crunch.

The NRCC emerged in the black this month for the first time this election cycle and had $5.5 million at the end of the year. But the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, with over $35 million on hand, still has a sixfold cash advantage.

And the GOP committee, which traditionally spends money to protect its incumbents first, also will have to spend money in many of the 28 open seats where Republican incumbents have retired or resigned.

The first group of members who may not be able to count on NRCC support are the ones who posted weak fundraising numbers for the year. In the past, the committee has funded members with notoriously weak fundraising, such as former Indiana Republican John Hostettler. But given the party’s fundraising woes, that same support is unlikely to come this cycle.

In the final weeks of the 2006 campaign the NRCC focused its dwindling resources almost exclusively on “second tier” races like WA-08, winning most of them, but in the process losing almost every single first and third tier race. Unless Reichert reverses his fortunes and manages to keep pace with Darcy Burner, WA-08 could end up being one of those first tier races the GOP abandons. That is, if Reichert doesn’t abandon the race first.

UPDATE:
Fair is fair. The Times has apparently reproduced an excerpt from the longer AP story on Reichert’s fundraising woes. It hadn’t shown up in Google News at the time I wrote this post.