I don’t normally reprint emails forwarded my way without asking permission, but since this email from Attorney Sandy Levy to Rep. Mark Ericks was CC’d to a number of journalists, I think it’s pretty much fair game.
Dear Rep. Ericks:
Boy, was I a sucker. I believed you were an interested, impartial and objective task force chairman, appointed by Speaker Chopp to investigate problems in the homebuilding industry and to report to the Speaker with recommendations. You told me when we met in August of last year that you would convene your committee, bring me in to speak, and bring in homeowners to hear first hand the problems they were having. Instead, you never convened that group, at least not with any homeowners or their representatives.
Now I find out the following article, published today:
While some accounts explain that Chopp (who killed Sen. Weinstein’s bill late last week at the behest of the Building Industry Association of Washington) crafted his alternative proposal (a study!!) with Democratic Rep. Mark Ericks (D-1, Bothell), they fail to report that Rep. Ericks was the guest of honor at last Tuesday’s BIAW fund raiser at the BIAW’s offices in Olympia.
Mark, it’s not as though there were no homeowner groups with real complaints, with visible problems you could have visited yourself. One of them is just a few minutes away from the Capitol, such as the 130 unit Cooper Crest subdivision in Olympia. Yet you and the Speaker misinformed the public that you were leading an independent task force and you were meeting with stakeholders. I don’t know who the stakeholders were, other than BIAW. I know your committee didn’t meet with me, as you had promised. I guess money talks doesn’t it? Homeowners just don’t have the fat wallet that BIAW does to line legislative pockets. From the same article as above comes this illuminating piece of information:
Killing Sen. Weinstein’s bill—which would have guaranteed a warranty for consumers when they buy a new home (allowing consumers to sue contractors for faulty or shoddy work)—was the BIAW’s top legislative priority this year. The powerful conservative lobby—which bankrolls the GOP—also maxed out to Democratic Rep. Ericks last election cycle.
Misleading the public and trying to manipulate public opinion should be grounds for dismissal as a public official. What you have done is a disgrace to democracy. And, my representatives have abetted this trampling of citizen rights. Where is the guiding principle that you disclose any appearance of impropriety, any appearance of a conflict of interest. How do you take money from BIAW, then say you are an independent fact finder on a task force charged with analysis of a problem? Doesn’t that strike you as shocking?
The emphasis is Mr. Levy’s.
My personal outrage has never focused solely on the bill itself; there isn’t a session that goes by in which I’m not disappointed by the death of bills that didn’t even get a hearing, let alone a floor vote. Rather, my outrage, like that expressed by Levy, stems from the manner in which this bill has been consistently blocked by the militia-funding orca-killers at the BIAW, without anybody on the Democratic side having the balls to acknowledge the truth. I expect to be disappointed by the Democratic majority either because they genuinely disagree with me on issues of policy or on political strategy; I just don’t expect them to be shills for the enemy. I’ve got nothing against builders or contractors or their industry, but the organization that represents them is viciously anti-Democratic, and politically amoral at best. The BIAW is an organization dedicated to legislating the labor movement out of existence, and opposing all and every environmental regulation. And they have given every indication that they will stop at nothing to achieve their agenda.
If Rep. Ericks has a reply to Mr. Levy, in which amongst other things, he can defend his appearance as a “guest of honor” at a BIAW fundraiser, I’d be happy to post it here. But for the life of me, I can’t imagine what that defense might be.
Piper Scott spews:
I love it when Democrats go to war against each other.
BTW…Mark Ericks used to be the police chief of Bothell, so he’s got beaucoup buds in law enforcement. The natural paranoia rampant among the HA Happy HooliHellHathNoFuryLikeaganScorned types should know these things.
And Goldy…what do you care about new home warranties? You live in the HA Happy HooliHovel, which not even the Denny party would consider habitable! When are you ever going to buy a 4,000 sqf, 4-BR, 3-bath, 3-car garage faux chateau on the plateau?
Or does the blogging gig turn a better and bigger buck than you’ve let on? Or is it that you’re just trying to add several thousand more $$$ to the price of housing around here?
You neve can tell…
“I love it when Democrats go to war against each other.”
Me too! (I mean, now that I am a member of the WA GOP.)
“And Goldy…what do you care about new home warranties?”
What kind of stoopid fucking question is that Piper Scott? In case it never occurred to you, some citizens are concerned about public policy EVEN IF THEY DON’T DIRECTLY BENEFIT.
But I guess this explains some of your shortcomings—apparently you aren’t interested in policy unless you benefit directly. Typical selfish Wingnut!
Well, Piper, you sure have got the art of being a vicious asshole down. But why would be surprised when you’ve had so much time to practice. If you had a real job instead of the phony front you use, you wouldn’t have time to concentrate on your wingnut agenda.
I’m sure you’d still be posturing about the war and hiding behind your kids, because that’s what cowards that want to pretend they know something about military service do.
I’m sure that you’re not worried about BIAW practices, because your father-in-law, or wife, or whoever bought your house for you was smart enough to make sure they were wasting money only on you.
It is to laugh at the pious, self-righteous hypocrite who thinks anybody here takes him seriously. Alors.
You also love it when Republicans go to war, Pooper Scooper…admit it, the news of Fallon’s resignation has you creaming your panties, doesn’t it?
Let me inform you of something, Pooper. This isn’t “Democrats going to war against each other” as you call it. Though I’m not at all surprised that you don’t recognize what it really is – an attempt to hold our elected officials accountable to the people they represent when those officials exhibit cowardly and corrupt behavior.
Sad sad sad! So the BIAW isn’t just a republican thing anymore!!! The BIAW is in the dems back pockets now too….ROTF LMAO! Go figure!
I think Chopp and Ericks are imposters!
It has been suggested that you are an expert on imposters :)
Is it true that Piper is a committee? Surely no single person can be that much of a loser. It has to be group effort…
Richard Pope spews:
Hannah @ 6
But people say the same thing about you :)
@ 9 Yes they do but with no solid proof, speculation could get a lot of our politicians voted out
With your well-demonstrated skills at extracting information from somewhere mysterious, can you determine if Piper Scott actually makes enough money to keep himself in dog food?
Or is he, as I suspect, supported by his wife, and, if so, does that constitute grounds sufficient for her commitment?
Richard Pope spews:
Hannah @ 10
But I can’t prove that you exist either :( Something which I should logically be able to do, assuming that the information you have provided about yourself is accurate.
Richard Pope spews:
Sempersimper @ 11
Are you confusing Piper with Stefan? :)
Richard @ 13
I can confuse Piper with facts; no need to resort to Stefan!
But there is a certain family resemblance….incompetence, idiocy, tendency to hallucinate, and certainly, G*R*A*N*D*I*O*S*E behavior.
Considering you have bare minimal info on me personally, no, you should not be able to ID me, if so, we really have a problem with the possibility of ID theft. Maybe my votes don’t count anymore, tell KC to quit sending me ballots, they just plug up my mailbox and cost me 2 stamps to mail back.
It seems like there is some serious confusion about what BIAW is. This is from their website:
The Building Industry Association of Washington exists to unite those in the building industry in Washington state in their fight against a government that has made this industry among the most regulated in the nation.
The BIAW Leaders and staff work full time so you can work less time, representing you and more than 12,500 member companies like yours who want taxes and regulations limited. BIAW battles 365 days a year on your behalf to reduce the scope of government and expand free enterprise.
Besides battling big government, BIAW offers a variety of programs and services that can help put your business on top. The BIAW Return on Industrial Insurance (R.O.I.I.) Program, Political Program, Legislative Program, Education Program, Legal Program, Health Insurance Program, Safety Assistance Program, Public Relations Program, and Membership Program offers valuable tools you can use to grow your business.
The Building Industry Association of Washington Mission Statement
The Building Industry Association of Washington is the voice of the housing industry in the state of Washington. The Association is dedicated to ensuring and enhancing the vitality of the building industry for the benefit of its members and the housing needs of the citizens.
To accomplish this purpose, the Association’s primary focus is to interact with the Legislative, Regulatory, Judicial and Executive Agencies of Washington’s government.
BIAW will offer its membership those services that can be best provided on a statewide basis and will disseminate information concerning the building industry to all association members and the public.
Gee, BIAW is fighting for it’s 12,500 members which employ hundreds of thousands of people in Washington.
Legislators across Party Lines know how important a healthy Construction environment is to the State Budget and our standard of living. Speaker Chopp & Rep Ericks are mature enough and not as spiteful as you fringies…they understand there are costs reflected in regulations.
They understand there are consequences…often unwanted, but consequences nonetheless, of spiteful Legislation like Weinstein’s.
Piper Scott spews:
“…some citizens are concerned about public policy EVEN IF THEY DON’T DIRECTLY BENEFIT.”
Somehow I am not persuaded that this is all about the public good. Smacks more of power and governemntal mucking about to me.
Will this suposed “public policy” that will “benefit” homeowners make housing more or less affordable and more or less accessible?
“Smacks more of power and governemntal mucking about to me.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I know several people who have worked hard on this basic piece of consumer protection. None of them gain directly from it, and none seem to gain anything by “governmental mucking.”
“Will this suposed “public policy” that will “benefit” homeowners make housing more or less affordable and more or less accessible?”
It likely will make a new home purchase slightly more expensive but, on average, make home ownership of new homes less expensive.
Consumer protection is like that. For example, we force car manufacturers to put expensive air bags and collision sensors in cars. It increases initial costs of purchasing a new car. But, on average, the policy lowers medical/funeral bills.
Is this Sandy’s Law Firm??
Sounds like they are bill collectors and advertise they work for contractors.
Piper Scott spews:
I remain unpersuaded.
Anything favorable to the BIAW is anathema to the HA Happy HooliHaters, so anyone who supports a BIAW proposal must be pilloried and held up to public scorn and obloquy.
HA is all anti-BIAW all the time. If Barack Obama himself came out in support of the BIAW agenda, the HA Happy HooliHuhs? would turn on him as rapidly as New Yorkers have turned on Eliot Spitzer.
You are incapable of objectively discussing anything to do with the BIAW, so why should anyone believe anything you say?
Housing costs are rising making homeownership increasingly unavailable. And you’re all in favor of making it even more so?
It’s not consumer protection that motivates this – it’s hatred of the BIAW. If you were so interested in the consumer, you’d at least do something to offset the increased cost, but since, like the good liberal you are, you’ve never seen a government regulation you didn’t wish to make more Draconian or a tax you didn’t wish to increase or a freedom you didn’t wish to restrict…why should I believe you about anything?
Well Pip0er, nobody except trolls here believes what you say, either, so everything’s balanced, right?
You just post to exercise your mammoth ego and see your verbosity displayed, so why does it matter ?
Of course you remain unconvinced…forgive me for suggesting this, but you are blinded by Wingnuttery.
I say that because your argument is logically flawed.
“Anything favorable to the BIAW is anathema to the HA Happy HooliHaters, so anyone who supports a BIAW proposal must be pilloried and held up to public scorn and obloquy.”
This isn’t an ambiguous chicken-egg problem. In other words, the BIAW didn’t suddenly and mysteriously decide to take a public position opposing some theoretical Homeowner Bill of Rights.
Rather, the proposed legislation came first, and it’s the BIAW who then followed by fighting it (and I will not accuse the BIAW of “governmental mucking”—I’m sure their objections are genuine).
“HA is all anti-BIAW all the time.”
So? This is hardly surprising, but your argument is flawed. The concept of a Homeowner’s Bill of Rights did not originate in Washington state.
Furthermore, passing such legislation doesn’t directly hurt the BIAW. Furthermore, there are pieces of legislation that directly hurt the BIAW (like shutting off the Workman’s Comp spigot). If you were complaining about Goldy supporting THAT type of legislation, I would agree with you that it was about spiting the BIAW. But this legislation isn’t–that the BIAW opposes it is just gravy.
“If Barack Obama himself came out in support of the BIAW agenda, the HA Happy HooliHuhs? would turn on him as rapidly as New Yorkers have turned on Eliot Spitzer.”
“You are incapable of objectively discussing anything to do with the BIAW, so why should anyone believe anything you say?”
Who…me? What evidence do you have that I cannot objectively discuss the BIAW???? I don’t recall writing any screeds against the BIAW.
“Housing costs are rising making homeownership increasingly unavailable. And you’re all in favor of making it even more so?”
Well…making safer cars is raising the price of cars, which are increasingly outrageously priced. Our society, apparently, accepts the trade-offs of car safety and cost. Likewise, there are trade-offs with adopting the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights.
“It’s not consumer protection that motivates this – it’s hatred of the BIAW.”
Yes…Piper…you are onto OUR well-disguised nationally-implemented strategy just to annoy the BIAW (*rolls eyes*)
“If you were so interested in the consumer, you’d at least do something to offset the increased cost”
The initial costs ARE offset by decreased ownership costs, increased security for the owner of the new home, and possibly reduced insurance costs.
“but since, like the good liberal you are, you’ve never seen a government regulation you didn’t wish to make more Draconian or a tax you didn’t wish to increase or a freedom you didn’t wish to restrict…”
Grow the fuck up you intellectually lazy imbecile.
“why should I believe you about anything?”
You shouldn’t. I don’t ask you to automatically believe what I say. Rather, you should evaluate EVIDENCE, consider (empirically) the veracity of my statements in our past interactions, and then USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN without the WingDing filter turned on.
PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:
@22: And you keep your “small” ego in check?
Now that’s a hoot?
Roger Rabbit spews:
Maybe someone should remind Chopp, Ericks, and the other BIAW handmaidens in the Democratic caucus that just because they’re Democrats doesn’t mean we can’t or won’t oppose them or replace them. While we’re not about to replace Chopp with a nutcase like Mark Gardner, who thinks more innocent Americans should killed by terrorists to help the GOP win elections, we can and should shop around for another Democrat who could do a better job of representing the state’s consumers than he’s doing.
Roger Rabbit spews:
@10 “Solid proof” isn’t required, Hannah. More probable than not is good enough for the civil courts, and it’s good enough here, too. We’re entitled to weigh evidence, draw inferences, consider circumstantial evidence, and make credibility determinations — just like any jury does. Your cock-and-bull story about 2 co-workers using your work computer to post on HA with views identical to yours and in your writing style doesn’t ring true. Any jury that buys such a story should be investigated for bribery. We’re not buying it, either.
@24 You pontificate endlessly here and you have by far the largest unjustifiable monomaniacal self-image of ANY poster here, including the Dreaded Piper, and you can’t even comprehend what you read. Then you post total nonsequiturs, declare yourself perfect and fully justified, and run away by changing the subject.
You’re also totally addicted to this blog. You can’t FUNCTION without your daily HA fix. The numbers alone tell the tale.
But, then, it’s that delightful and amazing total lack of self-awareness that makes you SUCH a hoot to read.
Keep getting your rocks off publicly in here, it makes for wonderful entertainment. And, certainly, cheap. Your a CHEAP WHINE, Pud. You have a metal screw cap. And it’s loose.
@26 “Roger Rabbit says:
@10 “Solid proof” isn’t required, Hannah. More probable than not is good enough for the civil courts, and it’s good enough here, too.
In the courts it is beyond a reasonable doubt last time I checked! I think I can point and prove a case full of reasonable doubt. But then again if you think a suspect can be found guilt even with reasonable doubt, you are one of those crackpots that has put 100% completely innocent people away for years to life for crimes they did not commit. I now know why the the current admin is so screwed up, they are so far right, they are just like you, just the opposite direction! Your “facts” never seem to be proven ot justified, where as many others here actually point to FACTS. The FACT is I have never once posted as any other name. Deal with it!
Hannah — Roger is not talking about the burden of proof in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt). He’s talking about the burden of proof in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence). The more you talk, the more obvious it is that you’re clueless.
honestly seems like every one here is pretty damn clueless since they all (well most) seem to believe it’s is their way or no way, kinda like a child…well exactly like a child. I guess the rule of thumb here is if you have questions and are new to politics and learning, DON’T COME HERE! These people will question whether you are on their side and if you asked a questiona republican would ask, you MUST be a republican because you question local dems. Although the majority here sure throw their own dems under the bus is that particular dem isn’t playing THEIR WAY.
Richard Pope spews:
Hannah @ 29
Unfortunately, you haven’t proven that you really exist, and you may not be able to. There simply isn’t any Hannah age 36 registered to vote in King County, in or near Issaquah, that is unmarried. And that is how you described yourself. You didn’t have to, but you did.
@32 – Well as I said before, tell KC NOT to count my vote on the ballots they keep sending me. Since we all know a single vote won’t sway the totals, unless there are hundreds ot thousands of voters whose vote don’t count. I don’t really trust KC elections with handling votes, maybe I should register in Jefferson county where my aunt lives. then I am sure after being registered for 22 years, I ouldn’t fall off the registry AND still get ballots. Since you are saying I am not registered in KC, why are the politicians soliciting me via phone (so very aggravating) and mailing me junk mail (ballots)?
“I guess the rule of thumb here is if you have questions and are new to politics and learning, DON’T COME HERE!”
You are free to come here. But it is a rough neighborhood. And sock puppetry is frowned upon, as is dishonesty.
I am not the dishonest one, I have been nothing but honest in all my posts. Although we all know how much dishonestly and how many lies are told here on a daily basis. I have no reason to be dishonest..kinda childish if you ask me and I graduated from high school years ago. I ask questions people I know point out to me so I tend to questions things…I am surrounded by a bunch of republicans all day every day. But I will definately not ask any questions, as I feel the answers for the most part have no “factual evidence” usually to back the answers up. Sometimes yes, but most the time it is sheer opinion.
Thanks for the laughs though! I see I am spoken about in threads I have not even commented in. Popular…in a very very twisted way. I have to say I have already learned alot on this site, from both the far left wingers, to the far right wingers and even a few like me on the normal side. :)
Richard Pope spews:
Hannah @ 33
I assume your ballot and vote are valid. On the other hand, your real name obviously isn’t Hannah, and certainly not a 36 year old Hannah living anywhere near Issaquah.
@36 well if thats not my name and I do not live in Issy…I sure as hell have no idea who I am. I just ran to my purse to check my drivers license, whew! Yep still Hannah living in Issy.
Richard Pope spews:
Hannah @ 37
Maybe you are spelling your first name backwards, and that is the source of your confusion :)
Mr. Cynical spews:
Richard @ 38–
That’s a good one..I don’t care who y’ar!
Hannah’s boyfriend is Otto..he spells his name backward too.
Hannah is a real palindrome.
Roger and Bax are correct; there is a difference between civil and criminal cases, and the “proof” required. Also in criminal it’s “guilty” (or innocent), but in civil it’s who’s “at fault.” Parties can be found to be both at fault by varying degrees in a civil case, too. When a builder builds a house wrong it’s his or her fault. The customer didn’t build it, didn’t hire the subs, and didn’t supervise it or decide to cover up mistakes. That’s why bad builders fear going to a jury trial. They know that a jury almost always sees thru the attempts to confuse the matter, and the bottom line is the builder built it and the end result is the builder’s doing. If this were not so, the building industry would not expend so many of its resources fighting legislation that holds bad builders accountable. What’s puzzling is why they don’t use those resources instead to truly educate builder members on proper construction.