Over on Slog, Josh writes about outgoing state Sen. Brian Weinstein and his quest to pass his Home Buyer’s Bill of Rights before he retires at the end on this session. Some had suggested Sen. Weinstein was using his Senate committee to hold hostage a condo conversion bill recently passed by the House; Sen. Weinstein, a consumer protection champion, denies the two are related, telling Josh “I expect to pass it.”
He also said he had a good meeting with House Speaker Frank Chopp (D-43, Capitol Hill) about the homeowners’ rights bill. Last year, Weinstein accused Chopp of caving to the BIAW by snuffing Weinstein’s homeowner bill.
He didn’t say Chopp promised to move the bill forward, but he did say: “It was a good discussion. He asked good questions and it was a good meeting. Last year at this time, the bill was dead.”
Oh to be a fly on the wall at that meeting. Sen. Weinstein has a well deserved reputation as a tough negotiator, but what kind of leverage can a retiring senator hold over our famously risk-averse House Speaker?
Well, the buzz amongst the consumer protection community is that Sen. Weinstein has been quietly talking about possibly unretiring should his bill fail to get through the Legislature this session… potentially creating a very messy Democratic primary battle between an incumbent senator and newly minted Democrat, Rep. Fred Jarrett.
Did Sen. Weinstein make this threat to Speaker Chopp? I’ve got no idea, but it certainly would be a doozy. Sen. Weinstein, for all his merits, can be a bit abrasive, and I’ve heard that our amiable Speaker doesn’t like him all that much — so buying Weinstein a one-way ticket out of Olympia might be well worth the price of the bill to both Chopp and the BIAW. And the last thing Speaker Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown want at this late stage in the game is to have their neatly arranged 41st LD races thrown into disarray. The Democrat seeking to replace Jarrett in the House, Renton’s Marcie Maxwell, is no sure thing, and a Godzilla versus Mothra battle for the Senate seat would surely draw money and resources out of the House race.
The easiest way to avoid this mess is to pass Sen. Weinstein’s bill, which merely gives buyers of new construction a minimum legal warranty on the biggest purchase they’ll ever make in their lives. (Two years on materials and workmanship, ten years on structural defects.) And what’s so wrong about that?
Let me get this straight. The bill covers two years on materials and workmanship, plus ten years on structural defects on new construction? And the builders are fighting it? Shameful.
Then again, the BIAW is all republics so they believe in accountability for everyone but them. I hope the bill goes through. If Weinstein has to shake up state Dems to do it, fine. At least one of them realizes they work for us.
Yup, our very own clinically insane Mr. Cynical and his
BIAW posse are opposed to this legislation.
Better to keep a real Democrat like Weinstein, than to replace him with a BIAW “Democrat” like Jarrett.
What the fuck? Here’s the bill:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documen.....6385-S.pdf
It doesn’t say anything. It says an owner can sue and the builder can’t waive his own negligence.
What’s so profound about this? It’s always been this way.
We need to reduce L & I premiums accross the board. That way, the BIAW won’t be able to skim off 20% of the overpayment refunds and won’t have millions to support far-right Republican politics in this state anymore.
We should keep Weinstein in the Senate, and replace Jarrett with a progressive. Better yet, replace Clibborn with a progressive — she is a close ally of the BIAW.
Attaboy, Richard. You’re looking more “Blue” all the time.
Here is the financing the BIAW relies upon to finance the “housing boom” (link below to the “Subprime Primer”):
http://docs.google.com/TeamPre.....pauth=true
If you were a builder, and used mostly underpaid illegal immigrants to construct your homes, would you want to give the buyers of your homes a ten year warranty?
@4 So now we’re supposed to accept legal advice from a gambling deadbeat? Pay up, welsher!
Hey wingnuts! I’ll go away quietly if you pay me enough. Submit offers to 1-900-PAY-ROG. All proceeds go to the Help Roger Rabbit Live Like A Republican Fund.
@5 How about just repealing the law that lets BIAW skim from employers’ refunds?
I don’t know if Weinstein will run again, but for those who don’t remember, Weinstein beat two term incumbent Republican Jim Horn, in an area long considered to be Republican. Now that Weinstein is well-known and has funding, if Jarrett, a BIAW Democrat (and quasi-Republican), wants to run against Weinstein, I feel sure that Weinstein will pummel him. Weinstein has shown he loves a good fight.
Roger Rabbit @ 12
That is tempting. But the real problem is that L & I rates are too high. Most of the refund results from the premium rates being far too high in the first place, than from actual services being performed by BIAW in helping the employers to reduce their claims exposure.
I think several months ago, I commented about this. Gregoire was dealing with some other type of L & I overpayment refund issue. And Gregoire handled the matter in such a way (as I recall) as to maximize the BIAW return. Which was obviously simply giving $$$ to her avowed enemies.
Why is Osama bin Laden still at large?
Everyone afraid to answer my question at @9? I don’t blame you.
Case closed.
Troll @ 9
NO!!!!!!! duh
@4, welshing deadbeat moron in search of profundity…look up “repose”, “statute of”. Get back to us after you have slaked your fucking ignorance and stupidity.
@9: Warranties cost money. If you want one so badly, please be prepared to pay for it.
Richard Pope: The BIAW is not at all adverse to kick unsafe contractors off it’s little government subsidy. Thus they ‘self-select’ safer contractors with low experience ratings…and mirabu dictu! They get a ‘refund’ and the rest of us pick up the tab unless all the ‘unsafe’ contractors quit the industry. See ‘free rider’, ‘problem of’….
Dumshit @ 18 – Where does Comrade Weinstein’s bill talk about time limits? The whole fucking thing is only one stoopid page. Have you read the fucking thing? I even posted a link.
You need to educate yourself a bit about how the real world works. Nobody who makes anything and sells it can make a statement that says “… if this thing fails, we’re not responsible…”. It just doesn’t work that way.
Educate yourself… look up “implied warranty of merchantability”.
Get back to us after you have slaked your fucking ignorance and stupidity.
Well.
I think the easiest thing is to have Dino talk to the bad guys and make this law happen.
After all, Dino is gonna fix ever’thin’ that’s bad, ya know.
No doubt that Weinstein would trounce Jarrett. He was the lead guy on Ref. 67 last year so he is well known as someone who looks out for average folks. He’s able to raise money and he will be a much tougher opponent now that he’s an incumbent. Jarrett’s stuck. He can’t say that he changed parties only so he could have an easy ticket to the Senate. If he takes on Weinstein in the D primary he’ll lose. What would be his campaign slogan to the democrats in the primary? Vote for me I’ve been a committed Democrat for 10 months? He can’t go back to the Republicans and challenge Weinstein in the general without looking like an ass and an opportunist. This will be fun.
Of all the comments above, Richard Pope’s make the most sense.
Time Limit’s up welsher. From the Senate report:
“Under common law, there is a limited implied warranty of habitability for new homes, which warrants that the foundations supporting the home are firm and secure, and that the house is safe for the buyers’ intended purpose of living in it.
In other limited circumstances, a homeowner may seek redress for construction defects through a breach of contract claim. No right of action for negligent construction exists.
Generally if a buyer of a new home receives a warranty offered by the builder or a third party, the warranty requires that the buyer waive any other legal remedies including the implied warranty of habitability.”
There’s that funny word you claim doesn’t exist: “waive”
Nothing in the language of the proposed bill overturns statutory requirements regarding statutes of limitations or statutes of repose.
God, you’re a fucking nitwit.
Dumfuckingshit 23 – I have direct experience with construction defects litigation, including a precedent setting case.
I can say with absolute 100% certainty, that owners can go after builders and win.
Don’t get me wrong… I think what Comrade Weinshtein is trying to do is good. ‘Bout fucking time we cracked down on the halfassed fucking work done by the illegal meskins, and the dirtbag contractors who employ them.
In fact, I’m saying that Comrade Weinshtein’s bill doesn’t go far enough. There should be more teeth in the bill to give homeowners more rights.
But what he says already exists… it needs to go further…
idiotfuckingmaroon @24: I never said they couldn’t. You practice stupid? The bill limits waivers builders can insist on in sales contracts, and extends protection to buyers of residential property that they do not currently have.
But you brought up time limits because you are stupid.
Which case, numbnutz? How badly did your side lose?
While were at it I want a 500,000 unlimited warranty
on my new truck. I say if such a home warranty did
become law, we obviously do not need building department
and large permit fees. While most builders dont try to
get away with anything, the inspectors actually DONT LET
BUILDERS OR REMODEL CONTRACTORS GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING
mostly because they are democrats with small brains with
a little power over someone else (a dangerous combination)
who couldn’t make it in the real world so through jealousy
actually enjoy making real workers and taxpayers miserable
as possible. So fucknut weinstein is a moron and his ideas
are not needed. Also the BIAW is completely voluntary
unlike the unions whose membership money is given to the
dems whether they like it or not (completely unvoluntary).
Since democrats are so worried about non union contractors
why dont they have their own homes built by union contractors? Bill Gates did. Rabbit? Why didn’t you
have your house built by Sellen like Gates? Why not? How
about the rest of you?
As long as we are trying to be accurate here (we are, aren’t we?) lets look at what the law is now. It is possible in very limited circumstance to get some repairs done through litigation against a negligent builder within a six year statute of repose- meaning six years and one day after you buy a brand new home, you are responsible for everything. Furthermore, under current law, if suuccessful in this action, you are able to get payment for repairs only- not damages done to furnishing and belongings through leaks or flooding, your displacement from the home for six months while it is fixed, any of the lost heirlooms, mental anguish, etc.
In addition, you have to first jump through several BIAW passed hoops in 2001 legislation, including notifying the
builder of the proble within a set time period, giving them an opportunity to “cure” the problem, and then a second chance if the first one fails. If you trip or miss any of these deadlines, you fail and have no action. In addition, many subcontractors who have disappeared may be the ones at fault, and it may still leave you high and dry and with no remedy.
So if you have a lot of money, a great lawyer, and enough damages to justify humongous expenses, you have a shot at getting your repairs done, minus your costs and fees to bring the action. That is the current law. And don’t even get started on the totally worthless warranties people have bought.
Car dealers have to stand behind your vehicle you buy. Your washing machines and appliances, your toaster, your kids toys, the food we eat- all have to be safe and “merchantable.” (Well, unless the Federal Courts accept the administrations arguments that all state laws are preempted by regulatory approval, which the Supremes did last week on medical devices in a truly frightening action, but that is another story.)
Why not our homes? This is such a modest and reasonable proposal.
Maybe it should go on the ballot if the legislature won’t pass it. Then the builders can spend all their money fighting it, instead of trying to buy a governor and a supreme court. Just a thought.
-Tom
Weinstein should definitely run again. Jerrett would either have to challenge Weinstein in the Democratic primary or switch back to the GOP. Either way, he looses. We need a consumer advocate like Weinstin in the Senate who will stand up for the rights of consumers and not blow with the political winds. What confidence do we have that Jerrett won’t switch parties again with the next turn of the political tides? Does anyone think Jarrett will fight for consumers like Weinstein? The saddest thing about this situation is that it never had to happen: Weinstein should have never announced his retirement. Still, its not too late to correct this situation. Weinstein should say he has decided to hold his seat to protect Washington consumers. We need you Brian!
I’m in agreement with commenters at 13, 21 and 29.
Everybody knows Weinstein would kill Jarrett in a closed Democratic primary. Jarrett would just have to stay in the house as a D or switch back to the Rs again to run against him in the general. If he did that he would be considered the worst type of opportunist.
Great story; I can’t wait to see what develops.
I live in the 41st LD. As much as I would like to see Brain Weinstein stay in the state Senate, I don’t think a primary against Fred Jarrett would be a lead pipe cinch.
Jarrett is still regarded very highly on Mercer Island, where he was a longtime city council member and mayor, if memory serves. Judy Clibborn considers Jarrett a close friend (she managed his first campaign for the statehouse before she ran herself, later, as a Democrat), and she won’t let him twist in the wind. And Frank Chopp will not let go by such an attack on his reputation as “the man in charge” in the statehouse without a response.
There’s more I could say about this, but I’ll just offer my opinion that Frank Chopp will give Weinstein his bill and avert a potential civil war within the district.
Because if he doesn’t, it will get nasty in no time flat. And the repercussions from telling Brian “No” are much, much larger than from saying “Yes”.
My two bits…
@ 31:
Jarrett is indeed highly regarded, but if Weinstein runs, Jarrett will have to face Weinstein in a closed Democratic primary. Weinstein, a solid Democrat and the state’s leader on consumer protection issues, would have no problem beating Jarrett, who just coverted in 2008 after a lifetime in politics as a Republican.
And Jarrett cannot switch back without looking like a political opportunist.
I hope that your prediction is right, however. Chopp should stop blocking the bill.