HorsesAss.Org

With 24 hours left in the 2008 session, state Sen. Brian Weinstein has issued the following press release:

Today, I communicated to the Speaker’s staff that I’ll agree in principle to Speaker Chopp’s three-point proposal with some minor technical and substantive changes, if he’ll agree to allow a homebuyer to bring a legal action against a builder who has violated a building code after giving the builder notice and an opportunity to fix it.

A builder is already required to comply with building codes, but Washington law affords a homebuyer no rights to enforce the building code. This is a bare minimal right that all Washingtonians must agree a homebuyer should have.

I know the Speaker is a man of his word, and I would only do this with a good faith representation from him that he will work diligently to expand the right of access to the courts to aggrieved homebuyers in the next Legislative Session.

Really… is that so much to ask for? The right to sue a builder if they violate a building code, and refuse to fix it? I invite the pro-BIAW trolls in the comment thread to justify to me why homebuyers should not have this right?

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?

Sandy Levy

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.

The DCCC announced today its first round of “Red to Blue” challengers, and not surprisingly, Darcy Burner has made the cut:

Kay Barnes (MO-06)
Anne Barth (WV-02)
Darcy Burner (WA-08)
Robert Daskas (NV-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Christine Jennings (FL-13)
Larry Kissell (NC-08)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Mark Schauer (MI-07)
Dan Seals (IL-10)

During the 2006 cycle the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 House challengers — an average of $404,000 per campaign — three times the total raised in 2004. There’s no reason to expect those numbers not to continue to trend up, depositing a hefty chuck of change in Burner’s campaign coffers.

Our local media prefers to mostly ignore her, but Burner has quietly become one of the most talked about Democratic challengers in the nation, both within the national netroots and the Democratic Party establishment. Expect big things to come.

UPDATE:
Red to Blue candidate Larry Kissell has a diary up on Daily Kos, which gives a great explanation about what this race is really about.

Beer, vulgarity and erudite chit-chat flowed freely last night, as we begin to get back into our Podcasting Liberally groove.

Me (Goldy), Lee, Dan, Carl, and John provide live coverage of Hillary Clinton’s big win Barack Obama’s disappointing 23-point victory in Mississippi’s Democratic primary, a philosophical discourse on the intersection (difference?) between politics and prostitution, the tanking prospects of Sen. John McCain in WA state and what this means for Republicans down-ticket, plus a conversation with EOI Executive Director John Burbank, a candidate for WA’s 36th Legislative District. Tune in and find out what would have made the life of this particular downtrodden white boy so much easier and more successful.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_march_11_2008.mp3]

The show is 47:56, and is can be downloaded here as a 43.9 MB MP3.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Darryl for producing the show, and Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

I don’t care what party you’re with, anyone who spends 80 grand on high priced hookers shouldn’t be a governor anymore.

UPDATE [–Goldy]:

I’m not so sure I agree with Will. If patronizing a prostitute were suddenly a disqualification for office, we’d have an awful lot of high profile resignations to report today. And if marital infidelity were made a disqualification, Washington D.C. would become a virtual ghost town. I myself have never been unfaithful, and I don’t have much sympathy for people who have, but it seems to me to be the human condition rather than a peculiar of flaw of folks like Spitzer.

On the bright side, Spitzer will always be remembered for delivering to New Yorkers their first black governor, Gov. David Paterson:

How sad is it that a trailblazing feminist like Geraldine Ferraro is turning out to be a huge goddamn racist?

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

It’s particularly sad to see the old, gas bag feminists of yesteryear attack a man who could be America’s first black president. She’s basically saying that America has jungle fever, that Obama’s blackness has intoxicated his supporters. She’s implying this, and all the while is still with the Clinton campaign.

Obama responds:

“I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro’s comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd,” he told the Allentown Morning Call. “And I would expect that the same way those comments don’t have a place in my campaign they shouldn’t have a place in Senator Clinton’s either.”

Ferraro is just another sad old fart who sees history being made and is irritated by it.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E—some of us show up a little early to sample from the terrific menu.

Tonight’s theme song? What else could it be but Missy ‘Misdemeanor’ Elliott’s One Minute Man:

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.

Much ado has been made recently over a proposal by a group of local business “leaders” to save the Sonics and keep them in Seattle. The local group proposes buying the Sonics and investing $150 million of their money in renovating Key Arena, conditioned on an additional $150 million in matching taxpayer funds.

This is by far the most reasonably reasonable arena proposal pitched thus far, or at least it would be if not for a handful of obvious stumbling blocks: A) the Sonics’ Oklahoma City based owners insist the team is not for sale; B) NBA Commissioner David Stern has promised that Seattle would not get another franchise if they allowed the Sonics to leave; and C) there was no chance in hell the tax authorization legislation could make it out of Olympia this year, coming just a week before the end of the session. And oh yeah… D) a substantial majority of Seattle voters don’t seem to give a shit whether the team stays or leaves.

According to a March 3, SurveyUSA/KING-5 poll which seemed to fly under the media and political radar, 77% of respondents said they opposed spending public funds to renovate Key Arena… about the same percentage of voters who approved Initiative 91 in 2006, a citywide measure that barred exactly that. Only 37% of respondents indicated they even care if the Sonics leave Seattle in two years, and a full two-thirds of respondents believe the team’s move to Oklahoma City is already a done deal. Hardly a popular uproar demanding the Legislature to drop all their current business and push through an arena funding bill.

Not that the folks behind this proposal ever believed they’d get a bill out of the current session. These are savvy folk. Rich folk, who’ve spent plenty of money on Olympia lobbyists in the past. They know how the system works, and they know that any proposal pitched during the final week of the session isn’t a serious proposal at all. Why they pitched it at the very last minute, I don’t know, but before any of you diehard Sonics fans get too excited by media efforts to hype this proposal into genuine hope, take a look at the facts. No bill is going to pass this session to rebuild Key Arena, and until we hear otherwise, no NBA team is available to play in it.

I’m not saying the proposal isn’t for real, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the local group eventually gets the taxpayer money they seek — if they can actually produce a team — but I’m guessing the sudden display of urgency is mostly intended to impress their fellow billionaires at the upcoming NBA owners meeting. And while I suppose it is interesting to watch the intricate mating rituals peculiar to the strange birds who comprise our nation’s moneyed elite, I’m just not so sure that us average folk really care all that much anymore.

When I snarkily commented a while back that while the rest of the presidential field was flying around on chartered Boeing 737s, only Sen. John McCain was campaigning from a French built Airbus A320, I had no idea that McCain’s choice in aircraft was anything more than symbolic. But in the wake of the controversial Air Force refueling contract, we’re learning that McCain’s connections to both Airbus and the tanker contract are closer than anybody imagined.

It was McCain who authored an amendment undermining “buy American” rules that formerly required military equipment to be manufactured in the United States, and McCain who “prides himself in the role he played blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing.” And now we learn that three of McCain’s current top aides have been lobbying the Air Force — and presumably McCain — on behalf of Airbus.

Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.

Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain’s campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain’s national finance chairman.

[…] McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon’s yearslong attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus.

McCain’s campaign claims that “they never lobbied him related to the issues,” so I guess those two letters McCain wrote the Defense Department were purely coincidental.

In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was “troubled” by the Air Force’s draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. The request was widely viewed as hurting the EADS-Northrop Grumman bid.

The proposed bid request “may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted,” McCain wrote in a Dec. 1, 2006, letter to Gates. The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Rep. Norm Dicks called the removal of the subsidy language a “game changer” that “tilted to Airbus.”

“The only reason that they could even bid a low price is because they received a subsidy,” Dicks said last week. “And Senator McCain jumped into this and said that (the Air Force) could not look at the subsidy issue — which I think is a big mistake, especially when the U.S. trade representative is bringing a case in the (World Trade Organization) on this very issue.”

And it’s not just partisan bloggers like me who are questioning the intersection between McCain’s interference in the tanker contract and his close ties to Airbus lobbyists.

“The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. “Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition.”

Damn right they are. (And if any Boeing advocates want to forward me some ammunition, I promise strict confidentiality.)

Meanwhile, as WA’s Democratic congressional delegation has been noisily defending Boeing and cheering on their decision to officially protest the contract, our region’s lone Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert, has been awfully damn quiet about the loss of 9,000 local jobs and the role of the man he’s endorsed for president. But then, what do you expect from the 419th most powerful man in Congress… a man who lost his bid for a coveted Appropriations Committee seat to an Alabama congressman who had just days before publicly endorsed Airbus over Boeing?

Geez… the only thing more damaging for Reichert than campaigning with President Bush might be campaigning with presidential wannabe and French aerospace enthusiast John McCain.

“We Wuz Robbed” seems like an incredibly bankrupt campaign strategy to me. But bankruptcy hasn’t stopped Dino Rossi, who is still perpetuating the idea that he was cheated out of being Governor:

Residents heard from Attorney General Rob McKenna, who’s seeking re-election, and Dino Rossi, who’s back on the campaign trail as a candidate for governor, jokingly telling people he’s seeking re-election as well, after an extremely close vote the last time he ran.

The Sore Loser Express™ is currently steaming through Eastern Washington saying things like this:

“It’s a different campaign, completely different,” said Rossi. “Last time when I decided I was going to run for governor, I only had 12 percent name ID statewide. Almost everybody in this county thought Dino Rossi was some sort of wine.”

Of course, another difference is that, recently, Washington state has been rated one of the best managed states, and as having one of the best business climates in the country. He continues:

“If people want to, they can control every single election,” said Rossi. “If they get their aunt, who doesn’t think their vote counts anymore to vote, get their 18-year-olds registered to vote. Just get everybody out to vote. If you exercise the vote that you’re given, you can control every election.”

Yeah…that’s it, Dino. Get Aunt Matilda to go out and vote. You’d better just hope that Aunt Millie doesn’t remember the cries of election fraud that were found to be without merit by a Judge in one of the most conservative county in Washington. And hope that she doesn’t remember your un-statesmanlike slamming the Washington state Supreme Court when you begrudgingly ended the contest:

“With today’s decision, and because of the political makeup of the Washington state Supreme Court, which makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I am ending the election contest

Because, even Aunt Millie knows a sore loser when she sees one!

Earlier today I accused Democratic state legislators of spouting BIAW talking points in defense of their opposition to SB 6385, the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and I stand by my accusations. I know some of these legislators personally, I value their support on other issues, and I certainly don’t expect them to agree with me 100% of the time. But when they align themselves with the likes of the BIAW, they are doing their constituents and their party a great disservice.

The BIAW is as determined and effective a foe of progressive causes and Democratic candidates as there is in Washington state, an early financial backer of the Northwest militia movement, and an emphatic and relentless critic of environmental protections. These people play hardball, and when they win, they’re not shy about kicking us while we are down. On the election of Jim Johnson to the State Supreme Court, the BIAW’s Erin Shannon once kvelled, “It was a big ‘Fuck you!’ to all the liberals out there. […] We are kicking their ass. How many years have we whipped labor?” And these were the carefully chosen words of the BIAW’s PR Director, talking to a reporter. Message sent; message received.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and we can’t always choose our allies (hell, even Dori and I couldn’t avoid agreeing in our mutual opposition to puppy tossing), but when you adopt the BIAW’s talking points you grant them a credibility that they do not deserve, and help them further an agenda that is diametrically opposed to the interests of your constituents and to that of Washington’s Democratic majority. For if those anti-6385 talking points are presumed authoritative and evenhanded, why not the many other talking points the BIAW spews forth on a regular basis:

“One of my priority goals as the 2008 President of the Building Industry Association of Washington is to replace anti-small business and antiaffordable housing Governor Gregoire with her pro-small business and affordable housing challenger Dino Rossi. […] I am therefore not upholding my oath if I do not speak the truth about Gregoire’s record and do everything in my power to defeat her. She attacks affordable housing, and BIAW members are in overwhelming need of relief from her onslaught of attacks against the homebuilding industry. […] BIAW and its members are Rock Solid behind Rossi.”
— BIAW President Brad Spears, January 2008

“I urge you to call on President Bush to fire John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Western Washington. […] I presume Mr. McKay has adamantly refused to investigate because he’s a Democrat… I thought the process by which Mr. McKay, a Democrat, was appointed was reprehensible… Please ask the White House to replace Mr. McKay”
— BIAW Executive VP Tom McCabe, Letter to Rep. Doc Hastings

“Yellow-booted thugs at DOE have shut down builders because some dirt ran off their job sites. […] These self-anointed priests of nature and the bureaucrats who encourage them are using tactics similar to those used 70 years ago in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia.”
— BIAW Executive VP Tom McCabe, September 2007

“There’s an apocalyptic pessimism which seemingly runs through Seattle liberal environmental advocates. […] This attitude and this pessimism likely explains in part why Seattle has lost its children. For those optimists who look for a silver lining in everything, conservatives are having babies and liberals are not which means that eventually conservatives will outnumber liberals in Washington State.”
— BIAW Executive VP Tom McCabe, September 2007

“Is this Gregoire’s new plan to revamp her Hillary Clinton-esque image of a heartless, power-hungry she-wolf who would eat her own young to get ahead?”
— Building Insight Newsletter, January 2008

“I’d like to see Frank Chopp run for Governor,” says Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, which has spent millions of dollars supporting conservative causes and Republican Candidates. “I have a great deal of Respect for him.”
— Seattle Times, July 2006

That is the wit and wisdom of the BIAW, the folks some Democrats are looking to for rhetorical guidance in discussing this issue. The only thing more arrogant and politically dangerous than McCabe and his crew is the delusion Speaker Chopp and other Democrats seem to hold that these are people they can work with. You don’t need to watch your back Frank, because when the time comes, McCabe will thrust that knife in so deep that you’ll see the blade emerging from your chest.

Democratic Gov. Elliot Spitzer of New York, who once prosecuted a high-end prostitution ring as Attorney General, has apparently been uncovered as a customer of one as well. “Sources” expect his resignation is imminent.

Of course, we do not yet know the details of the investigation, or whether Spitzer is legally guilty of anything more than the misdemeanor of hiring a prostitute (if that), so I’m not prepared to comment on whether he should or should not resign. I am, however, deeply disappointed in Spitzer, who I had viewed as a rising Democratic star.

That said, I would like to take a moment to comment on the difference between the way Democrats and Republicans (the “family values” party) react to sex scandals. Spitzer has immediately come forward with a personal and public apology, but that hasn’t halted a wave of demands for his resignation from progressive bloggers, legacy media types and fellow Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans Larry Craig (soliciting sex in a men’s room) and David Vitter (diaper-wearing john) both still serve in the US Senate, while former Rep. Mark Foley’s Republican colleagues covered up his sexual predation for years, leaving House pages at risk. Republicans Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain all infamously engaged in adulterous affairs without apparent harm to their political careers… while Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

If Democrats want to demand higher personal standards from our own politicians than Republicans obviously demand of their’s, well, that’s up to us. No doubt Spitzer has admitted to a supreme act of hypocrisy. But if Republicans and the “objective” and “impartial” media want to join in and demand Spitzer’s resignation, they better demand the resignation of Sen. Vitter as well, lest they be branded equally hypocritical.

In defending their opposition to SB 6385, the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, several Democratic representatives have been responding to constituents with BIAW talking points, but by far the most transparently silly is this line of defense, which has been put forward in one form or another by multiple legislators:

A law passed by the legislature years ago to protect condominium owners had an unintended consequence of creating an “insurance crisis.” Because insurance for building condominiums was not available, the town center of Mercer Island has 400 plus apartments!

During the last five years, the legislature, through passage of “Cure,” “Affirmative Defense” and “Condominium Act” reform, began the process of bringing back predictability to the contractor insurance market that had been damaged from earlier Legislation. This was in response to the lack of insurance available to builders–especially condo builders.

SB 6385 would undo all that has been gained and would force medium and small contractors out of business because they would not be able to obtain third-party warranties and general liability insurance. At the very least, the cost of housing would dramatically increase for all new homebuyers.

Forget for a moment that this “insurance crisis” was created by damage claims arising from crappy construction, and that if builders and insurers had wanted to avert this crisis they could have implemented a construction inspection program instead of waiting for the Legislature to mandate one. And disregard the fact that SB 6385 merely gives single family homebuyers the same protections currently granted condo buyers today, including those reforms of the last five years, so the bill doesn’t actually “undo” anything.

Forget all that. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that the statements above are irrefutable fact, and if so… wouldn’t that imply that Speaker Frank Chopp and the other conscientious defenders of affordable housing should be working their asses off to repeal the condo warranties? Don’t condo developers deserve the same immunity from lawsuits currently enjoyed by developers of single family homes? Isn’t anybody going to protect our state’s vulnerable builders from the predatory practices of their own customers? Mercer Island already has (gasp) “400 plus apartments” for God’s sake… when will this savagery end?

You see where I’m going.

Unlike others, I don’t entirely blame the Eastside Democrats who are doing the BIAW’s dirty work; they either believe the talking points they spew, or they’ve made the shrewd political calculation that this is what they need to do to hold office in their swing districts. (Or, perhaps, some combination of the two.) But the Dems don’t need their votes to pass this bill in the House, so in the end, it all comes down to Speaker Chopp. So what is it Frank…? Who deserves your protection more, homebuyers or condo builders? Because if you’re gonna stand by and quietly watch your members repeat BIAW bullshit like this, you are laying the groundwork for the latter.

Once again, a local professional sports team’s threats to move the franchise are resulting in lawmakers flouting their own rules (and, oh, yeah, the desires of a vast majority of their constituents) in order to throw public money at a project which will primarily serve to benefit team owners. And once again, local TV, radio, and newspapers are breathlessly fawning over the proposal, without bothering to note that said media outlets have a tremendous financial interest in the success of the proposal. So sliced bread has nothing on this latest unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to Save “Our” Sonics.

Sigh.

It’s not the fault of the Sonics’ current owners, of course, that we’ve been down this road so many times now, with Safeco Field, Qwest Field, Key Arena, and the Bank of America Arena (which is at least owned by a public entity, UW, and whose renovation was mostly paid for by private donors). The financings of Safeco and Qwest in particular were ugly affairs in which the clear will of local voters was defied by politicians in order to accommodate team owners. So you’ll forgive folks a bit of “here-we-go-again” knee-jerk hatred for yet another fleecing, again joyously celebrated by willfully tone-deaf local media.

I actually think the proposal on the table now from four local billionaires to renovate Key Arena with $150 million of their own money, matched by $75 million each from the city and state, is about as good a proposal (and therefore about as reasonable a compromise) as one could hope for, given that the economics of modern pro sports now rely on the public to build teams’ playpens, and there’s always another sucker (in this case, Oklahoma City; previously, the Mariners were heading to Tampa Bay, the Seahawks to Southern California) willing to pay the price. In any other circumstances, this deal would work.

But there’ always a context, and this is a specific proposal, not an abstraction. As such, there are still three major problems we’re not hearing about from our sycophantic local media.

First is that the proposal’s success relies on current Sonics owner Clay Bennett selling the team to our local guys. Bennett has been telling anyone and everyone, consistently since day one, that he has no interest in selling the team. So the whole exercise is unlikely to result in “saving” the Sonics. Moreover, NBA commissioner David Stern, who has a lot to say about the matter, has warned that if the Sonics leave, Seattle won’t get another team.

The proposal is set up to meet the restrictions of (overwhelmingly voter-approved) I-91, which requires that the city at least break even on any arena improvement deal. So the public’s $150 million is to go to overall improvements to the arena, things that will also help with concerts, exhibitions, and the like, while the private $150 million is supposedly the only part dedicated wholly to pro basketball amenities like locker rooms and luxury suites. But that’s a game, of course; this is all about the Sonics. Nobody’s demanding $150 million in improvements so that the public can enjoy rock concerts in greater comfort. Given that, what we’re talking about is an extremely expensive public investment in appeasing a team that’s likely to move anyway. That’s one minor problem.

The second is that even if this were an ideal proposal (i.e., one with a chance of accomplishing its stated goal), the process is awful. By coming to the state legislature for $75 million six working days before the end of the session, boosters are essentially asking lawmakers to ignore all legal procedures and drop all state business in the remaining week in order to consider a very local problem: the “blight” that results if Key Arena were to lose 41 basketball games a year (some of which would be replaced by concerts that now can’t be booked). To use the appropriate analogy, it’s as if a coach whose team is losing badly midway through the fourth quarter suddenly insisted on throwing out the results, starting the score at 0-0, and if his team is still losing at the end of the game, continuing to play (a special session) until they win.

Each legislative session, a couple thousand bills are proposed, most of which fail — not because they’re bad bills, but because the session’s limited time forces politicians to prioritize. The Sonics proposal wants to skip the committee approvals, the public hearings, the deadlines, all the normal hoops bills must jump through, for what in the greater scheme of things is a pretty low state priority.

Lastly, there’s the local $75 million, which Mayor Greg Nickels has already generously pledged. Aside from the fact that it’s supposed to be the city council, not the mayor, who makes city spending decisions, isn’t this the same Greg Nickels who not a month ago wasn’t paying assistance to dislocated renters because there was no money for it? And now he’s magically found $75 million for a bunch of wealthy Oklahoma businessmen, for a proposal whose local economic benefits would be negligible even if it were successful in saving the team? Which it probably won’t be?

There’s a word for this whole process. And it’s not “generous.”