HorsesAss.Org

Check out these two stories, and connect the dots.

Seattle Times:

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher[…]

This is a popular talking point for some conservative or liberatarian think tanks, and it is often employed when attacking a certain landmark 1990 bill:

A key regulation is the state’s Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area’s unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

I want to sidestep the politics here and take you to Erica C. Barnett’s recent column in The Stranger:

Growth management—which calls for concentrating growth in areas that are well served by transit, encouraging people to live close to where they work, and discouraging or banning new sprawl that promotes driving and harms the environment—isn’t working.

[…]

Growth management needs teeth to work. That means smaller growth-management boundaries, real limits or even a ban on growth outside those boundaries, affordable housing incentives in cities and inner-ring suburbs, sensible policies to encourage trip reduction, and land-use decisions that encourage tall, dense developments in cities and already dense suburban areas.

First, a few thoughts about that UW study:

The nearly 200k they reference includes lots of things you’d hate to see eliminated from your neighborhood. Without money for sidewalks, parks, or schools, our neighborhoods would suffer. Without a design review, folks would go nuts at the idea of another condo building and no means to influence its design, adn that’s something we value. Growth is supposed to pay for growth, even if it bumps up the sticker price on one of those crappy Quadrant homes.

Erica does get a lot of things right. Cities should build more within their own boundaries, so that the ‘burbs look a bit more like the good neighborhoods of Seattle. Anti-density NIMBYs here in town shouldn’t get to hog the housing agenda. Also, transit isn’t a panacea for sprawl. Then again, nothing is.

The people buying houses in and moving to places in Snohomish and Pierce counties are doing so because that’s where they can afford to buy a house. (I’m guessing that King County is omitted because even the shitty parts of it are getting pricey.) It’s supply and demand; not enough of the former and too much of the latter. Adam Smith is biting us in the ass.

We have constricted our housing supply. I don’t think constricting it further would have the effect Erica is looking for. People have proven to us that they will drive for hours (with the price of gas not a limiting factor until it nears 10 bucks a gallon) just to get a three bedroom ranch-style for less than 250k. Some folks will want to live in the city in a townhouse or condo, and some will want the picket fence. Can’t help that.

[As an aside: I’ve noticed that some NIMBY-types from Seattle lash out at sprawl in the ‘burbs while at the very same time complaining about condos in our neighborhoods. As a person who’d like to live in the city and NOT drive miles to my job, I find it odd that Seattle’s urban closed mindedness could be just another cause of sprawl.]

For the past three years Progressive Majority of Washington has been bringing Camp Wellstone to Seattle, a three-day candidate, activist and campaign manager training program conducted in cooperation with Wellstone Action. And during that time, twelve Camp Wellstone alum have gone on to win public office in Washington state:

• Island County Commissioner John Dean
• South Prairie Mayor Peggy Levesque
• State Representative Marko Liias (21st LD)
• Tacoma Parks Commissioner Ryan Mello
• State Senator, Eric Oemig (45th LD)
• Shoreline City Councilmember Cindy Ryu
• Issaquah City Councilmember Joshua Schaer
• Shoreline City Councilmember Terry Scott
• Snohomish County Councilmember Dave Somers
• Seattle Port Commissioner Gael Tarleton
• Kent City Councilmember Elizabeth Watson
• Shoreline City Councilmember Janet Way

I attended that first, Seattle-area Camp Wellstone back in June of 2005, and I recognize the names of at least two camp mates from the list above: State Rep. Marko Liias and State Sen. Eric Oemig. It was also there where I first met Darcy Burner, who clearly learned an entirely different lesson out of the inspiring session on campaign fundraising. (I learned I didn’t have what it takes to raise the money to run for office. She learned that she did.)

I can’t recommend Camp Wellstone highly enough, but this year Seattle area prospective candidates and campaign managers have an even better opportunity to hone their skills, when Progressive Majority brings Wellstone Action’s Advanced Candidate and Campaign Management School to Federal Way, April 25-27. Slots are limited, so in order to be considered, hurry up and send your resume and/or a letter explaining why you wish to participate, by March 15 to dkelley at progressivemajority.org.

A nominal fee of $150 helps cover the cost of a hotel room and meals during the training; a small number of scholarships are available to low-income or unemployed participants.

This week, as I’ve tried to wrap my head around what the hell actually happened at the Republican caucuses on Saturday, the most important person in helping me understanding it all was Pudge from Sound Politics. He was heavily involved in the process and he’s managed to clear up a few misperceptions I had. First, and most importantly, the primary purpose of the Republican caucus on Saturday was not to select their preferred Presidential candidate. It was to select people to be delegates for the next level in their multi-tiered caucus system. That last part sounds a lot like what we did in the Democratic caucuses, but in ours, the number of delegates to be allotted for each candidate was apportioned according to the numbers of people supporting each candidate in the caucus. In the Republican caucus, there was no such criteria at all. They could’ve sent whichever delegates they wanted, regardless of who they were planning to support. Second, because the delegate form had no indication for presidential preference, many of the precinct captains across the state didn’t report their results correctly, which is what ultimately resulted in Boss Esser throwing up his hands Saturday night and just saying, “Fuck it! McCain wins!” and why it’s Wednesday and they’re still only at 96%.

Now as someone who tends to be a stickler for things like democracy and fairness, I prefer the way the Democrats did things. Pudge, on the other hand, does not:

In the Republican Party, the precincts decide for themselves on what basis to elect their delegates. In the Democratic Party, the precincts are required (by the “elite” “party bosses”) to select delegates based on presidential preference.

You see, by being forced to use a system that democratically allots the number of delegates for each candidate, we’ve completely limited our freedom to be able to send delegates based upon who’s the best dressed, or the tallest, or who can play the meanest harmonica. What the hell is wrong with us?

You know what irritates me most about Seattle Times editorials? Their tone. Their holier than thou, we know better than you do attitude that seems to permeate nearly everything they write. They don’t discuss, they don’t debate… they just make pronouncements, without feeling the need to ever back themselves up with… what are those things called again? Oh yeah… facts. Take for instance today’s timely editorial on transportation governance reform: “Sound Transit reform deserves the fast lane.”

The Senate Transportation Committee in Olympia has been sitting on a bill that would reform Sound Transit and subject it to voter control. Called Substitute Senate Bill 6772, it is a way out of the muddle, and the committee ought to move it.

Ought they? Really? In that case, might it have behooved you to run this editorial, gee… I dunno… sometime before yesterday’s cut-off for moving the bill out of committee?

Currently, Sound Transit is governed by a board of politicians. All but one are elected — but, like Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the chairman, they are elected to something else. The result is that this agency, which is spending billions of our dollars, is under no direct voter control. Voters also have no right of initiative or referendum.

Oh no! Sound Transit is governed by a board of politicians! Heaven forfend! And the best way to correct that horror is to replace it with a board of directly elected… um… politicians. And in low-profile, “nonpartisan” races where your buddies in the business community can buy control through huge infusions of cash. At least that way voters can be assured of getting the kind of competent, accountable governance we get from similar directly elected bodies, like you know, the Seattle Port Commission.

The transit-only folks delude themselves if they believe voters killed last fall’s “Roads and Transit” ballot measure because they didn’t want the roads. They do want the roads. And the idea of combining transit and roads was right. Both are needed. The ballot measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high.

Um… when the Times says voters “do want roads,” and the “measure failed because the light-rail part was too expensive and created a tax that was too high,” they’re basing those assertions on what? Polls? Intuition? Gentle assurances from John Stanton over foie gras and Chateau Lynch-Bages at the Rainier Club? A public opinion fairy they plucked out of their ass?

Yeah, that’s right, Prop 1 failed solely because of the rail portion of the package. All those polls that showed RTID dragging the measure down, and all that opposition from anti-roads advocates like the Sierra Club — that had absolutely nothing to do with Prop 1’s failure. Jesus… talk about deluded.

The bill to which we refer changes Sound Transit into an agency focused on mobility — cars, trucks, rail and buses included. We regret that the bill does not include the rights of initiative and referendum, but at least it creates direct voter control, which is crucial if voters are to approve another tax increase.

No, the bill to which they refer, but don’t bother to explain, essentially eliminates Sound Transit and gives its name and assets to a new, multi-county transportation agency governed by a board of six-figure-a-year commissioners. Sweet.

The other problem is that Sound Transit is a rail and bus agency only, whereas the need is for mobility in general. What is needed is an agency to invest in transit and roads, to satisfy demand for each and extract the most mobility per taxpayer dollar.

Translation: we want to take dollars from rail, use some of the money to paint the words “Rapid Transit” on the sides of buses, and spend all the rest on roads.

The other problem is that the Seattle Times is a daily newspaper only, whereas what is really needed around here is a place where you can get a decent, New York style bagel and some hand-sliced nova. I suppose if we shut down the paper, sink the Blethen’s assets into opening a top-notch kosher deli, and then slap the “Seattle Times” logo on it, that might do the trick.

The Republican minority tried to move the bill out of committee Monday, and failed. It is not even mainly their bill; Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, and the committee chairwoman, is the principal sponsor. Democrats should support their chairman and move the bill toward ultimate approval.

The Republican minority tried to move the bill out of committee, knowing it didn’t have the votes, in a blatant attempt to embarrass Haugen and the Democrats. The unsigned editorialist would have to be a complete idiot not to understand the petty politics behind such a purely procedural maneuver, so I can only assume they were merely being disingenuous. But then, the timing of this editorial, coming one day after cut-off, does suggest total ignorance of the legislative calendar, so maybe I’m being too generous?

Of course the real question here is why the Times is so adamant about demanding “reform” of Sound Transit, an agency that just came through its audits with flying colors, while they remain silent on the issue of reforming the Port of Seattle, an agency so arrogantly mismanaged that it has now become the target of a Justice Department investigation into allegations of criminal fraud? Now that’s what I call “a muddle.”

Within seconds of the polls closing, all the networks and news organizations immediately called the Virginia Democratic primary for Barack Obama, while putative Republican nominee John McCain is projected to be in a neck in neck battle with Mike Huckabee. (According to exit polls, 40% of VA primary voters self-identify as Christian evangelicals. Guess who they’re voting for?)

Obama leads Clinton 62% to 37% with 33% of precincts reporting. It’s 47% to 45% for the other guys.

UPDATE [5:45]:
CNN has called VA for McCain. With 61% reporting, same margins as above.

Once again, the networks stumbled all over themselves calling DC for Obama within seconds of the polls closing… yet so far, no results. (Hmm. Maybe Boss Esser is doing the counting?)

UPDATE [6:20]:
Obama now leads Clinton in VA, 64-35, with 80% of precincts reporting. Still no actual results out of DC, while Maryland polls have been kept open 90 minutes late due to bad vicious weather. I’m headed to DL.

UPDATE [6:33] — Darryl:
NBC News has called DC, MD, & VA for Obama and MD and VA for McCain.

UPDATE [6:55] — Darryl:
McCain takes DC as well. Man…for a “maverick” McCain sure seems entrenched in the Beltway!

UPDATE [7:05] — Goldy:
In the biggest surprise of the night, the Chicago Bulls are leading the New Orleans Hornets 55 to 54, yet Luke Esser has already called the game for McCain with 6:35 to play in the third quarter.

UPDATE [7:40] — Goldy:
The key to influencing Congress is for netroots progressives to seize control of safe Democratic districts. That’s why it is so exciting to see Donna Edwards leading Rep. Al Wynn in the Democratic primary in MD-04. It’s still early — 55-42 with 11% reporting — but it looks awfully damn encouraging.

UPDATE [8:20] — Goldy:
Carl is “horribly bitter” over Clinton’s declining fortunes… as if he needs one more thing to be bitter about.

UPDATE [8:44] — Goldy:
Once again, Obama doesn’t just win, he wins big… 27 point margin in MD, 29 points in VA, 51 points in DC. Has Clinton hired Giuliani’s strategist?

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an 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 earlier than that and enjoy the excellent cuisine while watching returns from the Potomac Primary.

Tonight’s theme song is inspired by Republican State Chair L. Esser: Lesser Things by Jars of Clay. Thanks for all the giggles, snickers, ROTFLs, and guffaws, Luke!

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally (I heard a rumor that George Feairng, now officially a 4th CD candidate, may attend). Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Apparently, we’re almost to 1,000 signatures over at www.letterto710kiro.com

Pour it on, people. Pour. It. On.

Maybe we can get to 1,090 signatures. Who knows?

If you don’t know what this is all about, read this. I’ll see you there.

**************************

Wonks, hacks, friends, superstars:

As many of you know, our dear friend and political wunderkind McKenna Hartman is currently suffering a set back in the form of a law suit and injunction against working, egregiously placed by her to-remain-unnamed former employer.

With a mortgage to pay, groceries to by, and the need for the occasional glass of wine…things are looking pretty dire for McKenna. So….what can you do? Come to an awesome party, show your support, cough up some dough and maybe even buy a night on the town with McKenna.

That’s right. We won’t just be passing around a bucket..we’ll be auctioning off a week of fun with McKenna….7 nights of McKenna. Ooh! Will you be the highest bidder on taking McKenna to her favorite happy hour? Are you dying to escort McKenna to El Gaucho? All possible for the right price!

Please join us:
7 nights of McKenna: A Fundraiser for a Fundraiser
*Kicks off at 6 PM, auction begins just after 7pm.*
Karma Belltown
2318 Second Ave.
Wed, Feb 13th

* If you can’t give, please come anyway and show your support. It’s a party!

* If you can’t come, but can give, let us know! Gifts of support, including taking her out for a meal, or making her dinner are great!

* This is about supporting McKenna, not bashing the unnamed former employer…at least not too much.

* If the injunction gets lifted and McKenna doesn’t need the dough…all proceeds will go to Kiva (http://kiva.org). You know, women owned businesses got to stick together!

See you there!

Sarah Schacht and Cynara Lilly, aka “The Friends”

**************************

So, how totally unprepared were Boss Esser and his boys on caucus straw poll day?

My friends in the traditional media tell me that initially, the WSRP told them that they wouldn’t have caucus results until sometime in mid March, to which the press corps collectively responded… “What the fuck?” (Though not exactly in those words; we all know that real reporters never swear.) Then, when the state Dems announced that they would report results same-day, the R’s relented and said that they would report by the end of the day too. Only they couldn’t. So apparently, they made the whole damn thing up.

They made the whole damn thing up.

Esser understood that his data was garbage — that’s why they initially weren’t going to report results until March — and yet to keep pace with the Dems he reported “results” anyway, eventually declaring McCain the winner, with 14% of who-knows-what left uncounted… and just in time to change the narrative in the Sunday morning headlines. Esser lied to reporters.

“Republicans went through extensive training on how to run a caucus, deal with issues, be scrupulous in observance of the rules, and report results. Discipline has always been our strong suit.”

– The Crackpiper, 2/9/08 5:00 PM

CommentThread.IsOpen = true;

Calling all Sammamish-area Republicans: Did your ex-state senator and current gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi participate in your fantastically run caucuses last weekend? Did he even bother? (Since Goldy mentions that no caucus actually took place, maybe it doesn’t matter, but it’s worth asking.)

So I ask you, did you caucus with Dino Rossi?

On a slightly different note: I ran my precinct’s caucus on Saturday, and I thought I did a not-so-great job… That is, until I started reading all about the totally craptastic job you GOP guys did on Saturday. From one ill-prepared party activist to another, I salute you.

After reading the rules, reviewing the documents and analyzing the data, I am now prepared to categorically state that Sen. John McCain most certainly did not win the Washington state Republican caucus… because there was no Republican caucus, at least not as most people understand the term.

What transpired Saturday afternoon was in fact a straw poll, followed by a delegate selection process that had no direct relationship to presidential preference. Caucus attendees were asked to register at their precinct table, using a form that asks for, but does not specifically require stating one’s presidential preference.

Unlike the Democratic caucus there is no counting and reporting of presidential preference, and no allocation of delegates proportionate to the stated preference of the attendees. There is no time alloted in the agenda for caucus goers to speak on behalf of the presidential candidates, and no opportunity to go back and change one’s preference. After selecting a secretary (and a chairman if no PCO is present) the attendees proceed to nominate and elect delegates and alternates. Nominees are given “a reasonable period of time” to speak on their own behalf, and are required to indicate presidential preference, but there is no requirement that the indicated preference is the same as that stated on the registration form.

Afterwards the caucus officers are required to submit back to the county party a Caucus Report that includes the names and addresses of the elected delegates and alternates, but note that the official form provides no line for reporting the presidential preference of the delegates.

So, on Saturday night, when WSRP Chair Luke Esser disrupted the emerging media narrative of a potential three-state Huckabee sweep, by officially congratulating McCain for “a hard-fought win,” what is it exactly that McCain supposedly won? The delegate count? Hardly, for not only are the delegates not bound to a specific candidate, they weren’t even elected based on presidential preference. (If they were, you’d think they might have included a line for that on the form.) Furthermore, because the state party rules permit county organizations to allocate any number of delegates, as long as they are at least twice the number of precincts, and uniformly apportioned within the county, a precinct delegate from one county might represent a vastly different number of voters (or caucus goers) than a precinct delegate from another, and thus might play a vastly greater or smaller role in ultimately selecting a delegate to the national convention. A statewide precinct delegate count would therefore be an entirely meaningless metric of presidential preference, even assuming it represents presidential preference at all. Which it doesn’t.

To declare McCain the winner of the WA GOP caucus — as Esser has repeatedly done over the past several days — is to imply that he won the most votes, or would ultimately win the most state delegates based on the precinct caucus results, but the raw precinct delegate count as reported by the WSRP directly corresponds to neither. Esser could have reported the results of the straw poll, which would at least have reflected the preference of the caucus attendees. Instead he chose to mislead the media and the public by presenting delegate totals as something they are not.

And in fact, even if precinct delegates were comparable from county to county (and they’re not) and do represent a binding presidential preference (and they don’t,) the results released by the WSRP and a smattering of county organizations would strongly suggest that both Huckabee and Paul would earn more national delegates from the caucus process than the putative winner. McCain won big in King County, but apparently lost almost everywhere else in the state. That would give McCain national delegates from maybe two congressional districts while Huckabee and Paul split the remaining seven.

Of course, I don’t need to explain any of this to Boss Esser — he understood the process better than anybody, and knew that if the precinct delegate totals weren’t totally meaningless they at best predicted the opposite of his Saturday night pronouncement. But the Huckabee “sweep” narrative had to be crushed, and Esser was more than willing to do it. Huckabee’s lawyers can recount all they want; the damage has already been done.

The General thinks the WSRP’s website is boring, so he’s emailed Boss Esser suggesting a snazzy new redesign: