Search Results for: ’

I love that my two favorite local politicians are hashing things out in the mayor’s race. In this case, they have dueling posts on Slog about sub area equity. Sub area equity is an important issue for a Seattle mayor who will have a seat on the Sound Transit Board of Directors. First, was Ed Murray, who I agree with in general, opposing sub are equity (I’m ignoring the political sniping in both; I’m pro political sniping, but not what I want to write about here).

Sound Transit’s sub-area equity requires that any money raised in one of the five sub-areas of the Sound Transit district must be spent in that sub-area. It may seem sensible on the surface, but it is really a terrible policy, originally cooked up by light rail opponent Rob McKenna (when he served on the King County Council and the Sound Transit board) as a way of forcing transit dollars that should have been spent in Seattle to be diverted to the suburbs instead.

Sub-area equity has done more harm to the cause of efficient deployment of limited transit dollars in the central Puget Sound—and thus more harm to Seattle—than any other single decision made in the last two decades of transit planning. It allocates dollars based not on density and demand for service, but on political geography. Instead of building a system from the inside out to maximize ridership and benefit smart land use decisions, it balkanizes the region and facilitates sprawl.

Sub-area equity needs to go. And it needs to be replaced with a more sensible policy that stipulates that Sound Transit dollars will be spent efficiently to add light rail where it will have the maximum impact in terms of moving people, i.e. in denser cities like Seattle and our growing inner-ring suburbs. Such a policy would ensure that Seattle’s transit needs are better accommodated – particularly our underserved West side Green Line communities including Ballard and West Seattle – while also ensuring that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas where population densities are insufficient to support strong ridership.

I’m not sure it encourages sprawl (it brings transit to less dense places, but those places are already sprawling). But in general, I agree that there’s more bang for the buck in denser areas. And transit ought to be built more in our big cities and inner ring cities, and sub area equity is a hindrance to that. So fair enough.

Mayor McGinn has a response.

In fact, at the urging of myself and others, the Sound Transit board accelerated all of their planning around the region so we are prepared to go to the ballot in 2016 if the legislature gives Sound Transit revenue authority to support expansion.

All of that work falls apart if a Seattle mayor suddenly decided they wanted to change the deal. By attacking sub-area equity Ed Murray threatens to blow up Sound Transit. Sound Transit’s board was willing to advance these rail planning studies in Seattle in part because I pledged Seattle’s support to help complete the regional system. Communities outside of Seattle have been banking on future rail while the central portion has been built in Seattle. Proposing to end sub-area equity and take the money for Seattle is guaranteed to destroy the regional political coalition for rail and doom the chances of putting Sound Transit 3 on the ballot in 2016.

Further, sub-area equity protects Seattle. The recession significantly reduced Sound Transit’s revenues too, and they are working hard to meet their commitments elsewhere in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. We need to ensure revenue raised in Seattle stays in Seattle to support our projects – which is why Seattle needs to defend sub-area equity, not attack it.

Even though McGinn probably wrote the better piece, I still agree with Ed Murray on sub area equity.

– Valiant protectors of our civil liberties, except when we might actually need our civil liberties protected.

– Pause…allow the incredible affront of that shit to marinate…continue.

– King Street Station, your argument is irrelevant.

– A friend describes me as an Alex Jones hipster, someone who was well aware and entertained by America’s leading conspiracy theorist long before he started showing up on CNN or hanging out with Charlie Sheen.

– Something close to 8% of ALL West, Texas residents were either injured or killed in the explosion.

– Don’t take the Cinnamon Challenge

– Tumwater Towers

Ugh on a stick, the state GOP.

Bailey was a guest last week on conservative talk radio KVI, where Republican State Chairman Kirby Wilbur is a frequent fill-in host. The two debunked the Dream Act as a way of damaging the Republican franchise rather than helping immigrants’ kids get an education. Democrats had just failed in a bid to force a Senate floor vote.

“It should be obvious, at least to anyone with an IQ above their waist size, that these (bills) have been picked for their political impact, has nothing to do with caring and compassion, to continue this mantra that Republicans are racists,” said Wilbur. “I mean, it seems to me it’s pretty obvious.”

Sen. Bailey agreed.

“It is pretty obvious that it is political. This bill has been brought forward at least twice before by (Sen.) Ed Murray, whgo is the sponsor of the Senate bill, at a time when both the Senate, the House and the Governor’s mansion were controlled by the Democrats and it begs the question: If this is such an important, absolutely needed bill, why didn’t it pass during those times?”

First off THAT’S NOT WHAT BEGS THE QUESTION MEANS! You mean it raises the question. Question begging is making a circular argument. When you use it wrong you sound like a dummy, and I hate you.* Second, if it’s just a trick, why not vote for it like a significant portion of the House GOP Caucus? Or at least let it come to a vote in committee? Or just let the people who want to testify testify? I mean honestly. Anyway, keep talking.

“Here’s another fact: If these (undocumented) students were added to the pool that already exists, underserved (sic) citizens, then the only way those students would ever get financial aid is if they are considered and given preferential treatment above citizens.”

Fact! Just look it up.

Anyway, after finding out about that, Rodney Tom knew just who to get mad at.

Tom has taken to blaming State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, for its failure. The “Senate Majority Coalition” offered Kohl-Welles chairmanship of the Higher Education Committee. She refused to take it, on grounds that the governing coalition was under Republican control and would leave her with no authority.

Tom sent out a legislative “session update” last week that sharply attacked Kohl-Welles. He was called to account by Murray for violating Senate rules by using the e-mail newsletter to deliver a partisan attack on a colleague. The update, too, was edited.

I guess she forced him to vote against allowing the vote on the floor of the Senate.

[Read more…]

I don’t like the idea of sub area equity, although it may have saved Sound Transit politically by getting early buy in from the suburbs when Central Link and Tacoma Link were the biggest projects. Still, generally speaking, political solutions designed to reassure suburbanites that big mean Seattle isn’t going to take all of their money (when the opposite is generally true) and that put arbitrary restrictions on transit development aren’t my favorite. See also, 40-40-20.

So the fact that Ed Murray is opposed to it is somewhat of a positive for me (although his doing it in a way that specifically attacks building rail to from Ballard to Downtown is not helpful). But over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman makes the case for Sub Area Equity.

Subarea equity originally existed because suburban legislators, in creating Sound Transit, wanted to make sure that suburban money didn’t end up spent in Seattle. As a result, Link implementation was at first slower. But now that Sound Transit 2 is passed, the North King subarea’s “spine” is fully funded. Most of the political pressure on Sound Transit is now to expand to Tacoma, Everett, and Redmond, and most of the board votes are outside Seattle.

In a Sound Transit 3 package, subarea equity is paramount to ensuring that we get a new line in Seattle – it ensures that Seattle’s contribution stays in the city, and political pressure doesn’t move money out to the ends of the lines.

Murray claims that his reason for wanting to remove subarea equity would be to focus transit investment in Seattle – but the outcome of removing it would be the opposite. As a transit advocate who wants Seattle to have more grade separated transit, this is scary because it’s a direct threat to a new line in the city, and it’s scary because a mayoral candidate should have a better grasp of the issues.

It does seem rather abhorrent to have sub area equity when we’re building Central Link and Tacoma Link and then not have it when we’re building out to the suburbs.

There are many reasons why Latinos tend to shy away from supporting Republicans. First, it’s because Republican politicians are constantly telegraphing to Latinos that they are second class citizens. Never mind the blatantly racist crap we get from politicians like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There is enough subtle stuff to last a political lifetime. You know, like nutjburger Sharron Angle defending before an auditorium of Latino student, her “illegal immigrant” ads portraying Mexican individuals as sinister:

I don’t know that all of you are Latino…Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that.

“Mexican? Were they really Mexican?!?” Uh huh. Right.

Or Rep. Don Young (R-AK) casually throwing out the term “wetbacks” in referring to immigrant workers on his father’s farm.

Latinos also have plenty of good policy reasons to shy away from Republicans. Republicans aren’t particularly good about supporting policies that serve or protect relatively disadvantaged populations of any sort. They have become the party of preserving privilege for the privileged. Sadly, they aren’t going to be able to change their policies overnight. And, even then, the image problem will lag for years behind the policy change.

It will take Republicans years to decades to repair all of this self-inflicted damage. Immigration reform is one of those policies that offer Republicans…well, not exactly opportunity. But maybe something….

Politico’s Emily Schultheis points out the catch-22 that Republicans find themselves in over immigration reform. Essentially, blocking immigration reform will further alienate them, and hinder their image reform goals (see The Autopsy). For years to come.

Alternatively, by enacting immigration reform:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

Theoretically, the Republicans could get some political advantage among current Latino voters by supporting immigration reform. That’s good for them in the short run. The real problem comes 13 years down the road:

Extrapolating 2012 voting trends to the 2028 presidential election — the first in which previously undocumented Hispanics could exercise their voting rights after a 13-year path to citizenship — is an inherently speculative exercise. But it is one that highlights the political sword hanging over Republicans as they consider immigration reform with a path to citizenship, an idea that is already deeply unpopular with many red-state constituencies.

To support the measure virtually guarantees millions of new Democratic voters.

What to do? I think the only reasonable thing for Republicans is the Hail Mary Pass. Passing immigration reform now at least gives them a fighting chance to win the “hearts and minds” of Latino voters. It’s a gamble, because they would have make huge progress in “image reform” by the time year 13 arrives. And, even then, it will most likely only allow them to minimize the damage.

The alternative—further pissing off the community—comes with an immediate hit that will only be compounded by the time the 13-year Gauntlet is run.

But it will also hurt like hell in 2020, when Republicans stand to lose their lopsided advantage from the 2010 gerrymandered congressional districts. That will set Republicans back, possibly for decades.

I hope Republicans do strongly back immigration reform. Not because I want them to have a shot at redemption with Latinos. Rather, because it is the proper policy that will improve the lives of millions of people, including a great many U.S. citizens—like U.S.-born children whose parents are undocumented.

What I see as the biggest threat to the future of the Republican party is the heightened xenophobia in the wake of the Boston bombing that may end up dominating their party. It threatens to foreclose on their Hail Mary option.

The Senate can’t get 60 votes on background checks at gun shows, and I don’t even know what to write anymore. I mean honestly. This is a measure with 90% approval, and it’s so on the margin of what needs to be done to prevent the type of violence that’s been happening.

Background checks and limits to the amount of ammunition that can be fired before reloading are where the debate is. Maybe it’ll be a bit tougher for the worst people to get guns. Maybe the next killer will have to reload and maybe move on before he’s killed as many of the children in a room. Maybe only 10 or 15 kids will die in the next attack. Nothing to address handguns, or urban crime more generally. And that is too fucking much.

I don’t know what to say, except maybe thank God Gabby Giffords can still write.

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

I don’t know what I can possibly add to her piece, except a determination to keep working. And of course fuck Instapundit.

This story is great.

A West Virginia high school student is filing an injunction against her principal, who she claims is threatening to punish her for speaking out against a factually inaccurate abstinence assembly at her school. Katelyn Campbell, who is the student body vice president at George Washington High School, alleges her principal threatened to call the college where she’s been accepted to report that she has “bad character.”

[…]

But it didn’t end with a simple difference of opinion among Campbell and her principal. The high school senior alleges that Aulenbacher threatened to call Wellesley College, where Campbell has been accepted to study in the fall, after she spoke to the press about her objections to the assembly. According to Campbell, her principal said, “How would you feel if I called your college and told them what bad character you have and what a backstabber you are?” Campbell alleges that Aulenbacher continued to berate her in his office, eventually driving her to tears. “He threatened me and my future in order to put forth his own personal agenda and make teachers and students feel they cant speak up because of fear of retaliation,” she said of the incident.

Despite being threatened, Campbell is not backing down. She hopes that filing this injunction will protect her freedom of speech to continue advocating for comprehensive sexual health resources for West Virginia’s youth. “West Virginia has the ninth highest pregnancy rate in the U.S.,” Campbell told the Gazette. “I should be able to be informed in my school what birth control is and how I can get it. With the policy at GW, under George Aulenbacher, information about birth control and sex education has been suppressed. Our nurse wasn’t allowed to talk about where you can get birth control for free in the city of Charleston.”

So, first and foremost, the kids are OK. Despite adults lying to them, they know what’s up. That’s true of sex. It’s true of drugs. It’s true of plenty of life. Lying to people you’re trying to educate can’t work out well.

But here, I want to say that even if you accept the principal’s and the assembly speaker’s notion that abstinence only education will lead to people waiting until marriage to have sex, and you think that’s a good thing that it’s not a good thing to teach.

Imagine someone who attended that assembly and waited until they were married to have sex because of it. Wouldn’t they still want to know how effective birth control was for real? If their partner had had sex before they married our hypothetical student and had got a disease, wouldn’t they want to know what was effective at preventing getting it? I mean this seems pretty basic. If you keep that sort of info from them until they’re married, it doesn’t just magically become available on their wedding night.

I’m just going to say it right now. This press release is the greatest thing in at least the English language, and probably other languages too. All words are obsolete once you read it.

It’s Benton 1, U.S. transportation secretary 0 in Columbia River Crossing debate at Capitol

I like so much about that title, that it’s tough to know what’s the best: Is it that he gave himself a score and then bragged about the score he gave himself as if it’s objective? Is it that even by his own reckoning, he only won the meeting by 1 point? Is it the fact that the title implies that this is the beginning, rather than the middle of a process that has been going on for years? Is it that the Federal government is offering to give his district money, and he’s complaining about it? Is it that he describes an ostensibly closed door meeting as a debate? Is it that Secretary LaHood probably didn’t even know that there was a game afoot?

Those are all good choices to be sure, but I think the best is that he never defines the scale that 1 to 0 is on or how one earns a point. So here is some speculation:

• Score half a point per guest you treat like a jerk
• The number of goats each brought to the meeting
• One point per person videotaping someone without their permission (more on that later in the piece)
• On a scale of 0 to 10 who Senator Benton likes the best
• A scale of 0 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the numbers were pulled randomly
• A scale of -5 to 5 who polkas the best
• Whoever left the meeting with the most smug satisfaction gets a point
• 1/3 of a point each time you masturbate to your own press release
• Smallest penis gets a point
• One point if you’re scared of the idea of public transportation

Oh my God, we’re not even into the meat of the press release yet. Courage. Here we go.

Sen. Don Benton says there’s no question that the people of Clark County came out ahead this morning when he and members of the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus went toe-to-toe with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood over the Columbia River Crossing project.

That’s a rather fancy way of saying I sat across a table with a guy who offered me a bunch of money to help build a bridge, but I wanted to build a different bridge, and probably more money. Also, no question? If you asked everyone in Clark County there would be 100% agreement on this opinion?

“I’ve been working hard to keep our coalition members informed about the many significant flaws in the CRC project, so we were ready with questions when Governor Inslee brought Secretary LaHood in to lobby our coalition this morning. As a result, it wasn’t even a fair fight. I’d say we schooled the transportation secretary in a way he couldn’t possibly have expected,” said Benton, R-Vancouver, noting LaHood’s visit is part of a CRC propaganda blitz at the Capitol today.

I should say here I don’t really have an opinion on the Columbia River Crossing. Still, imagine if a Seattle legislator acted this way to the Secretary of Transportation over, say, Highway 99. The outrage from the people who are perpetually outraged that Seattle exists would be amazing. I mean the meeting was of the Majority Caucus and not the GOP ostensibly in part because Seattle’s legislators are too arrogant.

“I guess the governor thought he could strong-arm the Senate Majority Coalition into rolling over by bringing the D.C. folks in to give us the same ‘this bridge or no bridge’ lecture he’s been delivering. Instead, the transportation secretary had his hat handed to him, and I have to believe I will find even more support now for my efforts to force a redesign of the CRC project.”

I guess they were hoping that saying, “we have a fuckton of money, here take it” would at least keep the Majority Coalition from whining like a bunch of little babies. That was obviously incorrect.

Benton said he and other coalition members let LaHood have it on the whole range of CRC concerns: how the bridge height would cost Clark County thousands of permanent jobs, how replacing the Interstate 5 bridge without addressing the corridor as a whole would fail to reduce commute times from Clark County to Portland by more than one minute, the financial liability that would go with including an extension of light rail from Portland, and more.

I have no idea, again, if those are valid concerns. But anyone who is opposing getting light rail in the same sentence he worries about commutes into Portland is an idiot. Light rail will obviously help Vancouver commuters.

Project supporters want the Legislature to authorize a $450 million allocation, which would serve as Washington’s share of the $3.5 billion CRC project; with less than three weeks to go in the 2013 legislative session, Benton said, the writing on the wall is becoming clearer.

There is literally no cliche that this press release won’t include.

“I was very proud of how our coalition joined me in standing up for the people of Clark County,” said Benton, who is the coalition’s deputy leader. “The governor and the CRC supporters are obviously getting more desperate by the day; they see how time is running out to get the Legislature to go along with this boondoggle.”

They’d like to spend money in your neck of the woods. You can disagree with if and how, but come the fuck on.

“The best thing the governor can do now, after seeing that his federal emissary couldn’t sell this boondoggle to our coalition, is to agree to a redesign of the project.”

Because a meeting went poorly (in that people who wanted to act like asses acted like asses) we have to start over. Obviously.

Anyway, I wasn’t the only person to notice that this is an embarrassment. Jim Camden of the Spokesman-Review has a great take on it (I think the S-R has a limited number of clicks, but I’ve never hit it). Really, sometimes you need to just write in disbelief like I’ve been doing for several paragraphs now, but sometimes the journalistic prose is the way to go.

When LaHood and Inslee stopped by the Senate Republican Caucus room to urge them to pass a transportation budget in it with money for the bridge, and thus allow the state to get its hands on lots of federal money, he was, to put it mildly, rebuffed by opponents like Sen. Don Benton of Vancouver. All while someone was videotaping the exchange.

Later that day Inslee and LaHood held a press conference in the governor’s conference room to make a public appeal for the Legislature to vote for money for the bridge. As soon as they left, Benton emerged from the back of the room to hold a counter press conference to say that it shouldn’t. The senator’s office later circulated a press release exclaiming he had “schooled” LaHood on the bridge and declared the score “Benton 1, transportation secretary 0”. the caucus sent out a link to a YouTube clip of their discussion in the caucus room.

This appalled Senate Democrats, who thought a cabinet secretary should be treated with a greater modicum of respect, and shouldn’t be taping conversations without his permission. Senate Republicans promptly took the video clip off YouTube, and Majority Leader Rodney Tom of Medina later teol [sic] the Seattle Times it had been inadvertently posted, although how it could be edited with an intro, sent to YouTube, a link created and connected to a tweet isn’t immediately clear.

And that’s what winning 1-0 looks like.

– Happy Jackie Robinson Day.

– I’ve got a get a car.

– I don’t know what’s worse, the general dickishness of this picture, or that fact that people from Mercer Island and Auburn think they’re cowboys.

– It’s a little hard to unpack what he is doing here. First of all, he means fetuses. Second, it is impossible to arm fetuses (but if it was possible, @bridoc has a good point: “Fetuses have awful aim”). Third, the implication is that fetuses would shoot doctors performing abortions. Therefore the “Vote Pro-Life!” at the bottom of the bumper sticker seems perhaps out of place?

– Child sex trafficking – as easy in Seattle as ordering a pizza

– Bitcoin isn’t a currency. It’s a commodity.

This is a great and all. I’m totally supportive of it, and I hope to see it happen.

The US Bicycle Route System is a vision for a network of these routes, allowing for easier and safer bicycle travel to all reaches of the nation. The country already has some active segments in the Mid-West and East Coast.

Washington is working to develop USBR 10, working with towns, cities and parks across northern Washington. And, as the Bicycle Alliance of Washington’s John Pope reports, the collaboration has already resulted in some unexpected benefits.

It sounds like an amazing thing, and I’d certainly take it some way. But I can’t imagine going to Eastern Washington on a bike, but I’m not in the greatest shape of my life. Maybe it’s less daunting if you’re planning it. God bless anyone who would be willing and able to do it.

I would be more inclined to go South to Vancouver, then to Longview, and then up the East Sound. That sounds like a fun vacation if the vision for Washington is ever completed. I wonder how long that would take if the route is ever completed?

In the mayor’s race, the mainstream media and local bigwigs are assuming Mike McGinn is done. And I get it: he isn’t popular. He has had problems with police accountability. Dumbasses think paying market rates for parking and installing bike lanes are a war on cars.* Something something the tunnel. But given that they all told us Greg Nickels would have a cakewalk, I’m not so sure. And neither is UNITE HERE Local 8, as they’ve just endorsed him.

During his first term, Mayor McGinn played an instrumental role in passing Seattle’s groundbreaking paid sick days law. He also publicly supported Hyatt workers in their effort to organize for a better workplace free of employer intimidation, and championed the creation of good jobs for stadium workers with the return of the Seattle Supersonics.

“Mayor McGinn has proven to be an incredibly strong advocate for hospitality workers in Seattle,” said Erik Van Rossum, President of UNITE HERE Local 8. “From passing the nation’s third paid sick leave law to creating jobs and standing with workers, Mayor McGinn is the most progressive mayor in America.”

“Mayor McGinn has consistently supported good quality jobs and responsible economic growth,” continued Van Rossum. “Time and again when hotel housekeepers, cooks, dishwashers, servers and stadium concession workers need a strong voice at City Hall, Mayor McGinn is there.”

He still has a lot of work to do to get reelected, or for that matter to get out of the primary (by way of full disclosure: including to get my vote, although if the election were today, I’d vote for him). But certainly this is the right sort of endorsement to get. It reminds people why The Seattle Times and bidness people hate him, and it may be a dedicated force of door knockers and phone callers for a campaign that will be short of cash compared to some of the others.

[Read more…]

One of the biggest hurdles to implementing I-502 in Washington is banking:

Banks fall under the scrutiny of federal regulators such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And bankers fear punishment if their account holders violate anti-money laundering laws. I’ve also heard that banks are worried about pot-related businesses leasing out space in commercial real estate properties on which banks hold loans, which could limit where marijuana producers or retailers locate.

The pot industry’s banking dilemma is making it harder for state leaders to set up a legal pot industry in Washington. Scott Jarvis, director of Washington’s Department of Financial Institutions, recently went to Washington, D.C., and met with several federal banking regulators seeking clarity. Jarvis left without an answer.

This has long been a problem for medical marijuana businesses and is expected to be just as problematic for the new recreational marijuana businesses in both Washington and Colorado. With the emergence of bitcoins, however, does this provide a workable alternative?

Once considered a nutty idea favored by computer geeks and anti-government types, bitcoin is gaining traction as a legitimate way to buy and sell goods.

True believers say it’s the future of Internet commerce, where the world is united in a common digital currency rather than dollars, euros, yens, pounds or pesos.

Shorter term, bitcoin has become a scorching-hot commodity among speculators who are trading the virtual currency at a record clip in deals worth millions of actual dollars.

I don’t have any well-formed opinions yet about the bitcoin phenomenon, but I’m very curious whether this would be a feasible workaround to the banking problem. I guess the main obstacles would be getting enough customer acceptance and perhaps tracking and paying all the required business taxes, but I certainly haven’t thought this through. Your thoughts?

I’m generally a rights of defendants person. And more generally a you can have your day in court person. But even with those filters, this seems like a dumb lawsuit (Links to the TNT, so use your clicks accordingly).

Paula Henry’s husband was fatally shot by a family friend in Tacoma in 1995, and now 18 years later her husband’s killer is suing her and others from prison.

Larry Shandola alleges that Henry violated his privacy rights and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, in part by telling the state Department of Corrections that he shouldn’t be allowed to serve his sentence in his birth country of Canada.

…

Now Shandola is seeking $100,000 each from Paula Henry and other defendants, according to court records. He had Henry served with the lawsuit at her home, which prompted her to move because she was terrified that he knew where she lived, Ladenburg said.

Some of Henry’s friends and a victim’s advocate are also named in the suit and have had to pay thousands to defend themselves, Ladenburg said.

A motion to dismiss the lawsuit will be heard Friday, he said. Henry is requesting $10,000 in statutory damages, according to court documents.

I mean unless there’s something I’m missing here this is, on top of being cruel, just dumb.

The linked article says that while it’s too late to do something about this sort of thing in the legislature unless it’s attached to another bill. I don’t know how that would pass muster with the 2 items requirement, but if they can do that, great.

The Queen Anne, Belltown, and Downtown business people are upset that Hempfest is going to exist and are couching it in complaints about the venue.

At the request of the BBA Board, BBA President Jim Miller joined with the Downtown Seattle Association and the Uptown Alliance in a letter to the City’s Office of Economic Development requesting that the City not issue a permit to Hempfest for use of Myrtle Edwards Park unless specific conditions are met.

The letter states that the size of Hempfest at 250,000 participants has outgrown the 4.8 acres of Myrtle Edwards as a safe and appropriate venue, that customer access to nearby waterfront businesses is closed off during the festival, and that noise, traffic, and trash are a direct impact to the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

We can’t have tourists coming to one of the most vibrant areas of the city? That would be a negative? It seems overblown to me, as someone who has never been to Hempfest.

And I suppose I have been negatively impacted: I once had to bike to Ballard using a different route! The bottom line is that the city functions just fine when Hempfest is going on. And the downtown location is a draw. People from out of state can find a hotel in walking distance, for example.

Also, one of their proposals — shortening the event to one day — seems counterproductive if the goal is to not crowd the park. I assume some people are only coming for one day. If the business groups got their way, instead of some of them going on Saturday and some on Sunday, they’d all come in on the same day.

Ben Livingston writes in Slog about how the state Office of Financial Management was using some fuzzy calculations to overestimate the tax revenues that’ll be generated by I-502. It’s not terribly unusual to see drug law reformers overstating this case, but it’s a clear sign of how times have changed when a state agency is doing it.

This concern over failing to pull in the expected revenues from I-502 is echoed by Mark Kleiman, the state’s new “pot consultant”, in his recent interview on TVW (which you can see at the bottom of Livingston’s post). From that same interview, Kleiman is additionally concerned about whether people who are already in the medical marijuana community will switch over to the non-medical market when it’s available:

Washington state many he headed toward a situation where recreational sales of marijuana are not profitable due to heavy taxes, regulations and, most importantly, competition from the untaxed “collective gardens” where the state’s medical marijuana is grown, Washington’s newly hired pot consultant said last week.

“Any revenue estimate depends on actually having people come to the licit market rather than having them use one of the parallel markets,” UCLA professor and author Mark Kleiman commented last week’s episode of the Washington-based news program “Inside Olympia.” “What if you gave pot legalization and nobody came? It is entirely possible that by the time we finish regulating and taxing this product, it’s going to be uncompetitive with what you can get at the collective gardens.”

[Read more…]