HorsesAss.Org

Obama supporters have ‘White Power” keyed into car

by — ,

Over the weekend we’ve been following a story here in Clark County about a local couple who appear to be the target of racist vandalism simply because they dared to put a Barack Obama yard sign in front of their home. The Columbian ran a small item on Friday night:

Someone scratched the words “White Power” on a car belonging to a Vancouver family who recently posted an “Elect Obama” sign in their front yard.

On Sunday, Frank Wastradowski, who lives northeast of Southwest Washington Medical Center, noticed the vandalism on the side of his wife’s 1993 Plymouth. The letters, likely scratched with a key, were about 8 inches tall.

“It’s a hate crime and it’s time we get past racism,” he said.

Wastradowski said he won’t take the sign down, adding, “That’s my freedom of speech.”

Now KPTV-12 in Portland has a story up about the incident, and we learn that the words “I’m gay” were also scratched into the car. Since the KPTV story features Karen Wastradowski, Frank’s wife, one can only conclude that the vandals were quite intent on displaying their vast stupidity for the world to see.

There are a couple of things worth noting here. Yes, Clark County has its share of unrepentant bigots. Earlier this year the son of a Battle Ground city council member was charged with cyberstalking over virulently racist emails sent to a black council member and other community members. So while vandalism is not exactly an unusual thing during the summer months, it’s also not acceptable to just shrug off racist defacement of private property as “just kids being kids.” They learned it somewhere.

A small ad-hoc group of us here is working on setting up a donation fund for the Wastradowski’s so they don’t have to drive around in a car that says “White Power” on it. My fellow blogger Aneurin at Politics is a Blood Sport has been following the story here and here. Aneurin has talked to Frank Wastradowski, and unsurprisingly the couple did not have full coverage on the car (nothing against 1993 sedans, of course.) We’re working on some details about how to set the fund up and to do it in a way that will aid the Wastradowskis rather than just make a partisan statement.

In a larger sense, if someone can’t place a yard sign for a major party candidate in front of their home without this sort of thing happening, we don’t really have much of a democracy. At this point we are hoping some local Republicans will also come forward and denounce this attack and perhaps throw in a small donation as well.

As things progress I’ll keep HA readers up to date. It might be easy to ignore a relatively small and stupid act of vandalism, but the Wastradowski’s need to know that the community won’t tolerate this sort of thing and will take positive actions to counteract it.

And one other thing, which is in the “gee, that’s kind of curious” file, is that Frank Wastradowski used to be the campaign treasurer for former state Senator Don Carlson, R-Vancouver. There’s no way to know if the vandals knew that, unless someone is caught, but it’s still pretty ironic.

Rob McKenna sucks up to foreclosure rescue scammers

by — ,

He may not be much of a lawyer, but Attorney General Rob McKenna has a well-earned reputation as one of our state’s most talented politicians… if by “talented politician” you mean a shameless suck up. Rob’s just a guy who can’t say “no” to potential constituencies… you know, the kinda guy who might actually thank you for suing his client, as long as such blatantly inappropriate brown-nosing served his long term political aspirations.

Our AG’s unrivaled talent at political bootlicking was on display once again in a recent article in the Seattle Weekly, in which McKenna—a self-proclaimed crusader against consumer fraud—bizarrely comes out on the wrong side of mortgage foreclosure rescue scams in a seemingly unselfconscious effort to curry favor with the well-heeled Washington Association of Realtors.

McKenna has been less enthusiastic about that foreclosure measure as the state’s realtors have stepped up their criticism of it. The Washington Association of Realtors recently posted a video on its Web site decrying the measure and talking about plans to get it changed. The video features McKenna. In it, he says the foreclosure bill that passed “was far different than what I originally proposed. The state Senate added in a lot of language that we never intended and that we actively opposed with our friends in the realtor community.”

Oh really? Here’s a clip from the Realtor’s video, so you can see McKenna making the case in his own words:

So McKenna and his “friends in the realtor community” actively opposed the Senate amendment, but those sneaky Democrats still managed to ruin his bill? Through a spokesperson McKenna goes on to claim:

But Kristin Alexander, spokesperson for the AG’s office, claims the amendments were dropped into the bill only hours before the legislature passed it. “We had literally moments in which to review the legislation,” she says. She points to the bill’s history as proof: In February and March, the bill morphed through several drafts before the House and Senate agreed on a final version—only a day before it was delivered to Gregoire.

“The [consultant] language was in, and then it was passed and we never had time to react,” Riley says. “If we had known it was in there, we would have pitched a fit, we would have gone to huge lengths to eliminate it. But we didn’t know.”

Uh-huh.

In fact, as the Weekly fails to point out to its readers, the bill’s history actually proves the opposite: the amendment received a public hearing before the Senate Consumer Protection & Housing Committee on February 29, six days before its initial passage in the Senate, and a full twelve days before its unanimous passage in the House. As anybody who knows the workings of Olympia will tell you, that’s an eternity during a legislative session; indeed, far from having no time to react, the Senate bill report clearly shows that Jim Sugarman of the AG’s office not only didn’t utter a word in opposition to the amendment, he testified in favor of the bill, and that nobody from the “realtor community” opposed the bill on the grounds that are now at the heart of the dispute.

So what is it about this bill that has McKenna and the realtor’s undies in a knot? The “distressed property” bill was intended to address an increasingly common scam, in which homeowners facing imminent foreclosure are convinced to sell their houses for nothing, in exchange for a fraudulent promise to let them stay in their homes, and eventually buy the title back. As McKenna suggests, the original House bill, as introduced by Rep. Pat Lantz, was narrowly focused, only sanctioning those parties who fraudulently receive title of these distressed properties. But in reality, many of these scams are facilitated by shady realtors who do not receive title themselves, but are compensated by the crooks who do.

The provision to which McKenna and the realtors now suddenly object—a provision that Rep. Lantz testified made her bill “even better,” and that passed both the House and the Senate by near unanimous margins—merely extends liability to licensed realtors, mandating that they have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the interests of the homeowners, while providing full disclosure of the terms of the agreement. Seems pretty commonsense to me, kinda like requiring ice cream vendors to sell you, you know… ice cream. So the problem is…?

Realtors now claim that this measure would open them up to frivolous lawsuits, a complaint that A) is facially ridiculous; and B) was never raised while the measure was being considered.

As for A), anybody could sue anybody for anything; for example, McKenna could sue me for libelously implying that he’s in cahoots with foreclosure rescue scammers. He wouldn’t win, but he could sue me, and he could cost me an awful lot of time and a pretty penny in the process. But that hasn’t stopped the realtors from playing victim here:

Riley wants to get realtors exempted from the fiduciary duty, as mortgage brokers and nonprofit counseling agencies are, under the law. He says realtors are vulnerable in that if a buyer gets a very good deal on a home, and if later the seller decides the deal was too good, the seller could sue. “What’s happened as a result is that some of our members have elected not to help these people, and let the homes go to foreclosure, because they think it’s safer to do that because of the increased liability,” says Riley.

Such a scenario is not implausible, says Melissa Huelsman, a Seattle-based consumer-advocacy attorney who was involved in crafting the law. However, “they’re, in my opinion, stretching it in a way that no rational judge would ever view it. This law in no way, shape, or form was directed at those kinds of transactions.” No one contacted for this story had heard of a lawsuit yet being filed under the law.

[State Sen. Brian] Weinstein agrees. He says the new law would only impose liability on a realtor who did not put the homeowner’s best interest first, or who failed to comply with the disclosures required in the bill, causing economic harm to the homeowner as a result of the transaction.

I’ve spoken with both Huelsman and Weinstein, and neither would object to inserting language specifying that this provision is not meant to extend liability to such frivolous circumstances… but then, neither think it necessary. And both assure me that this concern had never been raised during the lengthy discussions between realtors, consumer advocates, the AG’s office and legislators during the months that led up to final passage.

In fact, contrary to McKenna’s claim that he “actively opposed” this measure at the time, Huelsman tells me that she never heard a single objection on such grounds until two months after the bill’s final passage.

So what accounts for McKenna’s sudden change of heart (and history)? If he really believes there’s a liability issue here, his office certainly didn’t catch it at the time, so perhaps he’s just trying to cover for his own screw up? Or maybe he once again got caught up in the moment, telling the realtors what they wanted hear, the record be damned, as he often does when speaking to special interest groups?

But whatever his motives the tactics seem clear: a calculated effort to strong arm the legislature into striking a necessary and reasonable consumer protection provision… an effort that ultimately benefits nobody but the handful of crooked real estate agents who are cruelly scamming WA families out of their homes. And an effort on whose behalf he’s even willing to allow himself to be caught in a lie.

Somehow, you’d think we might expect more from an AG who has made fighting consumer fraud a centerpiece of his reelection campaign.

UPDATE:
The fucking cowards at the Washington Association of Realtors had YouTube pull my clip, which was without a doubt fair use. (Why do they hate America?) No bother, I’ll just post it again using another a service.

Ann Coulter, accomplice to murder

by — ,

Sure, the guy is nuts, but this is what inevitably comes from violent, eliminationist rhetoric:

The shotgun-wielding suspect in Sunday’s mass shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church planned to shoot until police shot him, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said this morning.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he described his feelings and why he committed the shooting, Owen said.

Adkisson said he was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job and how much he hated the liberal movement, Owen said.

Adkisson hated liberals… and so he shot up a Unitarian church. During a children’s play.

Committing suicide by going on a shooting rampage in a Unitarian church is like shooting fish in a barrel and expecting the fish to shoot back. The Unitarians I’ve known are about the most peaceful and harmless folks I’ve ever met; indeed, the only church less likely for Adkisson to find armed resistance would have been a Friends meeting house. (And even then, only maybe.)

So of course this guy was crazy. Sane people don’t go on shooting rampages.

But hatred like his doesn’t grow in a vacuum; it is nurtured, shaped and focused by hate-mongers like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, who cheer at the notion of killing a few liberals to keep us in line, or who have made careers out of vilifying the political opposition as terrorists or traitors or worse. No, neither Coulter nor O’Reilly nor any of their cohorts pulled the trigger, but they surely understood that their words might feed the insanity of someone who could. If these are the mullahs of the extremist right, then the liberal-hating homicidal Adkisson is a suicide bomber of their own creation.

Say what you want about the aggressive rhetoric of netroots activists like me, but we don’t advocate violence, because we understand that ultimately, the sole purpose of advocacy is to incite action.

UPDATE:
Sam Smith at Scholars and Rogues weighs in:

Jim Adkisson was an unbalanced man, and perhaps it was only a matter of time before he snapped. But two questions to ponder: first, who created the conditions that hastened the snap? And second, when the train jumped the tracks, who created the bogeyman that the diseased brain latched onto as the cause of all the pain?

[Read more…]

Nothing to see here, except that there’s nothing to see here

by — ,

When I clicked on the headline in today’s Seattle P-I, “Statewide primary races getting little voter attention,” and saw that it was an AP wire story, I just had to laugh.

Do ya think, maybe, the reason voters are paying so little attention to down ballot races, is that our dailies are paying so little attention to them?  Hmm.  It’s a plausible theory, you gotta admit.

Stolen Property

by — ,

It’s been nearly two weeks since Seattle Police raided the Lifevine offices in the University District. The return of the medical records for several hundred patients resolved the most egregious error made that day, but the police continue to hold onto 12 ounces of medicine which was also confiscated. The medicine belongs to Martin Martinez, a registered medical marijuana patient. The police recognize that Martinez is a registered patient, was allowed to be in possession of the marijuana, but for unclear reasons, they are refusing to give it back.

(Just to provide some perspective, I have no idea who provides medicine for Martin, but if he were forced to replace what was taken through the black market, it would cost him a couple thousand dollars)

I briefly spoke with Leo Poort, an attorney working for the Seattle Police Department, who was vague about why the police were doing what they were doing and referred me to Martinez’s attorney, Douglas Hiatt. At the Cascadia NORML website, the following explanation of the relevant law is provided:

There is no justification for police to seize medical marijuana from a legal marijuana patient. WA State law is very specific on that point. RCW; 69.51A 040 reads: “If a law enforcement officer determines that marijuana is being possessed lawfully under the medical marijuana law, the officer may document the amount of marijuana, take a representative sample that is large enough to test, but not seize the marijuana”.

Police authorities have misconstrued that sentence to mean that officers may or may not confiscate the medicine at their discretion, but as any student of the English language can plainly see, that interpretation is completely incorrect. The word “may” in that sentence clearly applies to the last section of that sentence, not the entire subject of the sentence. We believe an educated jury will agree that WA statute 69.51A 040 means: “officers may take samples of the medicine, but they may not seize the marijuana when they have determined that marijuana is possessed legally by a patient.”

Seattle Police continue to stonewall Lifevine Attorney Douglas Hiatt who has made several verbal requests for the return of the 12 ounces seized on July 15, 2008.

On Saturday, I was at a BBQ with some friends. I’m at that age where a lot of my friends have young kids, and one of the older kids (around 5 years old) was playing with his toy phaser. The adults were playing along, pretending to get shot and falling down. Eventually, a slightly older boy saw the fun, wanted the phaser for himself, and just took it right out of his hands. His mother had to explain to him that you can’t just take something from someone for no reason. This is a lesson I expect to see being taught to kindergarten-age kids. The adults in the Seattle Police Department who we trust to serve and protect us shouldn’t need it too.

Justice for sale

by — ,

Some amount of attention has been paid in recent years to the enormous amount of special interest money that has flooded into our state Supreme Court races. This is part of a nationwide pattern in which the US Chamber of Commerce alone has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade targeting judicial races, successfully building pro-business, conservative majorities on benches in state after state.

But here in Washington we elect all our judges, from the Supremes all the way down to our local municipal court… low profile races that, given the restrictions on the candidates (they are actually barred from talking about issues), often turn on name recognition more than any other factor. And to gain name ID, you gotta spend money, mostly in the form of expensive direct mail campaigns.

Take for example the race for King County Superior Court Position 22, a three way contest between Julia Garratt, Holly Hill and Rebeccah Graham. This is one of those rare, easy judicial races for me because Graham is not only an extremely qualified attorney who has presided over thousands of cases as a Superior Court pro tem judge… she is also a close personal friend. That said, I hadn’t intended to write about the race because I don’t feel particularly qualified to judge judges, and I don’t think my personal endorsements hold much sway.

But this race illustrates a deeper problem with the way we elect judges, a problem which deserves a broader dialogue.

Take a look at the “Cash Raised” column in the PDC reports, and it looks like a pretty damn competitive race, with Garratt, Hill and Graham raising $14,370, $14,595 and $11,240 respectively. That’s the amount of money folks like you and I have given to the candidates, but in this race it tells much less than half the story, for while cash contributions represent the sum total of what Graham has raised thus far, Garratt has loaned her campaign an additional $12,600, while Hill has invested a staggering $70,000 in personal funds into her own race.

$70,000! That’s more than twice the total contributions raised by nearly every other candidate running for King County Superior Court, and from what I know about local judicial races, it’s gotta make Hill the hands down favorite. It just blows her opponents out of the water, and you can be sure that this was exactly her intent.

I don’t bring this up as a personal knock against Hill; while she doesn’t come anywhere near the valuable bench experience Graham has accumulated over her six years as a pro tem judge, I’m told Hill is both a good attorney and a good person. But are all our citizens really best served by a judiciary where personal wealth—and the willingness to use it—becomes the most important qualification?

Of course the real solution is to stop electing judges in the first place. I’m about as engaged a voter as you’ll find, and I generally have no idea who to vote for in judicial races. (I usually ask Graham and my other lawyer friends for advice.) But no matter how wise, this state is never going to vote for less Democracy, so the system we have is pretty much the system we’re stuck with.

But what we can do is move toward a system of public financing that would lift the fundraising burden from our judicial candidates (who aren’t even allowed to directly solicit funds in the first place), and remove the distorting role of money from races for offices that I think we all agree should remain scrupulously apolitical.

Unless, of course, you’re a free market ideologue who believes that society is best served when everything—even justice—goes to the highest bidder.

Death without dignity

by — ,

No, the headline isn’t referring to I-1000 mentioned below, the sensible and humane statewide initiative that would allow physicians to (legally) prescribe lethal medication to terminally ill patients under narrow circumstances. Rather, I’m talking about Eric Alterman’s column in today’s Seattle P-I, chronicling the slow, sad death of our daily newspapers.

The flight of readers and advertisers to the Web has led to an unprecedented assault on stockholder value, making newspapers the investment equivalent of slow-motion seppuku.

For instance, on July 11 Alan Mutter’s invaluable Reflections of a Newsosaur blog reported that in “perhaps the worst single trading day ever” for the newspaper business, “the shares of seven publicly held newspaper companies today plunged to the(ir) lowest point in modern history.”

When losses continued to accelerate, Mutter calculated that newspaper stocks had shed $3.9 billion in value in just the first 10 trading days of July, leading to the disappearance of more than 35 percent of those companies’ combined stock price in 2008 alone.

It’s been nearly 2 1/2 years since the much-missed Molly Ivins observed of media moguls that, “for some reason, they assume people will want to buy more newspapers if they have less news in them and are less useful.”

And yet the strategy continues unabated.

The accountants may tell you that the logical thing to do is to cut expenses in line with declining revenue, but I’m pretty damn sure newspaper publishers would be better off heeding Ivans’ commonsense observations than those of the bean counters. The newspaper industry is in the midst of a rapid and dramatic transformation that does not have to lead to its death. Now is the time for innovation and risk taking; those who gamble right will win and thrive, while those who gamble wrong may perish. But those who don’t gamble at all—who merely continue to do the same old thing, but less of it—will slowly and surely drift off into oblivion, their own obituary dominating the front page of their final edition.

And that’s a death without dignity.

Personally, I’m rooting for the Times and the P-I to gamble right. I know there are some at those papers who take my relentless criticism as some form of deep seated hostility, but I’m a child of Watergate, an avid newspaper consumer who grew up idolizing reporters. Yeah, sure, I’m a tough critic… but only because I care.

And if anybody in management at either daily ever wants to sit down and talk with me about my ideas for reimagining the newspaper business (some of which don’t even include hiring me), I’m always up for a cup of coffee or a beer. You know how to reach me.

Maybe we need a 20-cent tax on astroturf?

by — ,

“As if the cost of gas and food weren’t high enough, the Seattle City Council is planning a twenty cent tax on every grocery bag, and a costly ban on take out food containers… Enough is enough!”

“We don’t need another hit to our pocketbooks,” the exasperated voice on the radio ad tells us… but who exactly is “we”…? A consumer protection organization? Advocates for the working poor? Knee-jerk, anti-tax ideologues like my good friends at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation?

No, as Paper Noose reveals over at Blogging Georgetown, the ad is produced and paid for by one of Seattle’s most beloved and engaged civic organizations, the… uh… American Chemistry Council.

Actually, this radio ad is a creation of the ACC’s faux environmental arm, Progressive Bag Affiliates, whose stated mission is to promote “the responsible use, reuse, recycling and disposal of plastic bags,” and whose oh so “progressive” members include:

Yup. You can’t get much more progressive than that.

So as you listen to the ad, remember that polyethylene bags aren’t the only kind of plastic garbage these chemical companies produce. They’re also pretty damn good at astroturfing.

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/7801.mp3]

Former Supreme Court justices to file suit against BIAW

by — ,

Former Washington State Supreme Court justices Faith Ireland and Robert Utter have notified Attorney General Rob McKenna and county prosecutors that they intend to file suit against the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) and the Master Builders Association alleging massive public disclosure violations, unless prosecutors take action within 45 days. From a press release issued this morning by their attorneys:

A secret campaign war chest created by leaders of a statewide builder’s association to influence this fall’s gubernatorial election has been openly challenged by a group that includes two prestigious former State Supreme Court justices: Robert Utter and Faith Ireland.

The amount of money amassed by the BIAW has been estimated at upwards of $3.5 million. Contrary to state law, the BIAW and the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County (MBA) are not registered as a Political Committees, nor have they publicly disclosed the sources of their campaign money.

[…] Former Justice Faith Ireland supports the effort to force transparency in the electoral process. “Washington has good public disclosure laws and when they are enforced, we will have a transparent, accountable political process. Without enforcement, sneak tactics and last minute ambush can unfairly influence the outcome of important races,” Ireland stated.

Former Justice Robert Utter agrees. “I believe the actions of the BIAW violate the letter and spirit of the public disclosure law in this campaign season and in past seasons as well. The law provides for a process to test these concerns. I look forward to a successful determination of the issues.”

I’ve only quickly skimmed the Notice of Intent to Sue, but the arguments look pretty compelling and well supported, and it’s hard to believe a couple of former Supreme Court justices would get behind such a suit if they weren’t pretty damn confident about the legal underpinnings.

Attorney Knoll Lowney calls the BIAW’s actions perhaps “the most significant violation of campaign finance laws in state history,” and the consequences could end up being much, much greater than just a PDC fine. Almost as an afterthought the press release mentions another pending case:

In a related matter, a class action suit (RE Sources v. BIAW) is pending in Thurston County. That lawsuit, filed by BIAW trust beneficiaries, alleges that BIAW funneled trust money that was earmarked for marketing and promoting worker safety into their political activities. That class action seeks accounting, preservation and restoration of the BIAW trust fund. Questions relating to this action may also be answered at the press conference.

If successful, this suit could force the BIAW to pay back into the trust fund the millions of dollars it has illegally spent on political campaigns over the years, essentially bankrupting the association. Gee, I sure hope our state’s radio and TV stations are getting cash up front for all those lying BIAW ads.

McKenna defends Spokane compact… and so does the record

by — ,

Dino Rossi and the BIAW are attempting to make their manufactroversy over the Spokane tribal gaming compact a key issue in their mean-spirited, racist and dishonest campaign against Gov. Chris Gregoire. So they’re probably not all that pleased with state Attorney General Rob McKenna straying from the script in speaking at a recent conference of the Washington Indian Gaming Association.

In responding to complaints about the attacks, McKenna told tribal leaders:

“It was a negotiation,” McKenna said. “It was conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law and it produced a compact which was adopted strictly within the requirements of the framework of state and federal law. Period. And if anyone ever questions the process I would be happy to tell them that, to the letter, we believe the law was scrupulously followed.”

He also said the compacts themselves were working well, though the actual policies they advanced are open to debate.

There ya go… the Republican AG calling bullshit on Republican legislative leaders’ bullshit demands to investigate the negotiations. Of course, McKenna has a habit of telling audiences what they want to hear, but he’s absolutely right in stating that the compact negotiations were “conducted strictly in the framework of state and federal law,” a framework, by the way, that our local media clearly doesn’t fully understand. For example…

Republicans in the House and Senate … want to know which tribes, if any, requested that the Governor’s Office step in to strike revenue sharing from the tribal compact and if there were promises of campaign support in exchange for the governor’s actions.

But in exchange for revenue sharing the rejected compact would have provided the Spokanes a tenfold increase in the number of allocated slot machines, along with many other goodies, and if you understand federal law you’d understand that the other tribes would all have had the right to take the same exact terms. Um… do the math. 75% of one thousand is a helluva lot more loot than 100% of one hundred.

And, if you understand federal law you’d also understand that no other tribe would have been obligated to accept the terms of the Spokane compact and its revenue sharing provision, so there would have been zero incentive one way or the other for tribal leaders to kill it.

In fact, this was the deal the tribes wanted, as I’ve explained in cogent (if excruciating) detail here and here. I know this because I personally worked to kill this compact, both in front of and behind the scenes, an effort on which I enjoyed the support of members of the Republican legislative caucus… so if you don’t believe my analysis of the revenue sharing compact and its political reception at the time, perhaps you’ll believe the words of Republican state Rep. Bruce Chandler, the ranking minority member of the State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee, in his own goddamn press release:

“The interests of Washington citizens were not represented in these negotiations,” said Chandler, R-Granger. “Voters have made it clear they don’t want what the governor is giving away. We should not accept expanded gambling activities when they have been overwhelmingly opposed by communities.”

Initiative 892, which failed by a 61 to 39 percent state vote in 2004, would have allowed an expansion of gambling in licensed non-tribal gambling establishments. The measure received even less support in Spokane County where it failed 63 to 37 percent.

The compact released Thursday would allow the Spokane Tribe of Indians to install up to 4,700 cash-operated slot machines — the first to be legalized in the state. It would also be the first to allow no-limit betting on table games. Chandler says the effect would reach beyond Spokane casinos.

“When the governor expands gambling for one tribe, other tribes in Washington are allowed to request that their compacts be amended in the same favorable terms,” said Chandler. “This compact will dramatically expand gambling throughout the state. I’m concerned the governor has not fully considered the significant economic and social implications.”

Yes, that’s right… the Republican caucus openly and vocally opposed the revenue sharing compact at the time… the very same folks who are now demanding that Gov. Gregoire be investigated for rejecting the compact. And reporters continue to grant them more credibility on this issue than they grant me?

So there you have it, the Republican state Attorney General on the record saying the compacts are working well, and were negotiated “strictly in the framework of state and federal law,” while the ranking Republican member of the pertinent House committee is contemporaneously on the record as demanding the governor do exactly what his caucus is now attacking the governor for having done.

If there is a controversy, it is entirely manufactured by Rossi and the BIAW… a con job in which our state media has been regrettably complicit.

Sound Transit II on the ballot this November

by — ,

By a 16-2 margin, the Sound Transit board voted today to put a $17 billion, 15-year Phase II expansion package on the ballot this fall. King County Executive Ron Sims and Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer voted no, while state DOT director Paula Hammond proved earlier rumors wrong, voting yes after pushing through a last minute amendment to front-load expanded bus service.

The package expands light rail north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way and east to Redmond, and includes a 25% expansion of ST express bus service and a 65% expansion of Sounder commuter rail, along with street car connectors on Capitol Hill and in Tacoma. All this would be paid for with a .5% increase in the sales tax; that’ll cost you about $69 per year on average, roughly equivalent to the cost of a single tank of gas. (Personally, I wish ST had a less regressive revenue source at its disposal, but it doesn’t, and so our choice at the moment is to build the infrastructure we need with the taxing authority we have, or build nothing at all. That’s reality.)

TANGENTIAL NOTE:
During their frequent appearances on my radio show, I routinely locked horns with The Stranger’s Erica Barnett and Josh Feit over last year’s “Roads & Transit” package. They opposed Prop 1, arguing that Sound Transit would come back the next year with a better package, sans roads. I thought they were being politically naive, and argued that the powers that be would never allow ST to come back with a transit-only package in 2008, and would be picked apart by the “governance reform” vultures well before 2009.

I am not at all unhappy to admit that they were right and I was wrong.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

I no longer use Twitter or Facebook because Nazis. But until BlueSky is bought and enshittified, you can still follow me at @goldyha.bsky.social

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.