Tacoma News Tribune columnist Peter Callaghan says it's hard to really buy the line that the sprawling new $65 million "state of the art" training facility planned in Renton by the Seattle Seahawks is "privately funded" because after all, the franchise got a crucial $300 million gift from the legislature in 1997.
When the Seahawks and nearly every other NFL team take hundreds of millions of tax dollars, how do we know where public money stops and private money begins? Well, we might have known had state Attorney General Rob McKenna not given Seahawks owner Paul Allen a pass on disclosing the team’s financial statement. That was one of the requirements in the 1997 law that turned over $300 million in public money for Questionable Accounting Practices Field. But McKenna bought the pitch from Allen’s lawyers that the Legislature didn’t really mean what the Legislature meant. Allen has used the tax money to transform a franchise he bought for $200 million in 1997 into one worth $823 million, according to numbers denied taxpayers but leaked to Forbes magazine. That makes it one of the few Allen investments making money. But without the taxes, there would be no profit. So is the new headquarters privately funded or publicly funded?Probably both. It’s a classic example of the public-private partnership in which the public takes all the risk and the private takes all the profit. Fans don’t want to hear it. Get to the Super Bowl and you can do darn near anything.....we’re fed the line that to really succeed you need locker rooms so large you can’t see from end to end because of the curvature of the Earth....the fans...get hit with increased ticket prices and TV timeouts more numerous than holding penalties. But it’s OK, as long as they win.
With a few notable exceptions, most pro athletes these days are interchangeable bodies for hire, and the vast majority of sports team owners slick pickpockets with bone-crushing publicists and lobbyists. The whole racket stinks, and the least we can do is let 'em do is sink or swim on their own. Not a penny more in public subsidies for any Seattle pro sports team. Especially the Sonics. You want sports? Don't reach into my pocket to pay for it. Take a hike, ride a bike, kill a deer.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 30, 2006 07:30 AM | Email ThisOverpaid, whining, drug addicts that should be in prison.
C'mon, they're playing a GAME. Why on Earth do people idolize them, particularly when they behave like criminals?
The Forbes estimate of the value of the franchise is mostly guess work as sports franchises mostly trade on the basis of the bigger fool theory.
That the Seahawks are financially healthly is a plus, it puts the franchise in a better position to remain competitive because of these financial resources.
Posted by: Gary B on June 30, 2006 08:59 AMWe do need to get serious about thinning the Deer & Crow and Rabbit populations in America. They are out of control.
Some MidWestern states have had a serious problem of Deer wasting disease, a problem that could affect other species and humans if the tainted flesh is consumed.
The Audubon Society reports there are more Deer & Crow in America today than during anytime since the Audubon Society has been keeping tabs.
I take several deer a year off my acreage and probably should take that many more. The best non-lethal way to protect your landscape is an electric fence, (probably not legal in Shoreline), or an outside dog.
My Mastiff's is gonna catch a deer one of these evenings. It is something to see a 200 pound dog chase a deer down and nip at its hocks.
Posted by: need more hunters on June 30, 2006 09:01 AMI wonder if these teams are as good an investment for the public at large, including non-sports fans, as the sports industry seems to think?
It certainly seems like these teams (who are nearly all owned by zillionaires) are heavily subsidized by taxpayers, which strikes me as silly. If a team can't pay its own bills, or build its own facilities, tell me again why I should pay for them? Is it for the public good, or for the good of the well-paid team corporation?
If Microsoft want a new building, they should pay for the building.
If Boeing wants an asset, they should pay for that asset.
I am NOT here to pick up the tab for big business, be it a sports team, a software company, or an aerospace manufacturer.
Tey never fail to say how it benefits the community, but always fail to provide the numbers of how the community makes a profit from the subsidies. Typical BS government accounting.
Posted by: Fred on June 30, 2006 10:14 AMPrime example... The City of Seattle was 100% dead set against any money for Key Arena until they saw a chance to take the $200 million plan and inflate it to $1 Billion to pay for all their "prefered" subsidys.
For every person that gets on the Sounder train, pays their $3, and takes $16.80 out of taxpayer pockets (not counting the $350 a head in capital cost per trip)... For every person that enjoys the "arts" paid for with public money (which ironicly is there because of the taxes collected for sports facilities)... For every person that uses the Burk Gillman trail... and who has their kids attending public schools (while denying those that might want to put their kids in private school the chance to do it without paying twice). You are hypocrites if you ever use or enjoy any of these things but says no to a program that actually benifits the public.
I personally don't attend Mariners games but I fully realize the huge financial and "quality of life" benifits that the team and Safeco field provide. There is no denying the huge impact on the community that the team had during their 1995-2002 run as one of the best in baseball.
The huge impact the Seahawks have had since Paul Allen took over. The whole "Sodo" area is rejuvinated because of these two facilities.
I personally think the Sonics should give Seattle the middle finger and move to Renton or Bellevue. You would witness a huge benifit in either of those areas from having the team and would see a huge loss to the Seattle Center and surrounding area if they leave. But some people are not bright enough to see the big picture, all they see is that someone with money stands to benifit, without realizing that the sports owners just happen to give them a media target while the people getting wealthy off taxpayer money building and running Sound Transit do so without public attention.
I mean come on, no one is really stupid enough to think that billions spent to move a few hundred people around is money well spent, are they?
Posted by: Coz on June 30, 2006 11:06 AM"Thus, we'll take money from even people who don't care about pro sports, because they don't know what's good for them. "
We take money from people who don't care about public education (no kids, pay for private schools, whatever), or people who don't care about public transportation (who realize that there will never be a bus or train that can take them from where they are to where they want to go), or don't care about parks and trails (who would rather go to a movie, sporting event, or stay at home), but we all pay for them.
Libertarian,
You do realize don't you that you pay for Microsoft, Boeing, and other large business's to build new buildings don't you? They are called tax breaks for business investment.
If people don't like sports, fine, don't watch them or attend them, if you don't like the players, fine, they are spoiled and over pampered (kinda like the Seattle Mayor, King County Executive, and Governor), and if you don't like Paul Allen or Howard Shultz, fine, I can understand all those emotions.
What I can't understand is the ignorance that it requires for people to be "outraged" over Sports facilities in a state that ranks #6 in the nation for public spending per capita while they keep putting the worst tax and spend agenda folks back into office.
Posted by: Coz on June 30, 2006 11:19 AMIn terms of its statement about America, it seems like sports used to be an active American analogy of capitalism and healthy free enterprise competition -- a national past-time. A metaphor for aggressive social dynamism.
Today it appears to be a direct substitute for concern and attention about current affairs; a way to escape reality or skim over critical analysis in favor of leisure thinking. Sports scores and statistics are more relevant to many people today than who is using public resources (taxes) and for what. If sports fans used the same critical thinking about current events that they do about baseball, Democrats would never again be elected, and GW Bush would likely be considered the best President in history as he should be.
I think it is a primarily male thing -- an outlet to aggression; a useful diversion or steam valve of primal urges; an excuse not to go down to the courthouse and blow the brains out of a few liberal democrat communist "public servants." To this extent -- at least for Democrats' sake -- it might be a good thing. For America, I'm not so sure.
Imagine the 1760's in America if they had sports franchises. George III was a dunderhead. Constitutional America would never have existed because the colonists would have taken the season off to watch the "Brutal Brits" outplay the "Boston Continentals". The Brits would win because they had more dough to pay players with. In order to maintain order over the colonies, all the Brits would have needed to do was build a stadium. Then they could easily tax the piss out of the wiggo Bostoners and exploit the colonies at the same time.
Silly as it may seem -- take sports away willy nilly and you might have instant and violent revolution. At the very least, you would need some other good alternate explanations for why Americans make such foolish decisions like subsidizing Seattle pro sports or voting Democrat.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 11:27 AMIf you have a link to some data which shows any of the sports teams new facilities has had a net economic benefit to the area, please post it.
Posted by: Palouse on June 30, 2006 11:28 AMHis perceived IQ is sinking fast, dangerously close to the Greg Johns range.
He doesn't have to pay any tax money to support the stadium unless he eats in a restaurant, attends a game, or rents a car, right?
Posted by: South County on June 30, 2006 11:30 AMA subsidy is where we take already collected tax dollars and give it back to a business to help them cover shortfalls of some kind. I don't agree with those.
Having the public pay for their business buildings is going too far. Especially when the PUBLIC has little other use of that facility.
P.S. - I do have season tickets to the Seahawks.
In Pierce County, John “Chambers Creek” Ladenburg is building a new upscale golf resort at TAXPAYERS expense, where green fees will range upwards of $250.00 to $300.00 per round. Not many Pierce County residents can afford those rates to play on a golf course that their TAX DOLLARS built and will maintain.
In Tacoma, we passed an $87,000,000.00 million Metro Parks improvement bond and we cannot get $7,500 of that money to fix an UNSAFE girl’s softball field in a Browns Point park. Metro Parks feels the money would be better spent taking OUT playground equipment and resurfacing & painting 12 parking stalls.
My guess is that these #@%&**@’s need a place to be seen, play on taxpayers monies, cut their backdoor deals and collect their GRAFF!!!
Your life would not have ended had PA hauled the Hawks to Bozeman, Montana and the Mariners were playing in Fresno...or would have it? We need a little thought here folks...they spend billions for pro sprts and your stuck in traffic everyday...they spend billions on Boeing and watch Microsoft will be next and your kids school is falling apart they spend billions on the wrong priorities like flying to New Zealand and your kid can another 7% next year to go to the UW.
Sometimes I wonder if the castles and the kings have just redefined themselves a little bit from the good old middle ages. I bet, however, they are a little frustrated that they blew the cover on the voting thing letting us all think it mattered for so long. Ever since Shaftco Field was built with a broken law by a twerp that paid homage to his commie masters and the one of the richest guys on earth (that can't get a date) got deeper into my wallet than I have ever gotten in his I have known were headed for a new revolution and maybe then we'll be crushing the bones of the PR Machines to steal on Matt's great line.
How the hell is it Boeing stock is near an all time high but as a tax payer I am not getting any share value??
Look Braveheart DVD; time to review my notes again.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on June 30, 2006 11:46 AMAnd it pisses me off!
Posted by: Libertarian on June 30, 2006 12:11 PMLike parks and libraries, large cities have an obligation to maintain a local infrastructure and this includes an entertainment infrastructure.
After nearly a decade, I find it hard to believe that folks who supposedly care about "More important things" are still railing about keeping our sports teams in town. This despite the fact that we've had millions of people pass through the turnstiles at Safeco and Qwest field, several hundred thousand of whom are out-of-area tourists.
Sorry, Matt. But if we followed your line of thinking, we wouldn't have brought the World's Fair to town, there wouldn't be a SeaFair and we wouldn't have four decades of fond and often bittersweet memories of postseason wins and losses from our hometown teams.
...or people who don't care about public transportation (who realize that there will never be a bus or train that can take them from where they are to where they want to go)...
Right--but I don't see the similarity of this and the Seahawks. Taxes are taken out for public transportation (often a boondoggle of spending excess and broken promises in itself) for some supposed purposes: quality of life, traffic reduction, etc. The public transportation systems run at a loss most of the time, and what is the benefit, exactly?
The purpose of taxes paid to support a pro sports team is to...to...what, exactly? Increase the quality of life in the region--how, exactly? Does the cachet of big-money sports, expensive stadium food, game-day traffic, and elite athletes playing games increase the quality of life for most tax payers?
...or don't care about parks and trails (who would rather go to a movie, sporting event, or stay at home), but we all pay for them.
Yes we do--and what you say is why we value a representational democracy(leaving out King County, of course). I get to choose what I value most--whether it is the arts, or pro sports, or pro athletics, or parks. I get to cast my vote as to where my tax dollars go...or does my vote matter a whit, when Olympia is under the pressure of a big business like pro athletics? Do they do what the people want, or what the team owners want?
Frankly, if they're rich enough to own a team, why should they have to beg from the public coffers for help, anyway? Why should I give "welfare payments" or "public housing" to people in the pro athletics industry who clearly don't need them?
In essence you say :
We do ourselves a disfavor by opposing popular enterprise no matter how corrupt it may be?
We have an obligation to maintain entertainment infrastructures?
You find it hard to believe that folks might care about more important things than keeping our sports teams in town?
The fact that many people pass through turnstiles at Safeco and Qwest field justifies whatever it takes to build them?
Sorry, ReporterWard, but if we followed your line of thinking, nothing would be off limits to political politicians as justification for limitless tax and spend economic policies.
Popularity is a (primarily liberal) consideration, but never a good reason for making public policy unless you are a scoundrel running for office.
Citizens in America have no obligation whatsoever to maintain entertainment infrastructures. Parks and libraries are not professional sports facilities.
It is hard to justify the reasons why folks care so little about so very many more important things than keeping sports teams in town.
Your perspective is not supported by good reasoning. I would revise my thinking if I were you.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 12:44 PMHe is no less corrupt than Gregoire. In a sense, he is worse because he said he would eliminate the corruption.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 12:48 PMHe is no less corrupt than Gregoire. In a sense, he is worse because he said he would eliminate the corruption.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 12:53 PMI'm not fundamentally opposed to sports teams, just the public financing of their stadia. If and when Paul Allen ever sells that team, do the citizens get their $300 million back? Not a chance. I'm okay with providing some tax incentives, or even interest breaks on financing for owners, but that's about it. The financing for these facilities should be private.
What was the combined public cost of those two facilities, $750 million? Imagine what that could have done in terms of funding research for fatal or debilitating disease, or providing collegiate scholarships, or heck building a couple of miles of highways ;)
Posted by: Palouse on June 30, 2006 12:53 PMThanks. I am not opposed to sports teams either. I happen to sincerely believe that they perform a valuable service to communities and the nation just as the movie industry and travel, and other aspects of the entertainment industry. They are outgrowths of liberty and the best result when government stays the hell out of the way of market economies.
The cost of sports facilities should be utterly irrelevant because the taxpayer should bear none of the expense unless a public entity makes a profitable partnership with a corporation and it is well and openly vetted for the public. In other words, almost never.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 02:09 PMMcKenna is Gregoire-lite? Why, because you believe what Rosenberg says that the News Tribune says without question or are you just against McKenna because he is a Republican? Come on . . . pay attention . . . please . . . dig a little deeper.
Everyone here would have been far better informed had Matt looked one layer below Peter Callaghan’s superficial cursory opinion stated in the News Tribune’s article. On the assumption that McKenna somehow is in the pocket of Allen and/or big sports, Matt quotes Callaghan’s conclusion saying
Well, we might have known had state Attorney General Rob McKenna not given Seahawks owner Paul Allen a pass on disclosing the team’s financial statement. That was one of the requirements in the 1997 law that turned over $300 million in public money for Questionable Accounting Practices Field. But McKenna bought the pitch from Allen’s lawyers that the Legislature didn’t really mean what the Legislature meant (presumably by RCW 36.102.060(8)).Rob McKenna didn’t give Seahawks owner Paul Allen a pass; his office researched the law and in a Memorandum Opinion to Treasurer Michael Murphy and Auditor Brain Sonntag, concluded among other things that ”RCW 36.102.060(8) does not require the master lease to contain a provision that requires the professional football team to provide an annual audited profit and loss statement.”
PETER CALLAGHAN’S TRIBUNE ARTICLE IS EMPTY CRAP
Peter Callaghan is free to disagree with Rob McKenna’s Memorandum Opinion, but for my money it takes more than shallow partisan disdain to overcome sound reasoning based on well settled case law. Since Callaghan pretends to be in a position to conclude peremptorally what the Legislature meant when they enacted RCW 36.102.060(8), he might mention WHY, but he doesn't. Instead he hacks together nonsense in the cynical assumtion that people will but it without question. This hackneyed journalism is an attempt to smear Rob McKenna, and repeated verbatim by Matt Rosenberg. I like Matt well enough, but he is wrong an awful lot of the time. I wish he would wise up and avoid being a tool for disengenuous jerks.
Rob McKenna is a good conservative doing his job. Please don’t let yellow journalists win your judgment over with empty bullshit.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 02:41 PMMoreover, I don’t think Reporterward is actually arguing as Amused implies that these things should all be on the public dime. But some level of public investment is understandable, especially the targeted investments represented by the specialized taxes that represent the bulk of public investment for the stadia.
It’s not as if such investments don’t have benefit. A significant portion of the region’s populace enjoys following these teams, whose events produce tangible economic benefits since attendees of events held at these venues contribute directly and indirectly to the local economy.
Specifically on the Sonics, it would be disastrous for Seattle if the team moved to Bellevue or Renton rather than out of state. Then not only would Key Arena lose its major tenant, but the combined competition between the Sonics new facility and the new Everett Events Center would dramatically diminish the economic viability of Key Arena (Nick Lacata’s musings not withstanding) – a big hit to an already struggling Seattle Center. Maybe that’s not a bad thing if you don’t live in Seattle, but inherently the Seattle City Council and Mayor are tasked with looking out for the City’s best interest, which they don’t seem to be doing by essentially daring the Sonics to move across the lake.
Yes, some people don’t like professional sports and don’t see the need to keep them in town. Some people don’t like mass transit and continue to whine about having any of their tax dollars going for it. Taking this argument further, one essentially has to become a hermit in the sticks to avoid paying taxes for any and all government programs one disagrees with.
Accordingly, if the chance of a small amount of your taxes going to pay to support infrastructure that benefits professional sports, or mass transit, is so objectionable to you, nothing is stopping you from moving away from the broader urban area in question. These things are just part of modern society. Deal with it.
McKenna claims the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of judges who commit crimes. Anyone with half a brain knows that is a lie.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 04:15 PMYou make some good points.
However, appeals to popularity and claiming that government is obliged to finance entertainment industry facilities is quite different from your saying that "Entertainment/sports related infrastructure are a natural part of being in large urban environments"
Nature doesn't mandate a government "obligation to maintain entertainment infrastructures." These things should be managed in such a way that minimum public sector subsidies are required. Government is best that governs least. Let the private sector finance professional sports or go the hell away.
To the extent that government makes good deals in behalf of sports teams and other private entertainment enterprises to build infrastructure, I am cautiously O.K. with it. However I am very aware of the Yousoufian case where Sims decided to cover up information about the publics expenditures on the Stadium that are still covered up (likely because Sims dipped our collective beak in way too deep). So long as a public entity makes a profitable partnership with a corporation that is well and openly vetted for the public, I’m O.K. with it, but don’t pretend that any city MUST have sports facilities at public expense solely on the basis that others do.
You say, "Specifically on the Sonics, it would be disastrous for Seattle if the team moved to Bellevue or Renton rather than out of state." Are you serious? The Sonics team isn't a dot on the screen of essential disasters Seattle is facing. The Sonics may or may not be popular, but as I said earlier, "Popularity is a (primarily liberal) consideration, but never a good reason for making public policy unless you are a scoundrel running for office."
Your comparison of "whining" about tax dollars spent on mass transit to tax dollars spent on professional sports is inapt and pointless -- and the connection is ridiculous. Civil means of daily transportation and regional commercial survival are comparable to our need to display baseball games? Unsustainable billion dollar transportation systems and bus transfer sink holes needlessly and inefficiently displacing automobiles are comparable issues to our need for sports stadiums?
You and ReporterWard argue for things that have nothing to do with the public’s best interest as though they are equivalent to real infrastructure meant to serve the public. This type of thinking occurs when the line between government and markets becomes blurred.
Merging government with business is nearly always a bad idea that encourages the worst of each. The product of this style of thinking is called socialism.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 04:16 PMAhh liberals . . . you are humorous,
Introduce a subject completely off-topic. Make a statement that has absolutely no foundation nor citation and is -- on the face of it -- almost certainly completely false. Support the statement with a circular reference to your own inanity.
"McKenna claims the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of judges who commit crimes. Anyone with half a brain knows that is a lie."
Don argues (quite convincingly) that . . . Rob McKenna is Gregoire-lite because . . .
anyone like Don with half a brain knows . . . Rob McKenna is Gregoire-lite . . . so there
Nicely done Don.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 04:45 PMSo, just how did you manage to come to that conclusion then, Don? Huh?
You're really a piece of work. You spout off your half-baked theories and call people liars simply because they don't agree with your silly-psuedo legal arguments. You're a freakin' nutcase, to be honest. And you're a punchline in the Washington legal community. But rant on, Don. Why have people think you're a fool when you can remove all doubt yourself.
Posted by: jimg on June 30, 2006 05:55 PMPalouse and Amused.
I would concede that building Safeco and Qwest fields along with the adjacent convention center on Royal Brougham were mistakes if we were only getting 8,000 fans a game at baseball and 35,000 at football games.
But they haven't. Attendance numbers have been right at where they were predicted as being. Take a look at the surrounding economic development around the stadiums (compared to the blighted industrial core that was in place in the 1980s and 1990s) and you can see that they've been a success. And the funding mechanisms for the stadiums have been relatively fair. Lottery, specialized license plates, local hotel tax.
The Sonics Arena and NASCAR track are different animals and local and state governments are right to play hardball a bit with them when it comes to the exact funding mechanism. But I don't think anyone can argue that having the Sonics in the Puget Sound region and a racetrack in the state are bad ideas.
Well,they can argue but they'd be wrong.
I understand and respect your position, though I disagree, and think you’re nitpicking my previous post a bit much.
I’m not saying government is obligated to finance anything, but it has been common practice for public funds to be used for the construction of public gathering places (for the purposes of viewing performances, athletic events, etc.) since Ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, these aren’t even general public funds in the context that much of the financing comes from specialty taxes which serve as direct and indirect user fees to finance the projects. This is largely not an issue of the general sales tax or property taxes paid by John Q. Public.
Moreover, I’m not arguing such projects are a state of nature as you imply. They and their financing are, however, commonplace reality in the modern United States. You are correct that government is best that governs least, but pragmatic reality of attracting sports teams says the public has to contribute in some way. The small minority of stadia and arenas that are privately financed tend to be those where the same ownership has two teams (usually NBA & NHL) to anchor the facility. We have no such opportunity here.
In addition, I’m not saying it will be the end of the world for Seattle if the Sonics move. But I am saying it would be comparatively disastrous if the Sonics moved to Bellevue or Renton rather than out of state. Key Arena is a profitable, City run enterprise, and further functions as a key attraction (like the other sports venues, the Pike Place Market, the retail core, etc.) for Seattle as a whole, and particularly for the lower Queen Anne neighborhood. A new arena across the lake in either location will inevitably also be a better concert/event venue than the Key (another of its shortcomings). That snowball effect means the Key would no longer be profitable for the City and would essentially have to be scraped, with all the related direct and indirect impacts on Seattle as a whole and lower Queen Anne.
I note this because the supposed roadblock at this point to the Sonics staying in Seattle is a recalcitrant City government. Putting aside the separate debate about the potential use of targeted taxes to fund a remodeled Key Arena, the City will be less well off if the Sonics decamp to elsewhere in King County.
Furthermore, the connection between complaints related to paying for sports venues and mass transit are actually quite clear. In both cases, people are complaining about tax dollars going somewhere they don’t like. I understand some people don’t care for professional sports, but they’re obviously not winning this debate in our region as a whole. Moreover, those that would regularly argue against mass transit tend to argue with virtual exclusivity in favor of roads instead – seeing transit as a superfluous expenditure not related to their perceived core solution to transportation. Thus, the basic complaint against both, using the angle of the aggrieved taxpayer, remains the same.
Lastly, it is laughable to start spinning the argument for public support for sports venues into socialism. The public, via its government, is essentially incentivizing professional sports teams to locate in the area. That’s no different than say tax breaks and other policy changes offered to Boeing, R&D tax credits to high-tech and biotech companies, etc. Incentives used in modern America and the mandates of socialism are hardly comparable.
In a nutshell, I think your argument in this case is very heavy on idealism with very little in the way of pragmatism. Since you’re leaning on the private enterprise angle, you should join the business community in recognizing the value of pragmatism to achieve one’s goals in the face of an imperfect environment.
I am certainly no liberal. Far from it.
If you would care to email me, I can send you a pdf copy of a ducument in which McKenna's office states that the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of judges who commit crimes.
I could also send you a document in which his office claims that the governor has no duty to enforce federal civil rights laws.
This may all seem pretty outrageous, but I have it in writing from McKenna's office.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 07:09 PMWould it surprise you to learn that the state AG claims he has no authority to initiate a criminal investigation or criminal prosecution?
And FYI, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, codified as Title 18 U.S. Code 241 and 241 was passed by congress because the states were not protecting the constitutional rights of citizens. the Washington constitution states that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
On top of this, oath of office for the governor and state AG requires them to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the constitution and laws of the state of Washington.
Title 18 US Code 241 and 242 make it a federal felony if they knowing fail to prevent the violation of a citizens constitutional rights.
As you can see, if you want to see, it has always been the duty of the state to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens. If it wasn't, why is it a federal crime when individuals with the duty to protect them, fail to do so?
Are you really that ignorant about the constitution and the law?
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 08:38 PMJohn McKay and Jeff Sullivan say they are too busy with other things to prosecute corrupt judges and other public officials in the state of Washington.
This is the same John McKay who said he did not have the authority to investigate election fraud within the state of Washington. That's kind of strange since the US Attorneys in WI and OH have been prosecuting election fraud in those states.
The feds know about the racketeering in the courts of Washington. they just refuse to do anything about it. If you think federal prosecutors wouldn't try to cover-up public corruption in Washington state, you are naive.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 10:06 PMIf the state AG is aware of racketeering activity and does nothing about it, he is guilty of a violation of title 18 US code 1952(d). See Salinas v. United States, 522 US 52 (1997).
If you understood the implications of what I can prove, you would understand why so many people are doing whatever they can to try and continue the concealment of the judicial corruption in this state.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 10:14 PMThis involves a very common misunderstanding of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the nature of executive power.
Accepting for the sake of argument that your version of Rob McKenna's statement is accurate in asserting that the “Separation of Powers” doctrine bars the prosecution of judges who commit crimes, in general the statement is correct. There are some very narrow exceptions to this but absent those, prosecution can only proceed after impeachment and not by the executive branch.
McKenna’s office is also correct in stating that a Governor has no "legal" duty to enforce federal civil rights laws because all executive prosecutorial powers are discretionary. See the “Public Duty Doctrine.” The distinction between a public duty and a legal one is fundamental but very oten misunderstood.
In essence, the question of police power or the executive branch's power to prosecute crimes is purely a discretionary and political one not remediable by law. A court can rule that a Governor cannot enforse a law that is unconstitutional, but it cannot force a Governor to enforce a law. The difference is critical. Governors, like Presidents are free to decline to prosecute anyone they like, for any crime, at any time, under any circumstances, and under the U.S. Constitution no one has the LEGAL POWER to do a damned thing about it.
THE RIGHT TO DECLINE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW IS AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM
Title 18 US Code 241 and 242 do not say what you claim they say, but even if they did, no one can sue the Governor for knowingly failing to prevent the violation of citizen’s constitutional rights. Governors are immune from attacks by officers of the other two branches of government, and impeachment will not rise because it is not an impeachable offense for a Governor to fail to do something no one can legally require them to do in the first place.
While I am not familiar with the documents you refer to, I have met and spoken with Rob McKenna and reviewed his positions, and I know him to be a superior legal mind with impeccable integrity.
You should review your understanding of the law and the difference between a public (political) duty and a legal one.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 10:23 PMAs you may have noticed, Salinas v. United States, 522 US 52 (1997), in no way deals with the duty of an Attorney General, their awareness of crime, their supposed duty to do something about it, or anything of the kind.
Don is a crackpot with no idea what he is commenting about.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 30, 2006 10:50 PMYour statement about the separation of powers doctrine is incorrect. It can never be the duty of a public official to commit a crime. That being the case, if a person committing a crime is a judge, they commit that crime in their personal capacity. Therefore, there is no separation of powers issue. On top of that, what about the balance of powers doctrine?
It is true that a judge who violates a person's constitutional rights while performing a judicial act is immune from civil liability, it does not make them immune to criminal prosecution. If this were not true, all the judges covicted in Operation Greylord could not have been prosecuted and convicted. Some of those judges raised some pretty rediculous arguments as to why they were not guilty, but not one argued that the separation of powers doctrine barred their prosecutions.
FYI, judges have been held civilly liable for civil rights violations for their non-hudicial acts such as wrongful terminations of judicial assistants or clerks.
Not all executive powers are discretionary. Those that are are subject to an abuse of discretion standard. If you were correct, a governor could conspire to have someone murdered and then pardon them. If your argument about the separation of powers was correct, no one could prosecute the governor for the commission of a crime.
The plain and unambiguous language of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 makes no allowance for discretion in the protection of a citizen's constitutional rights. If fact, it is a federal felony to knowingly not protect them. The language is very, very broad.
Courts order the executive branches of government to enforce all sorts of laws.
The impeachment of a governor has no relationship to the prosecution of a governor or judge. The constitution clearly states that one does not rely or estop the other.
If you want to become 'familiar with the documents' I mention, I can email them to you. As for McKenna's integrity, maybe you simply don't know him as well as you think you do. You might also consider the possibility that McKenna is willing to make a politically expedient decision even if it means condoning the violations of a citizens constitutional rights. Do not assume he has as much integrity as you think.
At no time have I mentioned or implied anything to do with a political duty. I am talking only about legal duties.
You seem to be implying that our country is governed by the rule of man rather than the rule of law. Have you not heard of the Magna Carta? The use of 'discretion' is misapplied all too often.
Rather than looking for reasons to dispute what I allege concerning corruption in the courts of the state of Washington, maybe you should, at some point, consider the possibility that I actually know what I am saying and can prove it.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 11:02 PMRead the last several paragraphs of the Salinas case. The point was that Salinas, a deputy sheriff, knew the county sheriff was violating a substantive provision of 18 US Code 1962(c) and did nothing to stop it. That was sufficient for a conviction of Salinas for a conviction of Salinas for conspiracy to violate section 1962(d). I'm surprised you were unable to understand the point and clear implication of the Salinas decision.
If mckenna knows of racketeering and does nothing to stop it, he is guilty of violating section 1962(d); at a minimum.
Posted by: Don on June 30, 2006 11:11 PMYour shock at my supposed inability to understand the point and clear implication of the Salinas decision is preposterous.
Since you are obviously satisfied with your lines of reasoning and what they mean, I am as well.
Thanks.
One reason for the latest increase, is the addition, at the public expense of a medical clinic. The original plan called for a privatly financed and developed clinic. The hospital is deemed a critical need. Isn't a grocery store a critical need? Our grocery store in my community is aging. Shouldn't I also have to pay taxes to have it revamped or to build a new one?
Modern day Norman barons that need a good cleaning out. Colonel Hogan gets it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-CLASSIC-NOVEL-IVANHOE-BY-SIR-WALTER-SCOTT_W0QQitemZ140002036418QQihZ004QQcategoryZ12568QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Let's just hope the Seahawks win a Superbowl before then.
Posted by: Organization Man on July 1, 2006 11:49 AM#1 - There is only ONE instance of a stadium being built after a failed ballot measure. The inference that this happens regularly is intentionally misleading.
#2 - There was no "voter mandate" to not build a stadium. There was a very poorly thrown together proposal rushed to the ballot for FUNDING, no more, no less, that lost by a slim margin (and I voted against it because it was such a joke of a plan). The citizens made it VERY clear that they wanted a new baseball park but they did not want that mess of a tax plan to pay for it. They (including myself) pushed for a reasonable user fee based package that is what the legislature passed. That funding program was so successful that the facility will be paid off early.
#3 The Key Arena remodel was paid for with financing via City of Seattle bonding. The bonds were paid off with the rent paid (By the Sonics and other users) and the user fees the facility generated.
So while i'll join anyone in outrage about Sound Transit spending billions more than they said they would, and delivering a fraction of what they promised, despite a real "voter mandate" voting this down time and again, I can not allow the continued misrepresentation of how our stadiums were funded.
Olympia makes a career out of ignoring "voter mandates". How many times do we have to say "$30 car tabs" before we get them? Record tax hikes despite voter approved caps.
So be angry at Olympia for almost everything they do that shows a complete disrespect for the will of the voter, but on this issue it is misdirected anger.
Posted by: Coz on July 1, 2006 01:33 PMThe debate on this conservative blog seems to be over what is a more legitimate reason for mooching off of other people.
It reminds me of the debates between Gregoire and Rossi. The biggest difference between the Democrat and the Republican is she wanted to "invest" $500million of taxpayer money in wealthy biotech companies, and he wanted to "invest" $250million in a race track. No difference in principle; just in preference. I would have preferred Rossi based on the smaller amount.
Is a sports stadium a good enough reason for freeloading? Or would busses, parks or schools be more appropriate?
Maybe there shouldn't be any freeloading at all.
I suggest reducing all taxes by at least 75%, and everybody pay for what they want - busses, parks, sports, charity and healthcare for themselves or the poor, etc. - with their own money. This would take a lot of power away from politicians and the rich people who own them, and make honest citizens out of the rest of us. No more stealing things we want from our neighbors (yes it is stealing; if you take the money yourself it's stealing; electing politicians to do it for you doesn't change what it is).
The fatcat, freeloading billionaire Paul Allen should pay for his stadium with his own money. If he bought twenty teams and built them each a stadium with his own money, and then gave them all away, he'd still be a billionaire. There is no just reason in the world for that diamond studded moocher to be paying for his investments and amusements with money taken from working people living off of their paychecks.
Posted by: ken on July 1, 2006 01:33 PMThe topic of this thread centered on an article in the Tribune by Peter Callaghan that essentially accused Rob McKenna of being in the pocket of the Seahawks owner Paul Allen.
Callaghan arbitrarily (and falsely) judged McKenna’s application of the law without discussing or explaining it and this thread simply repeated Callaghan’s apocryphal crap. McKenna's opinion memoranda proves Callaghan is a liar. The dishonesty is palpable, but the lack of critical depth is more instructive. If McKenna breaks the rules, I damned well want to know about it, but repeating lies is unfair to McKenna and those of us who care about the facts.
Callaghan is not alone in his superficiality. Making judgments from arguments based on complete nonsense is a popular liberal approach and Don the “not liberal” gets the prize for hackneyed liberal reasoning. Don’s analysis in support of Callaghan’s premise asserts that McKenna is corrupt because he supposedly opined that Governors are immune from prosecution under the separation of powers doctrine.
Don argues that Title 18 U.S. Code 241 and 241 requires Governor's to enforce the Federal Act in all cases under penalty of prosecution. He further cites Salinas v. United States, 522 US 52 (1997, a case where a Sheriff was prosecuted under Title 18 for bribery, asserting arguendo that it proves a Governor’s knowledge of criminal activity requires them prosecute it. It proves no such thing.
Salinas is inapt and bears no relation to the instant issue, and Title 18 doesn’t say anything like what Don insists it does. Title 18 doesn’t supercede the Constitutional boundaries of executive immunity from prosecution, and it certainly cannot force or command that Governors or police enforce laws. Salinas doesn’t address the issue of executive power or executive immunity in any cognizable way. Sheriff's are not Governors and they have different prosecutorial immunities, accepting bribes isn't avoidance of the exercise of police power but abuse of it, and evidence of a Sheriffs conspiracy in commission of a crime in Salinas is hardly analogous with a Governor’s refusal to enforce the law.
Don's comments like those of Callaghan can be called many things, but not logical reasoning and both utterly fail to support claims against McKenna. Yes, there is corruption in our state judiciary and executive branches but this silly nonsense only makes it easier for the real offenders to get away Scot-free. While it is understandable that some would miss the rank dishonesty of Callaghan’s slick dishonesty and the monumental foolishness involved in Don’s analysis, it is something to ponder. Are most people really so lacking in the ability to understand basic principles and reason honestly?
I say yes, and this is an important part of the reason why Bush is having so much trouble, and our state is in such disarray.
Sports schmorts, the real issue here is intellectual laziness and integrity.
You acknowledge that there is corruption within the judiciary of the state of Washington, so why are you so adamant that I can't prove it?
I did not say McKenna claimed that a governor is exempt from prosecution under the separation of powers doctrine. I said he claims judgeds are immune from criminal prosecution.
If you are going to comment on the federal RICO and civil rights statutes, you ought to have at least a basic understanding of them.
If you want proof of what i claim about McKenna you can email me and I will send it to you. You couls set up a new yahoo accout to do so. I don't care who you are and have no interest in knowing your name. I have nothing to hide, unlike the corrupt justices in the state supreme court.
Posted by: Don on July 1, 2006 05:46 PMI am only adamant about obtaining and understanding facts. If I am wrong so be it I will gladly admit it and learn what I can.
Your understanding of RICO and your arguments are based on fatally flawed legal reasoning.
Rob McKenna is a public figure and his opinions on all such legal subjects are available in the public forum. I have looked but found nothing like you refer to. If you would kindly provide a link or a context (the specific incident addressed) I will be very interested to review it.
While I am very partisan because it is in my best interest to be, I do not blindly support Rob McKenna or anyone else for partisan reasons. If he is doing something wrong I want to know abut it. Empty claims against him of the type Callaghan makes only reaffirm Rob McKenna's credibility and prove the attacker is a dishonest asshole trying to poison the well.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 2, 2006 09:58 AMYou can contact me at judgebuster@yahoo.com
Your email address would be safe with me, but any concern you might have can be satisfied by you setting up a new yahoo or other email account. As I said, I have no interest in knowing who you are.
BTW, I make no claims either in favor or against Callaghan's comments. I really don't know much about him. My comments mostly concern my factually sipportable opinion that McKenna is not all he claims to be and that he is willing to make politically motivate decisions in carrying out his duties as the AG. My claims about his positions are not motivated by politics. In fact, I have a lot more proof of Gregoire's racketeering that Mckenna's condoning of it.
I have nothing to hide, but there are a lot of judges and other public officials who do.
My understanding of the federal RICO statutes is not flawed. If you have a question about them, I would be more than happy to cite the statutes and case law in answering any question you might have.
Posted by: Don on July 2, 2006 12:47 PMWith all due respect, my concern in this forum is Callaghan's comments against McKenna.
I showed all of the evidence necessary to support my point that Peter Callaghan’s Tribune article is empty crap.
If you disagree with me that Callaghan arbitrarily (and falsely) judged McKenna’s application of the law without discussing or explaining it, you should acknowledge as much, or argue otherwise. Since you don't, this discussion is at an end.
Re your alternate subject: I am certain that there is corruption within the judiciary and the Governor's office of the state of Washington. I am also aware of certain instances where the RICO statutes may apply, but this bears no discernable relation to Rob McKenna, and it is unreasonable for me to address such allegations unless there is a substantial context within which I may respond.
Rob McKenna is a public figure and his opinions on all legal subjects are available in the public forum. If you are unable or unwilling to provide a link or context that I can use to evaluate the opinions you claim are those of Rob McKenna, I am not interested. Anything you may have can be of no useful interest to me because it is of questionable origins.
Since you may have a good reason to make claims, I wish you well.
Nevertheless, since the legal reasoning you have used is extremely questionable, I am inclined to demur.
Thanks and good luck.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 3, 2006 09:00 PM