1. Short and sweet. It stinks to high heaven. Shark, wherever you are. I have said in the past you are like a pit bull with a bone. When you return, here is something else to chew on. I am not a grassy knoll type, but corrupt systems tend to have individuals who are linked. I wonder what the association map looks like on this one.

Posted by: WVH on January 4, 2008 10:35 PM

2. Same old, same old.

Liberal politicians think the area they govern over is theirs to do what they wish with. They think the people are there to be ruled and molded and bypassed. They think that whatever means are necessary to accomplish their goals are justified by whatever ends they value.

Forget the law, forget common practice, forget the will of the people, forget fairness. All that matter is Sims getting his way. After all, he's a liberal elected by liberals, so he is better than everyone else.

Posted by: pudge on January 4, 2008 11:02 PM

3. So it's probably no surprise to anyone reading this, and I realize I am not saying anything profound when I say it. But even from an insider's perspective - and someone who is not necessarliy inclined to dislike government, since I work there - Ron Sims is about as conveniently ethical as they come.

Sims is unbelievably shallow in convictions and in recognition of what's right. I am 100% not surprised that Ron has chosen to exercise what many folks recognize as a very special clause to sell this property w/o bid.

You have to understand that many government executives don't get that the paramount duty of government is to overtly refrain from bilking the taxpayers. That means that you have to be just a bit less 'efficient' (although you could argue that, hence the quotes), you have to have a bit more process, and you have to be willing to stand up to just a bit more scrutiny than if you were in the private sector.

As a free market guy, that all makes sense to me. And it actually works in favor of getting the taxpayers the best deal. The quote from Bob Thompson in the article is a perfect example of this. Follow the rules (ie the public process) and you will 999 times out of 1000 get a better product for the taxpayers in the same amount of time...that last 1 in 1000 will in all likelihood result in better product, but maybe longer time. Transparency is good (this holds in private sector too, BTW).

Unfortunately, Ron and/or his office doesn't see it this way. Witness many land and other deals, but most recently the Donut Hole as was ably covered in the Times article, and the Burlington Northern property, which at one point Ron wanted to buy straight from the railroad, as long as the RR would remove the track first, thus avoiding a public debate about what should be done with that corridor.

Ron Sims is an embarrassment to all of us in government who want to do the right (and economically rational) thing and who think the rules actually usually end up giving you a better product. If only SOMEBODY would nominate a credible candidate to run against him. He is really a serious detriment to improved quality of life to anyone who lives in King County.

Posted by: GovtMole on January 4, 2008 11:05 PM

4. Sims has been in office too frigin long.
He is a disgrace.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 4, 2008 11:08 PM

5. WVH is a braindead mormon so who cares.

Go for it!!

Posted by: JL on January 4, 2008 11:13 PM

6. Jl,

We sound a bit bitter. I guess it is because on another thread I called you on your bigotry against Mormons. You said, "Mormons suck." So, I guess that tiny little brain of yours must respond.

Now, regarding this issue, do you have any comments or will you just spout bigoted opinion?

Posted by: WVH on January 4, 2008 11:29 PM

7. GovtMole, unfortunately, it's likely that only a Democrat can win in King County, and it's unclear that any good Democrat could run in King County against him, without being torn to shreds by the KC machine.

Democracy in inaction.

Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2008 12:29 AM

8. Two thoughts. If this is supposed to be a knowledgeable blog on King County Politics, introducing a topic as, "I haven't had time to digest this" isn't particularly knowledgeable. Maybe do a little homework and then introduce your topic.
Secondly, on the subject itself. Ron Sims hasn't been his own man since his first day in politics. All you have to do is find out who he is getting his "guidance" on the land sale from. In all probability that person is a contributor to his reelection campaigns and will personally benefit from the sale. It's not rocket science, follow the money!

Posted by: Old Soldier on January 5, 2008 07:49 AM

9. I don't know anything about Sno County, other than what I have read. I live in King County. The kind of republican who could win in King County is the kind of republican your party does not seem to want. The libertarian/right wing philosopohy is DOA in King County. I suppose from reading the postings on this site, RINOS are considered by posters here to be evil, but that moderate philosophy is what it will take to win in King County. For many years, King County was headed by republicans like John Spellman.

I suspect that Sno County will change as the ring burbs around Seattle have changed prompting Jarrett to change parties and forcing Reichert to seek a seat on the Appropriations Committee in preparation for a race with Burner. This change is brought on by young people moving out of Seattle as they form families and many of these young people are not libertarian/right wingers. Many are conservative, but it is a more moderate brand of conservatism.

Both parties are now in control of the ideological taliban who seek to purge everyone that does not fall totally in line. It is possible for a republican to win King County, but I suspect that many here would consider that individual to be a RINO and wouldn't consider them a republican.

I am interested to learn how those who have conceded King County expect Rossi to win the governor's race. The Pugetopolis region from Bellingham to Olympia seems to be undergoing a similar type of change. As this region becomes more diverse, I suspect that the philosophy of many here will become less attractive in urban areas and will be entrenched in rural areas.

Posted by: WVH on January 5, 2008 07:56 AM

10. Old Soldier,

1. I agree with your points. Stefan was the knowledgeable blogger about Seattle and King County as he lives in Seattle. Eric, who is doing a fab job keeping our hobby going lives in Sno County and is based there. Pudge is chair of the 39th district, I believe, republicans in Sno County. So, when Stefan went on winter break a good part of the knowledge base went on break as well.

2. As always, in politics, follow the money. I agree with you there. I would love to know who benefits from this deal and how much they have contibuted to campaigns.

Posted by: WVH on January 5, 2008 08:03 AM

11. When I bought a house in the area, the seller's
attorney was one who is also heavily involved in this "donut hole" transaction. I bought my own title report on the property and then got one that this attorney pulled. Funny thing, his report
didn't include the fact that the house had a lien against it and when I confronted him about the fact, was scolded by said attorney for pulling my own report.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. (?!!) After all, who are we little people to question the motives and actions of our superiors when they know what's best for us and for the children.

Again, the attorney is heavily involved in this deal. I guess if I stood to gain, I'd want him on my side too.

Posted by: dan on January 5, 2008 08:03 AM

12. Way more to this than meets the eye. Yarrowbay has been sticking up municipalities forever. They come in, make a move on an asset (usually a privately owned city golf course) and then do a trade. Many of the same elements are included here. Anthoney Hempsted was on Kirby Wilber's show last week and didn't tell the whole story. Maple Valley was in this since Yarrow threatened to buy Wilderness Golf Course and then do a trade (rumour from one inside source). Nobody is focusing on the Dirkin/Kombol phoney paper deal that tried to set an artificial price here. Dirkin just GIVES Kombol back a property worth $1 Mil??????????? No. This Stinks from every angle and nobody is telling the whole story. Keep digging!!!!!!

Posted by: Rocketdog on January 5, 2008 08:04 AM

13. So the trick here is to:

Buy land that an "environmentalist" would like to keep in its natural state (or return to "nature").

Then you find land that is desirable to develop, but for which you don't want to get into a bidding war.

Donate lots of money to specific government official(s).

Offer to trade your "pristine" land for the desirable land.

Threaten to develop the pristine land if you don't win the bid on the desirable land.

BINGO.

The "environmentalist" government official can boast about saving green space and you can get richer developing the desirable land.

Rinse and Repeat.

By the way, is the evil development corporation republican? If so, why would the democratic government official go along with the evil plot? If not, why does the MSM give the evil non-republican development corporation a pass?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 5, 2008 08:22 AM

14. Re: SR #13 If so, why would the democratic government official go along with the evil plot? The money sends, regardless of its source.

Posted by: Clear View on January 5, 2008 08:38 AM

15. Re: SR #13 If so, why would the democratic government official go along with the evil plot? The money SPENDS, regardless of its source. Sorry...

Posted by: Clear View on January 5, 2008 08:40 AM

16. One of the first signs that this is a real problem for Democrats is who isn't talking about this and following up. This story was front page above the fold in the January 2 SEATTLE TIMES with a full page follow-up in the back of the front section. The SEATTLE TIMES Chief Political Commentator David Postman hasn't written a word 4 days later, this is the perfect example of not being able to spin this in a way that makes Democrats look good, so don't write anything. The PI hasn't written a word as well, you know it has to be bad.

I heard about this almost a year ago, it violates the spirit of the joint planning aspect of GMA and the County's own statutes for cooperative planning for land use and concurrency. The problem is they will not be investigated, all of the right people have been paid off. Yarowbay is so confident, they are telling to the City of Maple Valley to essentially "shut up" if you know whats best for you because we can do whatever we want and if you want any say at all you better roll over. Spoken like an organization with a County Executive in their pocket ($11,000 in donations). Not to mention a highly connected Lobbyist who will undoubtably make millions working with Yarowbay in the future along with Palmer Coking Coal.

Before all of you environmentalist folks rush to Ron's denfense remember this deal includes Yarrowbay buying 600-800 TDR's to add density up to 12 houses per acre to this site. With no mass transit or infrastructure improvements. Those TDR's are market priced by the County and are not regulated in any way, Can you say pay off? The Palmer Coal people end up getting more than market value for their property and the only people getting screwed are the people of SE King County, who Ron and company don't care about anyway.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 08:42 AM

17. Time to audit the county.

Posted by: George on January 5, 2008 08:47 AM

18. I have always believed that Sims is corrupt. He is crafty. So, other than the stolen election, Sims has not left many trails.

The latest County land deal stinks. The public gains some open space for a terrible price. The developer has the sweetheart deal of the century in King County.

Another area of land use regulation that smells is the contract zoning that occurs in shoreline management areas throughout the county that enables favored developers to build in on land that is usually reserved as buffers to protect riparian areas.

These types of land use activities need to be investigated. Political contributions need to be tracked and the parties who actually provided the money should be identified. Transparency is essential, but missing.

Posted by: Paddy on January 5, 2008 11:21 AM

19. I'm thinking back to the proof Stefan supplied on this very blog, showing that the long-held rumor that Sims solicits campaign donations from developers in exchange for exceptions/approvals on building permits is apparently true. This smells something like that.

Posted by: Misty on January 5, 2008 11:48 AM

20. The Seattle Times and Misty have this right, this was just another payoff by Sims to the campaign donators of Sims. Plain and Simple.

Damn the people of this state and their tax dollars, he will do what he can to assure those dollars are wasted, and always give out enough to make sure you get plenty back at election time.

Posted by: GS on January 5, 2008 12:21 PM

21. This sweet/illegal deal plays fast and loose w/ rules....but in the same way that our govt (all levels) pays no attention to the letter of the law.

which is why we got 2 stadiums jammed on us, why sound transit keeps getting open ended spending, why Eyman's measures get tweaked and ignored, why UW anti discrim rules turn into quotas, etc.....

Sort of a soviet republic, don't you think?

Posted by: righton on January 5, 2008 12:24 PM

22. Antoher Big problem with Ron creating a high density "Ronville" in Maple Valley is that all of the fees for development that would normally go to Maple Valley will go to King County and after all of the property is built out and all of the mitigation money is siphoned off from this nearly 1 Billion Dollar project, the County will push for annexation by Maple Valley. They will use County approved designs and County inspectors to build out the property that will not necessarily match with the comprehensive plan of Maple Valley.

Worst of all this is a template that will be repeated over and over again. One party rule, no accountability and if they can do it here , they can do it anywhere. What is really needed is an outside agency that has not be influenced by this corrupt County.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 03:07 PM

23. The bottom line is that Ron Sims can get away with anything he wants that is outside the Seattle city limits. Liberals in Seattle don't give a crap about anyone outside city limits, and Sims knows it. It's why the CAO was able to pass. And it's why Sims won't receive any fallout from this deal.

For the people who live in and near Maple Valley (like me), this deal stinks. Traffic in that area already cannot deal with the growth, and this is going to make it much worse. Who's going to pay for it? Does Sims care about the quality of life for all the residents of this area? Not a chance.

Posted by: Palouse on January 5, 2008 05:00 PM

24. Any way Ron can make $$ off this? or maybe some relative who has a consulting business? where's the scam?

Posted by: righton on January 5, 2008 05:27 PM

25. Let's put this discussion into a larger context and look at what the result of these "public private partnerships" and take a look at what Tacoma's politicians have wrought by giving developers preferential land deals in order to get developers the condos that the politicians favor.

We have condos that have been overbuilt until they are coming out our ying-yang that are not selling. So the taxpayers subsidized the new "desirable" residents who would take advantage of not paying property taxes nor will we be compensated for all of the amenities the taxpayers footed the bill for when we were assured that the money the affluent new residents would pump into Tacoma's economy simply by living here and buying on the local economy didn't materialize either.

Who pays when politicians play? Why the taxpayers of course.

Tacoma resident taxpayers were sold a bill of goods in as much as the higher property taxes on existing taxable properties and deferred maintenance that footed the bill for this nonsense will not pay off in the long run because Tacoma will not realize a net benefit due to the affluent new residents that they assured us would be flocking here. They have not materialized and will not subsequently add to the City's tax base.

Why do I say "will not?" Well because many of the luxury condo homes are being chopped up and finished as not so high-end urban apartments.

Urban apartment dwellers, on balance, consume more taxes than they pay into the system.

Oh well.

Posted by: JDH on January 5, 2008 05:52 PM

26. Add to the mix. I've been told Yarrow spreads money to both Parties (PDC research anyone?) Dirken is a long time developer lobbyist and usually helps Republican developers. He does keep pointing out his sister is a hard Dem. as was his dad. I think he goes where the money is and Yarrow is it. Kombol is hard Republican and very astute. Anthony Hempsted is a hardcore R and I think he got rolled over or is playing a part for local consumption. I know he isn't telling the whole story. Sims likes to think 10 or 20 years out and will probably do what it takes to grab a big enviro spot for the future. I don't think $11K means anything to Sims at this point. It might grease some discussions with the Staff, but that is all. This is Sims last term and contributions and or bribes just don't register as punch. Looks like Kombol and Dirken get rich, Hempsted works a deal for Maple Valley for crumbs and racks up points for his run for office. Sims leaves a legacy for the Greens and Covington, Black Diamond and the concurrency in GMA get screwed big time.

Posted by: Rocketdog on January 5, 2008 06:19 PM

27. Hempstad is newly elected to the Valley General Hospital board as a reformer and an employee of the City of Maple Valley in the postion of City Manager, what exactly is he going to be racking up points for?

The Story here is a couple of lifelong Democrats have gotten together and decided "Greed is good" Ron had the power to make the No-Bid Contract happen that screws the public out of top dollar for a vanishing asset, buildable vacant land. Durkan is the "go between" and gets paid on both ends between Yarrowbay and Palmer. Ron not only got donations from Durkan, but related firms, vendors, associations. Ron's budget is also going to be artifically inflated when he sells 600-800 TDR credits to Yarrowbay at a price " yet to be determined". Ron Sims will get his piece of the pie and what is reported by the PDC is only the tip of the iceberg. It's a shame Ron is such a hypocrite when it comes to Growth Management, Transportation Concurrency and Public Process...Maybe he just had poor home training.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 07:11 PM

28. I think the King County Prosecuting Attorney's office/civil division (responsible for advising county exec/county council) will have to sign off on the legality of this deal ... if it gets beyond the talk stage and actually requires county council approval ... watch for that opinion ...

Beginning with the proposal to move Southwest Airlines to the King County Airport, Ron has had some really nutty ideas in recent years. And this sure looks like one of 'em ...

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 5, 2008 07:27 PM

29. Come on Deb, when was the last time you folks in Olympia did anything to reign in Ron or King County? CAO going Statewide? That's the chatter in the back rooms. Are you willing to help stop abuses of the process like this? Will you recommend that the State Attorney General look into the matter, because quite frankly I do not trust anyone who works for Ron Sims or is subject to his influence.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 07:39 PM

30. Smokie: The King County prosecuting attorney's office is an elected; a Republican is in that office right now ... and I don't have any reason to believe that Satterberg is subject to Ron's influence.

Yes, of course, I'd recommend the State AG take a look at this proposal ... but that office, too, is held by a Republican, and I'm certain that Rob McKenna doesn't need my encouragement, if he wants to look into this proposal.

I've only been in Olympia for a year, but I've spent years and years involved in city-county issues. For many reasons, including the county council's refusal to put recommended charter amendments on the ballot for citizen approval in past years, I would agree that someone is gonna need to do something, one of these days ... and the legislature is the only superior power.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 5, 2008 08:06 PM

31. Deb Eddy probably voted for Ron Sims in his re-election. Why, I don't know. Deb? If so, why?

Posted by: Misty on January 5, 2008 08:12 PM

32. We have secret ballots in this country ... it's part of what makes America great, don't you think?

And this isn't really about who I voted for, nor even about the serious differences of opinion I've had w/Mr. Sims over the past 10-12 years.

What I wanted to throw out there was the role that the prosecuting attorney's office (and/or state AG) might have in vetting this land deal. And I really do believe that it needs vetted!

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 5, 2008 08:22 PM

33. Welcome to the thread Deb,
Thanks for the post.
You have to get the feeling King County and Seattle are making too many deals with developers.
It is giving the D's a black eye.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 5, 2008 09:25 PM

34. Mr.Satterberg is a nice enough guy, but his budget and staffing levels can be greatly impacted by the Executive since he holds a majority on the Council. I would have more faith in McKenna since he is further removed from the situation. If you feel the situation meets the appearance of impropriety test, as most sane people would, I hope you would ask for the AG's help in this situation. Having a Democratic member of the Legislature asking for a review by the Republican AG would take the sting of partisanship out of it don't you think? Besides, it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 09:31 PM

35. I'm one of those who believe that the King County executive/council should NOT be partisan offices; I'd rather they were more like city councils ... so it'd be about performance and not party. Every time we have a charter review commission, this issue of partisanship comes up ... with slightly different results. But whatever county council is sitting at the time refuses to put the issue of partisanship on the ballot ...

Interesting, don't you think?

I don't know that it gives just Ds a black eye, because some questionable (IMHO) decisions by the county council are equally approved by Rs. I do hope this proposal gets a lot more scrutiny.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 5, 2008 09:40 PM

36. Smokie: I understand that this is a partisan blog ... and thus the Rs and Ds of the matter are of great interest. But I think this proposal ought to capture the interest of lots of people, Ds, Rs, Martians, etc. It just seems peculiar on too many levels. Right now, I suspect that the AG's office would probably defer to the local prosecuting attorney. IF this proposal goes forward, the local PA approves it, then, yeah, I'd probably ask the AG to take a look at it.

But I will repeat :-)) ... Rob McKenna can start an investigation any time he pleases. And he doesn't strike me as shy.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 5, 2008 09:51 PM

37. So in the spirit of non-partisanship will you ask for the AG's office to look into the situation? I have listened to the Charter Review Commission and I have watched their work go largely ignored. While in principle I agree with movement to make the County Council NP I do not think it would ever happen. People have to much invested in partisan politics, their identity is tied to being an R or a D.

The Situation in Maple Valley is just another example of one party rule going on way too long. The supposed gatekeepers, looking out for the interests of the people turn a blind eye to this corruption.

Posted by: Smokie on January 5, 2008 10:00 PM

38. Where are you Rob McKenna ? It has not been properly vetted. This sleezy land deal needs your intervention !

Posted by: KS on January 5, 2008 10:31 PM

39. Deb, yes secret ballots are great. Too bad democrats are fighting to undo secret ballots in union elections!
But back to the point: I can ask who someone voted for, and that someone has the right to answer or refuse to answer. I'm wondering why you think this kind of stuff deserves re-election, however.

Posted by: Misty on January 5, 2008 10:59 PM

40. Misty: Short answer is: I don't (but this question doesn't require me to reveal my ballot!).

Remember all the print devoted to the lack of a Democratic challenger to C'mber Jane Hague last year? Or all the wailing about the insufficiency of Republican challengers to Ron over the past couple of campaign cycles?

There are a couple of things about this situation with the county executive/council that ought to give all us pause. First, through re-districting a couple of years ago, incumbent councilmembers' districts became safer (yes, I know that the council doesn't draw these districts; they just appoint the members of the commission who do draw the districts). Second, as KC councilmembers are better paid than any west coast county legislative body outside of LA's Board of Supervisors (numbering 5, not 9), these folks are seriously motivated to keep these very comfortable jobs ... and that keeps them fund-raising all year round. Result: An incumbency rate that is just staggering! It is not at all surprising that these races don't attract a lot of challengers.

The only real re-arrangement on the council came after the jail guards' union challenged the council's very self-serving interpretation of county charter (too wonky, won't go into it here) and passed an initiative to reduce the previous 13-member council down to 9.

I don't like to slam elected officials personally, because there are fewer and fewer people willing to take on these jobs ... but collectively, county government is not accountable, for reasons cited above.

To date, there simply hasn't been sufficient public outcry to provoke change ... and because the county is largely focused on state constitutional functions (vital statistics and land records, felony courts and jails, sheriff, public health) and otherwise on utility functions (regional wastewater, garbage disposal and bus transit)- well, it can feel invisible. Most of us look to our local city hall if we're really annoyed about something, not the least because it's closer. And once you get to major statewide issues, like education, the focus turns to the legislature.

Boy, this answer is probably a lot longer than required ... YES, eventually either the legislature or the local population (through a freeholder convention) is gonna have to take a serious look at King County's government.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 6, 2008 07:58 AM

41. Deb this appears to be a violation of GMA, there are towns in King County that do not have 2,000 residences in them. Ron and Company are essentially selling the right to build a City inside Maple Valley without the consent of the people who will eventually be forced to take it over and serve it's population.

We know this will get ugly and the only people who will win, will be the Lawyers. It is a real shame, that all of the Little people have to play by the rules and the Political Elite can simply wave some money under elected officials noses and get an "exception". I want to know why every elected official who has played by the rules isn't outraged, but specifically I had asked you if you will as the AG to investigate.

Posted by: Smokie on January 6, 2008 08:22 AM

42. Wow. Pretty good debate. Got an e-mail this morning to check this out. The Times did a good job in digging through stacks of material on this. Their Editorial page also did an op/ed on Thursday, link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004104726_donuted03.html

Great to see Deb Eddy weighing-in on this issue. We pushed hard in Olympia to try and get a Legislative solution to this last year and, if need be, will make another attempt at that this coming session.

It certainly isn't a good use of public resources to have governments suing governments -- the people pay twice for this. We're concerned right now though that KC isn't following the spirit of GMA in unilaterally looking at dropping in such a large development into the middle of Maple Valley. At minimum there needs to be a commitment to joint planning and early annexation of this land into Maple Valley. The current course this is on is very concerning but we hope that it can be turned around.

Posted by: Anthony Hemstad on January 6, 2008 12:04 PM

43. Hi, Anthony - and congratulations on your new job.

You know that I supported your efforts in Olympia last year 110% ... but apparently, everything got hung up in the Senate ... Trying to get counties and cities to really, truly consult/coordinate on land development has been a goal of mine for years -- no surprise there. As Smokie points out, there are ripple effects on infrastructure, to say the least. For sure, the existing concurrency requirements have not worked, and we accept lag time in trans/roads/parks etc. that we could not accept, if we were talking about water or sewer infrastructure.

As you note, Anthony, KC is at least violating "the spirit of GMA" ... I suspect that this means you've looked into it and the violation isn't plain or obvious.

BTW, just to keep us all straight on this, violations of the GMA itself go to the Growth Management Hearings Boards. So any investigation by the PS or AG would probably focus on other issues, which may not be "ripe" yet. Remember back at the time of the BNFS/Port/King County proposal, there were questions raised about whether KC could accomplish by "deal-making" what it specifically could not accomplish by federal law (hope I've got that right; I think it had to do with county's ability to "sell" the airport). Since the KC Council put the kibbosh to that proposal, questions raised were never completely answered.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 6, 2008 01:19 PM

44. When I spoke with a Representative of the GMHB ( the gentleman from Federal Way Mr. Faison), he said this clearly violated the intent of GMA. The declaration by the Executive of a unique circumstance, when clearly it was not a unique circumstance, but a manipulation by an interested party Durkan/Palmer is highly suspicious. It needs a formal investigation, no-bid 70 million dollar land deals should not be allowed to move forward.

Posted by: Smokie on January 6, 2008 02:27 PM

45. Thanks, Deb. Valley Medical is a whole new set of challenges.

Agreed on your comments on the Donut Hole. Deb (for others reading) as well as Larry Springer, Pat Sullivan and Cheryl Pflug all stood out as really trying to move this forward and get a solution in the Legislature on this particularly and the larger issue of planning between jurisdictions.

With the Donut Hole it is unique enough and the GMA didn't foresee anything like this existing (Maple Valley was formed several years after GMA was passed) the exact issue isn't addressed but it can definitely be read that this situation would not have been what was foreseen when the GMA was put together. Further clarification in State law would be a good thing.

Posted by: Anthony Hemstad on January 6, 2008 02:40 PM

46. Looks to me like the REPUBLICANS are in the pocket of Yarrow Bay Development LLC. Forget about Dan Satterberg or Rob McKenna taking a critical view of this questionable land deal. Forget about the Republican members of the King County Council raising much of a fuss about this. All of these Republican folks are on this developer's payroll!

DUNN REAGAN 07/20/2005 $150.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN 07/20/2005 $150.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN 09/09/2005 $1,050.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN B 12/09/2005 $675.00
YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN B 04/07/2006 $675.00
YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN B 08/02/2006 $500.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 980830613

DUNN REAGAN B 12/02/2006 $225.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAGUE JANE F 03/23/2005 $350.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAGUE JANE F 03/23/2005 $250.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAGUE JANE F 08/30/2005 $250.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAGUE JANE F 01/02/2006 $1,200.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAGUE JANE F 05/30/2007 $300.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

HAMMOND STEPHEN B 10/31/2003 $100.00
YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

IRONS DAVID W JR 11/14/2003 $100.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 98083

KOSTER JOHN M 03/07/2005 $250.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 98033

LAMBERT KATHRYN L 06/07/2007 $350.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

MARSHALL CONNIE B 04/21/2005 $100.00
YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 98083

MCKENNA ROBERT M 11/04/2003 $100.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

MCKENNA ROBERT M 09/15/2007 $500.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

NELSON GARY A 10/29/2003 $100.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613 YARROW BAY, LLC INVESTMENT CO.

ROACH PAM 09/07/2006 $700.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 98083

ROACH PAM 09/07/2006 $700.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 98083

ROSSI DINO J 06/25/2004 $1,350.00 G YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

ROSSI DINO J 06/25/2004 $1,350.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

SATTERBERG DANIEL T 07/19/2007 $250.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 980336391

SINCLAIR RENEE R 03/22/2007 $350.00 N YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

VON REICHBAUER PETER G 10/25/2005 $500.00
YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC KIRKLAND WA 98083

VON REICHBAUER PETER G 04/28/2007 $250.00 N YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND WA 98083

WA ST REPUB PARTY EXEMPT 09/07/2007 $1,000.00 P YARROW BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC KIRKLAND WA 980830613

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 6, 2008 03:20 PM

47. I'm going to assume for the moment that all of us try to do our jobs, regardless of our party or who donated to our campaigns - even the PA and AG. But, yeah ... it does seem that YB prefers to donate to Rs; I'll scratch 'em off my list of prospects :-)) ... (really, guys, if we get off on the subject of campaign finance, we'll be here all night ... always appreciate your research, though, Richard.)

I would NOT be surprised if there were a bill filed to address this proposal ... but it may have problems, already, due to the public attention. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Deb Eddy on January 6, 2008 03:42 PM

48. Richard Pope,
Good research.
I have always implied that the Seattle D's are in bed with the likes of Martin Selg and Greg Smith,inter city developers,not Yarrow bay.
More specificaly in relation to the quest for gentrification and Grand Boulevards.
Your research explains a lot in that the R's are not exactly trying to stop things either.
Although Rob McKenna did try and stop Sound transit,which is why he was voted off the Sound Transit board.

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 6, 2008 04:36 PM

49. Great, scratch 'em off your list of prospects, Deb. Will Ron Sims also be scratched off your list?

Posted by: Misty on January 6, 2008 04:45 PM

50. So Richard, Help us find the Republican in the Story. Ron Sims? Nope. Martin Durkan Jr. ? Sorry. Yarrowbay Development? Yes they play both sides when it is prudent from a business standpoint, but didn't they hold a fundraiser for Ron? I will save you the trouble the answer is yes. Palmer Coking Coal? Why they hired a Democratic Lobbyist to influence a Democratic Executive. Interesting list though, You had to go back to 2003 to get some of them. Wow $13,825 total in 5 years. Let's play the same game with Democrats shall we?

Posted by: Smokie on January 6, 2008 05:03 PM

51. Wow, I though I could copy and paste a small list but it was to big to bore people with here. Just go to Washington State PDC , sort by Party (Democrat) and last name Durkan. Yarrow bay's little fundraiser for Mr. Sims had several executives and spouses donating, god knows how many vendors and sub's, then skip to Palmer Coking Coal, Mr. Kombol, Morris. Sorry Richard the big money follws the D's in this one. What are your running for this cycle?

Posted by: Smokie on January 6, 2008 06:24 PM

52. That was a joke, Misty. One of these days, I'll learn my lesson and won't even try for sarcastic humor ... often doesn't translate well. Sorry.

I don't believe you'll find me on Sims' donors' list for after 1999 ... but, full disclosure, Marty Durkan is on mine.

I think what Smokie is getting at is that campaign contributions probably don't have any direct role in this proposal. I know it's sort of SOP on left- or right-wing blogs to characterize these problems as being party-specific. But the real value of these blogs is to discuss, share perspective on issues that the MSM haven't (for whatever reason) followed up on. Regardless of party.

I stand by my first observation, which was that the PA or AG will give this a once-over, if it really gets legs ...

Posted by: Deb on January 6, 2008 07:18 PM

53. Deb,

I think it is good that you are posting here. Not all who post here are party people, many are indies and this is a fun hobby that is informative. I vote for good candidates of either party who don't necessarily have to agree with me all the time, but they must have integrity. This deal simply stinks and it makes people even more cynical about government than they already are.

Posted by: WVH on January 6, 2008 08:00 PM

54. Hey Deb Look familiar.

10/11/2006 DURKAN MARTIN J JR SELF X
22401 SWEENEY ROAD SE MAPLE VALLEY WA
MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 $ 250.00 $ 250.00

will you be scratching Durkan off your list too

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 6, 2008 09:11 PM

55. Selective research Richard.
What say you!

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 6, 2008 09:13 PM

56. Richard,
Now that I have reviewed the PDC site I think you were selectively reporting the facts.

Martin Durkan,durkan et al contributions dating back to 1998.

Democrats

Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $87,691.80

Republicans

Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $29,975.00

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 6, 2008 09:26 PM

57. Yarrow Bay pay outs

Republicans
Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $13,025.00

Democrats
Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $11,000.00
I think the facts show Yarrow bay pays everybody Durkan's mostly pay Democrats.
I am disapointed that you did not provide a more thorough display of the picture Richard

Posted by: Publicbulldog on January 6, 2008 09:39 PM

58. My understanding is that Martin Durkan Jr and his wife Jennifer Durkan prefer the Republicans. His father Martin Durkan prefers the Democrats. His sister Jennie Durkan and her life partner Dana Garvey prefer the Democrats.

Dana Garvey and I used to be really active in the Young Republicans in New Orleans back in the early 1980's. Funny how times change.

And yes, my research was selective :) But so was Eric Earling's research :)

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 7, 2008 12:50 AM

59. Well I guess your "Understanding" was wrong Richard. You are right about your research being selective, but Mr. Earling didn't provide any research for this story. The story, if you read the article, was researched by THE SEATTLE TIMES and ran above the fold front page on January 2, 2008.

Posted by: Smokie on January 7, 2008 02:21 AM

60. The question heard around the Sound:

Did the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority and "other" government officials plan to wrest extremely desirable commercial private property real estate parcels along the planned Green Line route for Monorail stations using the power of "eminent domain" and taxpayer funds knowing that they would eventually pull the plug on the project and flip those properties making them "available" to certain developer connections?

Posted by: Mark Mywords on January 7, 2008 05:28 AM

61. Where is Rob McKenna? His office was contacted several times to investigate The Great Seattle Monorail Rip-Off and he got his staff to run interference for him and he did nothing. More than that, he helped the corrupt SPMA fashion what they chose to call "repose" legislation (RCW 35.95A.120(2)etc. to try and further facilitate the illegal shutdown of the SMP.

Take a look at that law. Notice the phrase "before and after" the date of enactment. Retroactive "ex post facto" law.

Posted by: Mark Mywords on January 7, 2008 05:44 AM

62. Pardon me.

Editorial correction -

Did the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority and "other" government officials plan to wrest extremely desirable commercial private property real estate parcels along the planned Green Line route for Monorail stations FROM THE OWNERS using the power of "eminent domain" and taxpayer funds knowing that they would eventually pull the plug on the project and flip those properties making them "available" to certain developer connections?

Posted by: Mark Mywords on January 7, 2008 05:53 AM

63. PDB @54: See @52. While I've got serious questions about this deal, I also known Marty for awhile, and we've been on the same side of some issues before the county council. He often speaks for the interests of those outside of the Seattle core, so on mundane (but critically important) issues like keeping suburban folks' garbage and sewer rates low ... he can be on the side of the angels.

Posted by: Deb on January 7, 2008 06:50 AM

64. I wonder if this is a diversion for the real issue?

Did anyone catch Robert Mak's program last night because one item is HUGE for King County. Apparently the county investment pool has at least $250 million or more in exposure to the subprime mortagage mess. They could lose that money and take down some smaller units like hospital and fire districts with them. I wonder what the association list looks like for investment managers and contributions? Is this another WHOOPS? I believe it is on streaming and it came at the end of the show.

Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2008 12:01 PM

65. Smokie @ 59

My understanding isn't off by much. Martin Durkan Jr and his wife Jennifer Durkan have given many thousands to Republicans, and probably many thousands to Democrats as well. They were major contributors to Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, David Irons Jr, and all of the Republican members of the King County Council.

Jenny Durkan, his sister, gives almost exclusively to Democrats. Even though she endorsed Dan Satterberg, I am not sure whether she contributed to him. It doesn't appear like that from the PDC database extract that I am looking at.

As for Martin Durkan Sr, his father, it is hard to tell the two Martins apart, since Jr doesn't appear by the son's contributions much of the time. It doesn't appear that Martin Sr is a major contributor, at least looking at the surface.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 7, 2008 04:19 PM

66. Hard to know what to believe Richard since you admitted you are not balanced in presenting your material, I have been to the PDC Database and the Durkan clan largely supports Democrats in both numbers and amounts. You also have to look under Durkin, because this poor fellow apparently has a hard time deciding on how to spell his own name for PDC purposes.

I think you will find that the reason Martin Durkan Sr. isn't a major contributor is because he has been dead for almost 3 years.

Posted by: Smokie on January 7, 2008 04:33 PM

67. Remember, guys, that someone (often a volunteer) in the candidate's campaign files the PDC report and may be challenged in the spelling department.

Even accepting WVH's interesting news about the county investment fund, I don't think this is about contributions or diversion (assumes too much prior knowledge, WVH). I think it is in the nature of some politicians to try to come up with "deals" that they think deliver value to the taxpayer.

Ron undoubtedly thinks this is a stellar deal ... a win/win. And Maple Valley thinks its a travesty. And many of the rest of us are looking at it and doing that figurative "HUH????"

This story will revive later ...

Posted by: Deb on January 7, 2008 05:23 PM

68. Hi Deb,

1. Does Huh mean we are trying to figure out what is really going on?

2. I don't know if it is so much prior knowledge as the questions are:

a. Who are the investment advisors
b. Why were these particular investments recommended
c. Are there any conflicts of interest
d. Were there safer investments the pool could have chosen
e. Are smaller government units going to get dinged by the loss?

I believe that probably many stories will be reviived later if there is a downturn and a huge chunk of the investment pool is lost.

Thanks for the reply.

Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2008 09:07 PM

69. 1. Yep, that's what "huh" means!

2. I think the investment managers are sufficiently separate from the exec's office so as to rule out any collusion w/the land deal ... that was my only point. But that said, you are RIGHT ON that, should money be lost, those questions will demand answers.

Part of the problem here is the increase in the number of financial "products" developed by the banking and investment industries over the past maybe 20 years. Bundled or repackaged "risk" instruments, derivatives and the like offer new ways to make money ... but also represent completely new risks, quite apart from the underlying commercial transaction.

I'm going to be a little distracted soon, so if this story gets interesting again and the MSM doesn't prioritize it ... let me know!

Posted by: Deb on January 8, 2008 06:10 AM

70. How about the story is ALREADY interesting and the people need an elected advocate to step-up and push for an investigation? Would you know anyone with the political courage to do that Deb?
Please put in a request for an investigation with the AG's office, they will need a complaint to open a file. The only way to prevent this sort of abuse from happening is if good people take action, right Deb?

Posted by: Smokie on January 8, 2008 06:37 AM

71. Actually, Smokie, I don't think the AG needs a complaint to open a file ... that's often the case with code enforcement in cities, but Rob has enormously broad powers ...

But, YES, I will let the AG know of my concern and interest ... if you give me you "real" email, I'll cc you on it ...

/d

Posted by: Deb on January 8, 2008 10:43 AM

72. I trust you Deb, besides I will probably see you at one of those legislative lobbying days we have down in Olympia anyway.

Posted by: Smokie on January 8, 2008 02:08 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?