Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Storm Lease Fiscal note, Form revised February 6, 2008

Councilmembers,
I'm looking forward to the meeting this Friday.

I have a few questions about millionaire for-profit pro sports owners entering into public/private partnerships (profit sharing, etc) with the council, even exempting the Storm agreement from I-91.

It is interesting, and a little disturbing, the difference in approach, attitude, and standards applied in the Storm agreement effort verses the Sonics agreement that is pending your approval.

I am wondering if the Storm lease would have met the 4 tests Mr. Conlin has recently invented.

Had Mr. Conlin actually voted on the Storm lease (he was excused) would he have voted no?

Based on his criteria, I guess he would have voted "no". How could he possibly vote otherwise?

I know that the other members of the current council all voted for the Storm lease, and I don't see how they could have had they used Mr. Conlin's special test.

I am sure all of you would not want a double standard applied to city agreements with pro sport franchises. Right?

I suppose it might be too much to ask that you exempt the ArenaCo agreement from I-91 as you did with Force10. But I am asking you to not invent criteria that you did not, and would not, apply to the Storm owners, the millionaire for-profit pro sports franchise owners.

I'm a Democrat, so, I naturally detest hypocrisy. Please attempt to avoid it in this case.
Thanks.

Storm Lease Fiscal note, Form revised February 6, 2008
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/fnote/116435.htm

See you Friday,
Mike Baker
Seattle, WA

Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here:
http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/

2 comments:

bmac said...

classic!! it will be interesting if i-91 comes up as a reason to deny the arena, suppose we'll find out more friday but loved your email

Mr Baker said...

It went to all of the city council, and cc to the mayor, bcc to a few people that shouldn't be surprised that I'm pushing the question of fairness.

Blog Feeds