Slog - Comments on Field of Schemes http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes I've got a story coming out in today's paper that raises legal questions about the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Facilities District (PFD). This is the public and publicly funded entity, with a board appointed by the governor and KC Exec, that is charged with overseeing the tenant at Safeco Field—the Mariners. Given the huge public investment in Safeco Field—a $520 million construction budget funded with public bonds that are being paid off with local taxes—it makes sense to have a public body monitoring the situation. However, as today's story points out, maybe somebody should be watchdogging the watchdogs.... Copyright 2008 Wed, 09 May 2007 15:02:51 -0800 Fri, 11 May 2007 08:30:33 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Gomez The team is funded and run by a bunch of elderly caucasian egomaniacs, who serve the fiscal will of an even bigger Japanese egomaniac.

If they broke the law, it, while dismaying, wouldn't surprise me.

]]> Gomez http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711123 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711123 News Wed, 09 May 2007 15:31:58 -0800 Comment by 9x I don't see a cite to 36.100.190 in the body of 36.100.010; rather the later incorporates the severability provision of the former.

I would say the PFD is "hiring a service" w/in the meaning of .010(5), not entering into a purchase or sale contract w/in the meaning of 43.19.1906.

Further, 43.19.1906 begins "insofar as practicable" ... and a court could drive a truck through that kind of language. Esp. where you're talking about hiring an agent as against building a structure.

]]> 9x http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711125 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711125 News Wed, 09 May 2007 15:35:01 -0800 Comment by 9x ln 1 should read "rather the former incorporates the the severability provisions of the latter."

]]> 9x http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711127 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711127 News Wed, 09 May 2007 15:39:09 -0800 Comment by Blondie This story, too, was already in the Times, two Saturdays ago - after it was all laid out in a Weakly blog a week earlier. Here's the link:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/blogs/dailyweekly/2007/04/safecos_views.php

At least you scooped the other members of your staff, anyway.

]]> Blondie http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711323 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711323 News Wed, 09 May 2007 19:02:57 -0800 Comment by RustyT Way to do the bidding of the assholes that want to ruin our views Josh.

]]> RustyT http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711329 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711329 News Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:59 -0800 Comment by Josh Feit Blondie @4,

Neither The Seattle Times story nor the Weekly blog reported that the $100K contract runs up against state contracting rules.

Young and Anderson are both top flight reporters. I don't know why neither reporter explored that issue.

That's the issue I was interested in.

]]> Josh Feit http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711338 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711338 News Wed, 09 May 2007 19:35:10 -0800 Comment by a reader How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?

]]> a reader http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711379 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711379 News Wed, 09 May 2007 21:10:57 -0800 Comment by a reader How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?

]]> a reader http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711381 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c711381 News Wed, 09 May 2007 21:11:20 -0800 Comment by elrider Josh,

The other reporters didn't pick up the contract because it's not an issue. 9x @2 is right that the PFD is hiring a service or entering into a consulting contract. These have much more flexible rules than purchasing goods.

A veteran government reporter knows that.

]]> elrider http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712012 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712012 News Thu, 10 May 2007 10:57:09 -0800 Comment by BadBrad That's correct - no public bid needed for those deals. The PFD's attorneys, Preston Gates, cleared that ahead of time, and you should have checked with them. The contract is also for UP TO $100,000 - meaning the firm could earn much less. As fan and critic of the PFD/Mariners, I'm familiar with their operations - and the story is really about the battle over the views.

]]> BadBrad http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712113 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712113 News Thu, 10 May 2007 12:24:58 -0800 Comment by Pierce I just read your story and it's wrong and should be corrected. You say a public bid is required, and it isn't - something you might have learned if you called someone who knows about these deals (try the state auditor). As for that "slap to the voters" ("the Mariners PFD was created to watchdog the public's investment. But it seems someone should be watchdogging them"),that's exactly what the PFD is trying to do, rightly or wrongly, in preserving the investment in stadium views for the public. But then we know how a few niggling facts can ruin a good story.

]]> Pierce http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712973 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/field_of_schemes#c712973 News Fri, 11 May 2007 08:30:33 -0800