Strike one on the ballpark fiasco: commissioners table exclusivity agreement.

Apparently hearing it when your re-election comes up does make a difference.

With so many questions and disclosures left to be revealed, a great deal of the smoke-filled room nonsense that has led the efforts to stuff this waste of money down our throats seems to be increasingly up in the air.

There are so many unanswered questions... like, where's the feasibility study (there isn't one) it's community college property (So, how does the city or the county run that again... and how much are these people paying for this property?) and how much will groups pay to use this thing and who gets the money? (The owners. All of it) And didn't Clark College just get a new ballpark built? And why did it only have 150 seats?

And what about the neighborhood?

The most problematic aspect here is that most people who buy tickets will pay less of a tax for this facility then those who go see a movie in the evening... many of them, half as much as the movie goer.

And this is OK for the baseball junkies?

Stuart, an ex jock and a democrat, has no problem wasting millions of our dollars without asking us. That's the problem when so many people have suspended their common sense and voted to re-elect a tax and spender.

But Boldt has other concerns.

He's SUPPOSED to be a Republican, but has increasing difficulty in voting like one.

Earlier, I indicated that Boldt would sell us out. The next democrat vote he takes, which may be this one, will cause a horrific backlash in what will be his contested primary as educating the people on his voting record may well prove that to Marc, "Republican ain't nothing but a label."

In any event, the rip off has been dealt a blow. How telling a blow is hard to say. But clearly, Boldt is hearing it, and he needs to hear it some more.
.

Q&A with the Vancouver Scammer's baseball rip off.

Actually, there's something of a Q&A over on the Oregonian website from the clown doing his very best to jam this nonsensical ballpark idea down our throats.

It was self-serving pap and total softball, like you might expect when the newspaper has an advertising dog in the fight; after all, we don't want to chase away any opportunity for revenue, do we?

But the tough questions... the right questions... weren't asked:

Questions such as:

How do you feel about requiring hundreds of thousands of people to pay for your ball park? (No problem with it)

What about allowing the people the right to vote? (No need.  If I can buy off the county commissioners and have THEM require the tax, I wind up smelling like a rose.)

Who did you first contact, and how long have you been talking about this?  (Good question.  Won't answer.)

Why did you do this in secrecy?  (Oh.  That question was asked, he just provided a bogus, crappy, untrue answer.)

Have you done any feasibility studies? (No.)

What about charging $10 per ticket to pay for your ballpark?  (What?  Why make it harder to get people thru then gates as it is when I can get the other 425,000 suckers who won't ever come here to pay for it?)

How much are you going to charge everyone else to use your ballpark? (Wouldn't you like to know?)

How much are you going to make on concessions and parking?  (Enough for me to drop a multi-million dollar check on this deal)

How much are you paying for the property?  (Nothing)

Do you understand that you're doing your best to burden the population of an entire county to pay for your scam?  (As I said, I don't give a damn about the people of this county.  If I did, I'd demand the ticket buyers pay for this thing.)

Our so-called political leaders don't care about these issues.  If they did, the agreement would require an affirmative, county-wide vote.

But we are cursed with a political leadership that doesn't care about the people or our money.  They have an agenda, and what we think doesn't matter because they are SOOOO much smarter then we are.

And if the reporter who did this really wanted to drill down on this guy, these are the questions he would be asking.

He didn't.  And that speaks for itself.

The scam continues...

Congrats to the democratian for 60 days of burying the Jim Jacks/House democrat story.

It's got to be tough on the lazy D.  When the democrats own you because they gave you a huge tax break while they jacked everybody else's taxes up, you know you're beholden to them, because you also know that switch flips both ways.

In this case, the democratian is repaying the favor by continuing to bury the Jim Jacks misconduct story as they have failed to engage in even 7th grade school newspaper journalism to get the facts in the hopes that everyone will "forget."

Well, I won't forget.  And every so often, I'll remind the reader that the local paper failed in it's duty to dig out the story, letting the supposedly "transparent" democrats completely off the hook and failing to report on then Rep. Jacks' rank misconduct, likely alcohol fuel but never the less, misconduct of a sort they don't want the average reader to know about... because the pattern of misconduct isn't recent... it's long term.

Our local paper has lowered the bar to unheard of levels.  The editor, who has had no trouble at all crusading against ME seems incapable of speaking truth to power and crusading against THEM.

Rest assured, gentle reader, had it been Rep. Hinton, there is no stone the local rag would not have turned over; no colleague or staffer they wouldn't have interviewed, no rumor they wouldn't have run down to the DNA level.

Because that's how they roll.

It's not unlike someone writing a column about how great it's going to be for the vast majority of the people of Clark County paying for a ballpark they will never set foot in while the paper makes bank off advertising... and doesn't pay a thing.

Others have asked Brancaccio about the idea of the paper paying a tax with the money to go to the ballpark; while they stand to make money off this endeavor is very appealing (and not mentioned by Brancaccio in his pie in the sky column) his response to the idea that maybe the newspaper should chip in as much as they want the rest of us to is greeted with a rather hypocritical silence... which apparently means "no."

It's not like that isn't the long term pattern of our local daily; they want us to go into debt by the billions to build their utopian idea of a bridge with loot rail... and they want to avoid paying a dime for that as well.

So, these two most recent episodes are not surprising, given the established pattern.

And frankly, that's just a damned shame.

There are so many other ways to pay for this ballpark that won't insult either our intelligence or our wallets.  But those would include making the fans responsible for paying for it; making the people of the city of Vancouver pay for it instead of ramming the responsibility down our throats county-wide without a vote (Imagine that... a bridge and loot rail that we had to vote on once before, but suddenly can't vote on now (to the silence of the newspaper) and a ballpark they don't want us to vote on, paid for by those of us who go to optional "entertainment" but not for those who buy an optional "newspaper."

None of this is surprising.

The cover up, the forced payments without a vote, the paper yelling the loudest for something they want and will make money off of but not have to pay one thin dime to profit from.

Why am I not surprised?

Lou continues to fascinate with his failure to answer: you want this team so bad, how about taxing your paper to pay for it?

It never ceases to amaze me how willing Brancaccio is to spend everyone else's money.

For example, in all of this suggested tax scam, I see nothing from him concerning taxing his paper to help pay for the team he wants so badly.

Others seems to share that view.  Here's a recent example from comments under his babbling column wherein he tells us how great those of us who don 't want this tax will have it if we just go along with paying it... all so he can watch baseball without paying for the facility.

Asked directly if he would tax himself the way he wants to tax everyone else, Brancaccio shows what level of integrity and guts he has by refusing to answer.

And this clown judges ME?

Brancaccio proves his cowardice and hypocrisy: after telling us WE need to pay HIS tax.

So, Brancaccio continues on with his pattern of demanding that everyone else in Clark County pay for what HE wants... and he lacks the testicles to tell us if he would have his paper be taxed.

I've known for years he's a cowardly bully, and added to that is his rank hypocrisy.

Here's the exchange under his moronic column telling us how great WE will have it as WE pay for the ballpark HE wants but that WE damned sure don't need.

Lou, you're not answering the question. You want this; your newspaper will make money off the advertising. Your sports reporter will cover it.

Are you willing to have your just-as-optional-as-entertainment newspaper taxed to help pay for it? Or is that only for those of us who won't ever go there?

NotBuyinIt — May 21, 2011 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal ) | Ignore User )

Lou, you have not answered my question either. Would you still be in favor of entertainment tax if this were for a soccer team? Or is this just because you like baseball?

luvithere — May 21, 2011 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal ) | Ignore User )

Lou, Would you support a tax on newspapers to fund the building of a stadium?

gto — May 21, 2011 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal ) | Ignore User )

Mike Briggs said: "It is not practical to have a public vote on every single item of interest for the public"

Yeah, I agree, Mike, ONLY TAX ISSUES!

MartinHash — May 21, 2011 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal ) | Ignore User )

I guess I shouldn't have a voice or an opinion unless I'm willing to be taxed gto? Silly.

Lou Brancaccio (Columbian Staff) — May 21, 2011 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal ) | Ignore User )

What a cowardly, gutless, weaselly response.

The answer, of course, is NO. He just wants US to pay for his little game palace, just like he wants US to pay for the horrifically expensive, absolutely unnecessary bridge and loot rail... all without asking us.

It's always been so easy for Brancaccio to demand that WE pay for what HE wants.. Now, when HE's asked.... what does he do? He runs away and hides.

Gutsy, Lou... really gutsy.

Brancaccio is guilty of a hell of a lot more then wanting to shove another tax down our throats for a ballpark.

So, Brancaccio pleads guilty to wanting to shove yet another tax or fee down our throats so 99% of US pay for something HE wants.

What he's NOT "guilty" of is volunteering his rag to be taxed to pay for this waste of money.

So what if you don’t like baseball or don’t plan to go? Could that still be a win for you?

Some would argue no. Fair enough. I respect that view. But I’d argue yes. There simply are certain things — like this ballpark and a professional baseball team — that show a certain coming-of-age aspect to the area. That would be good.

But what about this needed tax support to help build it? Aren’t we cutting back just about everywhere?

Yes we are. And that’s a valid point. But that’s the beauty of an entertainment tax. Essentially, only entertainment would be taxed.

You buy entertainment, you help pay for entertainment. Unlike a sales tax that impacts everyone, this impacts only those who use entertainment.

Gee.  What a surprise.... Moron.

Where have we seen that before?

How about this, instead:

You buy newspapers, you help pay for the newspaper.  Unlike a sales tax that impacts everyone, this impacts only those who buy a newspaper.

I sure don't see him volunteering HIS rag to help pay for this.  Why not?

While Brancaccio's babble is frequently bereft of sense, this kind of self-serving garbage is just that: self serving garbage.

What this REALLY means is that like every other downtown mafia type, he believes that this means their ability to steal our money for their uses has "come-of-age."

Of course, that also makes him guilty of being a hypocrite.

As a permanent member of the downtown mafia, Identity Vancouver types, Brancaccio is guilty of a wide variety of things.

He's guilty of a rank leftist bias.

He's guilty of doing the democrat's bidding like they were paying him by actively covering up Jim Jack's misconduct, pre-resignation, from the legislature.

He's guilty of using his position as editor and the column that position gives him to beat the hell out of those who are wise enough to oppose his utopian view.

He's guilty of running a paper that lies, exaggerates and avoids every tenet of journalism to push a position.

He's guilty of other rank hypocrisy: demanding that we pay yet another tax after his newspaper received a tax cut while the rest of our small business taxes were increased.

He's guilty of wanting to bury us under billions of debt for a bridge and loot rail that we do not want, do not need, and cannot afford.

He's guilty of slamming bloggers when THIS blogger has scooped his exulted rag on a few major stories, namely the fake Baird death threats, the Bittner arrest,and the Jon Russell, fake college degree scam.

He's guilty of demanding "civility" that he uses whenever HE feels like it, all the while unleashing his pit yorkie of an editorial page editor, my mentor, John Laird, who taught me everything I know about attacking opponents to an agenda.

He's guilty of a MASSIVE democrat bias in endorsements.

He's guilty of continuing to lie about the rag's lack of bias.

He's guilty of censoring and banning those from commenting on the paper's frequently pathetic efforts to slant the story... and an institutional failure to include the opposition to his positions in the paper.

He's guilty of shilling the lie that replacing the bridge will "ease chronic congestion."

He's guilty of failing to understand and seek out the opposition to his bizarre views on the massive waste of a bridge replacement until the level of hatred towards his view became so overwhelming he COULDN'T ignoring it any more.

He's guilty of running what amounts to fake polls and using their pre-ordained outcomes to support a false conclusion.

He's guilty of full-out public relations and damage control efforts on behalf of those he supports, such as rehabing Brian Baird's image after Baird's fake death threat, Nazi, Brown Shirt nonsense; a long term project that ultimately failed for him.... and that he continues in his efforts to rehab Leavitt over his months long, multiple lie-campaign on tolls.

He's guilty of shilling Baird's bogus 72 hour scam, never once holding him accountable for routinely violating his own rule.

He's guilty of failing to hold Baird accountable for voting on bills he hadn't read.

He's guilty of attacking the veracity of bloggers when his own is MORE than under question, like he did Koski over his paper's failure to report on Baird's bogus death threat nonsense.

He's guilty of failing to hold Tim Leavitt accountable for his fraudulent election and subsequent lies.

He's guilty of using double standards in endorsements: one moment, talking about a candidates experience or the lack thereof, the next moment, not even mentioning that experience, like they did in the Mielke-Brokaw race... as he endorsed the completely IN-experienced Pam Brokaw... twice.. over experienced candidates... who happened to be, you guessed it, Republican.

Coincidence, to be sure.

He's guilty of supporting a corrupt, gerrymandered C-Trans vote, both in the past and in the future, where tens of thousands of us will be cut out of the vote... but not paying the tax... all while his paper enjoys the largess of the democrats he supports so strogly and often through the B&O tax cut they're still working under.

He's guilty of failing to hold candidates who don't bother to vote, even thought THEY'VE been elected (Leavitt) or those who have NEVER voted (Janet Seekins, Van Nortwick's opponent) accountable in any meaningful way. 

He's guilty of using this blog as a source for stories, and then failing to credit the blog or me, or link to this blog as the source.

He's guilty of protecting Jim Moeller by refusing to remind people that Moeller (and his unbelievable arrogance) authored the moronic "some things are, some things aren't" candy tax, destroyed at the polls last November.

He's guilty of using the Storro story as a campaign piece for TV Tony Golick.

He's guilty of attempting to professionally destroy Brent Boger, Peter Van Nortwick, and, well, me.

Brancaccio is guilty of a long list of crimes to this community.  And to that list, sadly, we can add theft, as he works to steal our money to pay for his ballpark under nebulous crap like that published in his despicable propaganda sheet that would put the fricking Nazi's to shame.

Will Stuart and Boldt sell us out on the ballpark? Of COURSE they will.

So, the ballparkers have been busily working behind our backs to jam this crap down our throats so we get to pay for their special deal. The split? 99% of us get to pay for a ballpark usable by 1%. 100% of us bear the responsibility for paying for this crap pile if Portland gets another AAA team... and all for the privilege of watching just barely out of high school baseball, baseball that people don't watch now at any of the schools in question.

We get to build this $23 million facility; they get to pay around $750 or so every day they play in it. That's "fair," isn't it?

Stuart and Boldt, who vote together 100% of the time like the good democrats they are, will certainly screw us, just like Stuart did when he lied about a vote on loot rail as part of his "Leavittesque" campaign strategy, wherein, like Leavitt, he would say or do anything to get elected, only to forget all about his promises the day after.

So now, we're confronted with this: will these two, with their proven lack of integrity, sell us out so Stuart and Bomar can watch baseball?

Will they jack the tax up beyond 5% so that all the other groups can suck out our tax dollars, all under the guise of the "public good?"

Absolutely. Expect this 5% to magically increase in order to shut the many other groups, much more deserving, up. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if this scam was entirely to finance THOSE groups because, as we should all know by now, the primary purpose of all of this is to jam Yakima into selling THEIR soul to keep the team... a feat I sincerely hope they accomplish.

But if the Bobbsey Twins jam us with this tax; since there is no way Mielke will go along with them, hanging THEM out to dry, for once, instead of their usual course of the other way around; will it go away if the team stays in Yakima?

You know better then that.

So, when the vote takes place, expect Boldt to vote like he always does: democrat.... ramming yet another tax (this is certainly not the only one) down our throats.