View Single Post
10-19-2012, 11:45 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,931
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by snovalleyhockeyfan View Post
Sure didn't take them long, did it?

BTW, on a slightly OT-note, those of us who have been critical of the Times' coverage of the arena discussion are probably taking some interest, and a few swipes at the paper, over this:

The Times' publishers, the Blethen family, have taken out ad space in their newspaper, estimated at $75,000, to publish ads supporting the candidacy of Rob McKenna, a Republican, to become the state's next governor (similar to provincial premier for our Canadian posters) and also to support a pro gay-marriage referendum on the ballot as well here in a few weeks.

You know, considering their coverage on the arena, this really takes it to a new level, doesn't it??
Well it doesn't take long when they got a idiot environmental lawyer that also happens to be on the payroll of the union/port also aganist it.

In their minds that just cause city/county had a vote that its violating Sepa/EIS. Doesn't matter what the vote is for just that there was a vote. And they are crying foul.

Mondays vote was NOT to approve the building it was to start the EIS/SEPA process where Hansen pays for it and Hansen can start looking for a NBA team and a NHL owner.

If they are right that the arena will cause doomsday for the port then they the hell would they sue they would just let the EIS/SEPA process do the talking. Its not gonna show that the arena will cause doomsday and they know that hence why they are suing.

The 2nd vote (term sheet) will give the okay or not based on EIS/SEPA on providing the public funds and giving the okay to build the building pending on a NBA team being secured.

The union/lawyer refuse to read/understand the entire agreement from the first page to the last page. It doesn't follow their agenda.

gstommylee is offline