Comments

1
So McGinn's an idiot and a blowhard. Color me surprised.
2
So Council still has a major budget crisis and will toss homeless families out on the streets this winter.

Color me surprised.
3
bwahaha your guy is an idiot.

hope you feel dumb about being on his balls so much
4
I wonder if Christopher M. Williams still has a job today.
5
"We never agreed to anything, but there is a signed negotiated agreement, which is not the same thing. And it was just the Parks department Acting Supe who signed which, yeah, consider him retired from the stage, if you know what I mean. And now here's a band Dave Meinert manages, with a song the name of which escapes me."
6
Technically, contracts above a certain dollar value have to be approved/signed by Council/Mayor.

But we all know that, even if we're pretending otherwise.
7
@2: Unless they're going to demolish a shelter or a shantytown, the homeless are already, by definition, out on the streets.
Also, how does this connect to the Billionaire's Tunnel?
8
Except it's a conditional clause, contingent upon agreement from the city and Mayor's office. In short, yes, it seems from a lay POV that the Mayor's got his hands on the purse strings still. The council can surely go over the Mayor's head, but the Mayor is still technically in the right. You can go ahead and have your law types go over this, but the agreement seems to have easy outs for both parties.

Of course, both sides are acting really shitty to each other so ultimately this is just a childish slapfight. And really, the Mayor's office did walk into this -- even though he's fully able to question whether conditions are met and if the city is getting a fair shake, he should have known that he was basically going up against an art institution in a city that bleeds art. SAM could have all public safety funding diverted to its coffers under a shady agreement and people would still shit bricks if the Mayor objected.
9
And to make this all the more amusing, they're both staring each other's reasoning right in the face and not seeing it:

Mayor: Shortfall, unexpectedly large bonus to MOHAI -- looks like it's digging in the pockets when money is hard to come by.

MOHAI: Holy fuck, here come the bulldozers and we're having a hard time coming up with funding and there's absolutely nothing we can do at this point short of selling off half our collection.

So what can they do? MOHAI can keep the money, but renegotiate other parts of deals to give the city a fair shake. Perhaps kick in cash for other city expenditures or ink a deal to get historic artifacts from the city at cost rather than via donation (in exchange for faster and a more fair negotiation plank -- there's obviously tons that MOHAI wants for its collection that they normally expect to come for cheap or free; putting up cash could be a win-win). On the city's side of things, the city's take from admission and other fees could be cut in half for a time when the new MOHAI opens -- especially since recovery should theoretically be in high gear by the time MOHAI opens.
10
Looks like the mayor is right to me.
11
@ 8 and 9, Would you please educate yourself a bit more before cluttering up the comments? In #8 what the hell does SAM have to do with this? and are you aware that there are usually agreements when items are given to an institution such as MOHAI that limit its ability to shed items from its collection?
12
I'm no lawyer, but the phrase "Conditional Assignment" is pretty clear.
13
"Subject to review and approval as provided by the City in section 6"

What is in section 6? It's not included in the .pdf doc in the link. Also, the agreement is dated 6/21/10 and 6/22/10. Did the Mayor not have any disagreement with this prior to that date? After all, he represents "the City", and there is a signature there from someone representing the city. Was it signed without McGinn's knowledge? I'm very confused about what's happening at the Mayor's office.

The agreement seems pretty clear about the terms. If McGinn had a problem, the time to raise those objections would have been BEFORE a representative of the City signed the agreement, not after.

@8/9, MOHAI is not being "shitty" or "childish" to anyone. They are following through on agreements they made (at the City's fucking behest - 'go negotiate your own deal with the state', the City said). So, they did. Now McGinn sees dollar signs and has a sudden change of heart. Well, as they say, Mike - you're a day late and a dollar short.
14
This is very straightforward. A case of bad fiduciary oversight at MOHAI. You don't bank on an agreement such as this when it is subject to council approval. Especially after receiving a windfall through their negotiations with the state. So, our city government is doing the right thing here. Ultimately, MOHAI can make it work without the 7 million (or more likely, some smaller number), but they're going to need to run things professionally.
15
MOHAI gets $18 million more than anticipated from the State, doesn't tell the City until after preliminary negotiations are over, and then wants the extra $7 million? What are they going to spend it on? More Boeing memorabilia?

These are not the right priorities for public funds regardless of whether McGinn signed a deal in blood and put his children up as collatoral. The biggest economic downturn since the Depression is tearing people's lives apart. I can't believe Bagshaw is even considering siding with MOHAI over the people of Seattle! How out of touch can she get?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.