Where are all the people weeping about how there are too many welfare recipients in this country?

One more thing: Imagine if King County gave $135 million to help the homeless instead of to a bunch of wealthy sports owners and players. Then everyone might be able to stop bitching about the homeless and how inconvenient and annoying they are.

Hey whoa 2 if we actually worked on the homeless crisis, who would the rest of us look down on to forget we're wage slaves?

This is a disgrace. Criminal abuse of public funds, populism at its worse.

Can you please make a block of Y and N votes? It's hard to quickly parse out who voted yes and no.

Wait, who exactly voted in favor? Still trying to decide if I should be outraged at my councilmember or not.

Now are we going to get a King County initiative to smack the council majority down?

Or an Eyman initiative on the subject where he manages to fold some other crap in somehow to pee smug Republican pee on it and get struck down by the courts for being multi-subject so we're back to square one?

Do me a favor, Tim, just keep it straight-up with no grandstanding, okay?

KIRO lays out who voted. KIRO serves a function in the web of life.
http://amp.kiro7.com/news/local/king-county-council-to-vote-on-135m-funding-for-safeco-field/835980097

Against billionaire welfare:
Upthegrove
Dembowski
Kohl-Welles
Gossett

For billionaire welfare:
von Reichbauer
Dunn
McDermott
Balducci
Lambert

I'll bite:

Why did the 5 councilpeople want to accept the team's request for more money? What's the calculus?

No way will I vote for Constantine again after this; not for re-election, not for Governor

@2: I imagine nothing at all would change.

Actually, I don't have to imagine this, because King County spends around of $200,000,000 in programs for the homeless every year.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/how-much-do-seattle-and-king-county-spend-on-homelessness/

I realize it's fun to bash the County Council for just about any decision they make, but I don't think I'm going to get too worked up over this. After all, it's $135 mm spread out over 25 years, which comes out to about $5.4mm per annum, slightly less than the $5.6mm per year the County currently spends on noxious week control, so not an exorbitant amount when put in that context. Also, it seems like a prudent investment in a major facility that the County owns - the Mariners just happen to be the prime tenant - and like most landlords, it makes sense that at least some of the cost of routine maintenance and upgrades to a nearly 20 year old property should be shouldered by the owner of the property. Finally, the Mariners lease is up for renewal next year and this commitment not only ensures they'll keep renting the park, but also gives the County a bit of leverage in negotiating a new agreement: "We're paying a substantial amount to keep the place in good condition, so we expect some concessions from you in return."

The county government keeps building jails for the poor. No questions asked,

Concessions will be reneged on at the first sign of trouble, just like Boeing did. Billionaires don't ever have to pull their own weight.

Not really.

So let’s stop whining and file a referendum already. This stuff can be repealed, you know.

B-O-Y-C-O-T-T. What if they had a Mariners' season and nobody came to SafeCo Field?

Does this pass the sniff test? I would assume the largest grouping of hotels would be Seattle and the reason south seattle is number two is due to sea-tac...

“You take those funds earned right here in our community where we have the second highest grouping of hotels in the state, and you take it away. How is robbing from the poor and giving to the rich part of our equity initiatives?””