Tensions continue over "Homeowners' Rights" bill
Josh Feit of The Stranger points out a Seattle Times article detailing the dispute between House Speaker Frank Chopp and Sen. Brian Weinstein over SB 5550, commonly known as the "Homeowner's Bill of Rights." And um, wow.
Here's the thing: just like at the national level, we can have a big tent. Things have to be worked out in the real world. We get that.
But killing off consumer protection legislation, and a rather modest bill at that, at the behest of perhaps the most singularly vicious pro-Republican special interest in the state is not exactly what people were voting for last November. The legislation deserves a chance to be examined and voted upon in the House. If changes need to be made, so be it, but just killing it off for the year is pretty low.
If the bill is so terrible, why did it pass the state Senate with such a lopsided margin? There's a real need to protect consumers from some of the shoddy construction practices in this state.
In an interview with The Seattle Times on Monday, he (Weinstein) pointed out that Tom McCabe, head of the BIAW, often speaks fondly of Chopp and once even suggested the speaker would make a good governor. And Weinstein noted that, according to a lobbying disclosure form filed by McCabe, the two had dinner earlier this year.McCabe disputes some of that in the full article, but however you want to slice it, this make Chopp look pretty bad.
"If you start connecting the dots, you see he [Chopp] has some kind of understanding that he isn't going to hurt them this year," Weinstein said.
Weinstein said he tried to get the homebuilders to negotiate with him on the warranty bill, but they refused. Now, he says, he understands why.
"They knew they had an ace in the hole," Weinstein said. "They knew Frank was going to kill it."
Here's the thing: just like at the national level, we can have a big tent. Things have to be worked out in the real world. We get that.
But killing off consumer protection legislation, and a rather modest bill at that, at the behest of perhaps the most singularly vicious pro-Republican special interest in the state is not exactly what people were voting for last November. The legislation deserves a chance to be examined and voted upon in the House. If changes need to be made, so be it, but just killing it off for the year is pretty low.
If the bill is so terrible, why did it pass the state Senate with such a lopsided margin? There's a real need to protect consumers from some of the shoddy construction practices in this state.
