LETTER: ‘Who Is Funding The Candidates For Burien City Council?’

Print This Post  Email This Post

This last Saturday, I and a number of my friends and neighbors received a call from the Affordable Housing Council asking us to vote for Gordon Shaw. Wondering who this group was and where there funding came from, I went on line to find out who they were and what they stood for. This organization is a political action group (PAC) sponsored by the largest and weathiest group of right wing developers in the State of Washington-the BIAW(Building Industry Association of Washington). Each election cycle they funnel millions of dollars into Washington State elections to influence the outcome of the elections in the State of Washington to favor large corporations and commercial builders.

The BIAW has been involved in some very extreme political positions. They have opposed legislation to protect environment, critical areas, the salmon, Orca whales. They have opposed solar energy in the building industry and at one point in time, provided funding for the development of a para military group in Snohomish County. The BIAW has referred to people seeking to protect the environment are Nazis and terrorists. They oppose the fact that climate change is occurring on the planet. The BIAW has fought hard against union workers and disabled workers in the State of Washington. The State of Washington sued them for election fraud and failing to follow public disclosure rules-file of $584,000, Sept. 2010.

According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the BIAW is Washington state’s biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. According to the same source, the group’s newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists.The BIAW is unlike other business groups in Olympia according to environmental lobbyist Clifford Traisman. “They are to the far right of most business in Washington state,” Traisman says.

So what is the BIAW doing in the elections of a small city like Burien? Gordon Shaw stated at the Gregory Heights forum that Burien was too small of a city to have neighborhood plans and too small to have neighborhoods give input about what should be happening in the city. However, I guess it is not too small for the biggest and weathiest right wing development group in the State of Washington to finance his campaign and make phone calls to have him elected to the Burien City Council. Gordon Shaw has taken monies from this group in every election he has run in. The real question for every Burien citizen is should this kind of money be buying Burien City Council positions?

I find it very interesting to see who is funding the candidates and issues in elections – http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Candidate/loc_candidates then go to page 14 until you reach “City of Burien”

What is even more interesting to see who is funding Greg Duff. He has taken a great deal of campaign money from the unions but then has also taken monies from the BIAW-which is opposed to unions. Additionally, Duff has been spending portions of his funds at or for non- union products and services. So what does Greg Duff really stand for? Who does he really represent?

When you look at the Public Disclosure Site for candidates, those candidates that show $0 are candidates that are running campaign that have $5,000 or less in funding and are typically collecting monies from local citizens for small amounts. These are not the campaigns that big corporations and big political action lobby groups are involved in or trying to buy political positions for. They are the campaigns that really represent what the local voice in politics is.

I encourage every citizen in Burien to visit the link provided so they can see for themselves where the funding for the candidates for city council are coming from.

This will help clarify which candidates are representing the citizens of Burien and who is beholden to outside special interests.

John Poitras

[Have something you’d like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we’ll most likely publish it.]

Print This Post  Email This Post


32 Responses to “LETTER: ‘Who Is Funding The Candidates For Burien City Council?’”
  1. Len Boscarine says:

    O.k., so Gordon Shaw received a donation from the Affordable Housing people. Shouldn’t we expect this since Mr. Shaw has been in real estate and developing housing for over 30 years. If you take the time to do further research it looks like most of the contributors to the Affordable Housing people are small business owners rather than large developers.
    Also, I would hardly use the Seattle P-I as a source for political backgrounds. They had to stop publishing and lay off their staff since so few people wanted to read their horribly inaccurate and politically biased stories and editorials.
    Also in mentioning the people supporting Mr. Duff, Shaw, and the other candidates I wonder why you forgot to mention that the vast majority of the donors to all of the campaigns were local residents and organizations with local ties.
    Nice try at making something out of nothing!

    • Wheels says:

      Most of the people supporting Shaw and Duff are not local. You can look it up yourself. Why are these non-residents trying influence Burien politics?

    • William Forest says:

      I think its a little more than nothing if you look at it a little closer or perhaps with a less biased eye.

      You mischaracterize the Affordable housing council as small business owners.
      The Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH) is a national non-profit trade organization. For 30 years, CARH has served as the nation’s premier association for participants in the affordable rural housing profession, including: Builders, Owners, Landlords ,Developers, Managers, Non-profits, Housing Authorities, Syndicators, Accountants, Architects, Attorneys, Bankers, and Companies that supply goods and services to the industry.

      And I quote:

      Landlord rights must be protected and investment encouraged, in order to preserve affordable housing. It is our members who have risked their capital; the residents have little or nominal investment in their short-term leasehold interest.

      It sounds like the residents take a secondary class role in the eyes of this group.


      Also if you do the math and add it up ..
      35% of Mr Shaw’s contributions came from special interests outside of Burien and another 35% came from property management firms and a couple of auto dealerships interested in Mr Shaws real estate venture involving an auto mall.
      That leaves 30% coming from local residents that did not declare any property management or real estate development ties. Hardly as you infer the vast majority of the donors.
      Btw the RHA PAC the Rental Housing Authority of Puget sound had this posted on one of their blogs (see link) I find it quite revealing.

      RHA PAC Supported Candidates

      “We’re proud to announce RHA PAC supported Candidates did extremely well this election. Out of the over 95 candidates supported only 6 candidates were not elected or re-elected.”

      “Now we await the committee assignments. Once these are selected RHA will have a better idea of which Legislators could have a direct influence on the rental housing industry.”

      To sum up:

      The Annexation of white center if approved by the city council would provide a business opportunity for a substantial majority of Mr Shaws contributors..

    • Rob says:

      Gordon wants to re address the big box dreams and auto mall wishes and decimate the the north Burien area. I find the fact he is funded by the BIAW and the fact he believes that burien is too small to let neighborhoods have a say in what goes on them very interesting. As a result he lost my vote.

  2. The BIAW represents almost every contractor in the state one way or another. the entire industry came to a halt after the mortgage meltdown. Hundreds of construction companies went out of business, thousands of workers lost their jobs. I am willing to bet many in and around Burien. this means they most likely lost their benefits, their homes, and their children are paying the price. So, because some on the left want to save the planet they believe it is better to end all construction on homes, schools, commercial buildings, roads and parks? The author of this article is an irrational idealist who either didn’t do thorough research, or is deliberately miselading the readers.
    Do a simple search of “public disclosure violation washington democrat party”. Democrats are just as if not more guilty, yet here we only here about the right. If you’re going to play the ‘ethical” card, at least be genuinely honest with your readers. Aren’t we all seeking the truth here?

    • William Forest says:

      Extreme Extremist.. (how appropriate as your views are a little extremist imo)
      Your attack and distract strategy is right out of the Rovian GOP play book.
      Your indictment of WA state democrats has no relevance to the city council race where to my knowledge whether one is a democrat or a republican is not even declared.
      It seems you are indicating that Mr Shaw is a Republican and that all Democrats are against construction which is just not true.
      This election is not about the right wing versus the left wing its about what is best for the current residents of Burien.
      I don’t think that stopping the city of Buriens annexation of white center is going to save any bankrupt construction companies or hurt anyone’s children. (although it may bankrupt the city of Burien and cause layoffs of city staff or punitive tax increases on the current residents of Burien) ..
      The whole tone of your post indicates to me that you are a right wing operative with statewide affiliations and not a local activist.
      Yes we are seeking the truth here and your post does not offer any pertinent “truth” from what I can see.

  3. My recent experience with PAC endorsements and contributions are quite different than my previous perceptions before I ran and what I’ve read in the comments.

    In general, you send in an application style letter and/or fill out a questionaire. They tell you about what they believe in and see how your stances fit with them. If they (and you) agree that you’re a good initial fit there is generally an interview of some sort with a panel. During that time the fully vet you and you have the opportunity to do the same.

    During that time, they also ask you who else has contributed to your campaign, who else is endorsing you, and who else might endorse you.

    After that meeting, if they feel that your goals and their goals are compatible they ask to make an endorsement of you. They also offer you a contribution to your campaign. You can accept or reject at that time.

    It is very much a self interest of that PAC to fund a candidate who ALREADY agrees with the message they are promoting. This is why they contribute to the person.

    All three candidates have been for annexation should the numbers pencil out. Annexation has been talked about for years in this city. All of the relevent facts have been looked at and examined. The pros and cons have been wieghed. The Council, I believe, has made a decision that represents the best interests of Burien. It has made a decison that is better than either of the alternatives (Seattle annexation or to leave unincorporated.) The ability to have local control of North Highline puts us in the driver seat of the area. An area that will impact Burien no matter who it belongs to on so many levels (includes, public safety, zoning, schools, parks.) It’s better to have control of an area than to cede control to (especially) Seattle.

    I intially stated that I was against annexation when I first began running for office. I put my investigative hat on and went digging for as much evidence as I could find to support that stand. I found mostly perceptions to back up my claims against annxation.

    Since I didn’t have much solid evidence to be against annexation, I began digging into what the “pro” people were saying. It’s best to know the other sides stands so you can poke holes and deflate propped up arguements.

    What I found was solid evidence to be pro annexation. Once I stopped listening to perceptions and truely dug into the evidence of annexation I found there was NO way to be against annexation. I was swayed into the pro annexation side for so many reasons.

    I did not seek any major endorsements and turned down money from almost everyone so that I can stand here and say that I have no special interests in annexation. I am not beholden to anyone. It makes sense if you stop listening to mis-information and dig into the truth of the matter.

    I feel this is why the Pro annexation crowd has stayed the course with the same message (local control of the area…) while the anti-annexation message has gone from crime (disproven by KCSO), cost (manageable and potentially more costly to not do anything on many fronts), to attacks and mis-information on those who are for annexation ($10 that William Forest tells me to take a time out because I lost – I lost because no one recognized the name and I look 12 in my pictures).

    To Mr Poitras – What I find especially interesting is that Mr Duff was GIVEN contributions by both the Unions and the BIAW. That really says somthing to me. If, as you put it ” …has also taken monies from the BIAW-which is opposed to unions”, an organization who opposes Unions would give money to someone who is a Union member and has accepted contributions from Unions that says a lot of the man. It means they both know about each other’s contribution and still give to him.


    Joey Martinez

    • john poitras says:


      You are twisting reality into your version of ongoing events which is at odds with the truth and I quote verbatim from your post>>>

      “Annexation has been talked about for years in this city. All of the relevent facts have been looked at and examined. The pros and cons have been wieghed. The Council, I believe, has made a decision that represents the best interests of Burien. It has made a decison that is better than either of the alternatives (Seattle annexation or to leave unincorporated.)”

      We already annexed north highline and we are STILL talking about going forward with the annextion of white center..
      NO ALL the RELEVANT facts have NOT BEEN looked at and examined.
      NO ALL the PROs and CONs have NOT been weighed yet..
      The council in its CURRENT makeup has NOT made a decision on Annexation yet.. it is just moving forward with the process but it is NOT a done deal and can be STOPPED at anytime by the Council and I strongly believe it will be stopped IF SHAW IS NOT RE-ELECTED and Debbie Wagner and Bob Edgar are elected to the council, and Lucy K is re-elected , the swing votes will have the power to stop the annexation of white center.
      We know its your opinion that annexation should go forward.. you are part of Shaws re-election campaign that’s a given. However whether annexation of white center will become a reality or not is still to be decided..

      • Mr Poitras, Many of your questions on annexation were addressed over several council meetings before you started showing up at City Hall (and I wish more people showed up…) The council has decided to procede with annexation. They are taking it to the next level, which is the Boundary Review board. There is still a laundry list of issues to work out with King County and the state. We have no leverage with either unless and until we have a “yes” vote in a potential annexation vote.

        Even if the anti-annexation candidates lose, and we have a YES vote on annexation in North Highline, Annexation can still be stopped. If we don’t get several things from King County and the state (SWM, Police on the County’s dime in White Center…) I will urge the council to table the final vote for incorporation.

        Sure, I gave $50 to Mr Shaw’s campaign. In my opinion, he’s the better choice for Burien as a whole that Mr Edgar and I’d rather have Mr Shaw represent me than Mr Edgar. Campaigns are expensive and I wanted to help him out because he is the better choice overall.

        Several people point out that I lost to Mr Edgar, I also lost to Mr Shaw.

        Joey Martinez

  4. Linda says:

    Joey it seems sour grapes is really your meal of choice. My experience is much different than yours regarding annexation.. (btw did you see the Times article this weekend on the massive amount of drugs and guns confiscated in White center which was so bad they called in the Feds?) I really don’t think Burien wants any part of that.

    Everyone and I mean every resident I have spoken with in ringing doorbells over the last couple of weeks is either adamantly against annexation (with good reason imo) or was unaware that the residents of burien don’t actually get a vote on whether to annex white center or not.
    Your picture is on Mr Shaws campaign literature as being one of his major endorsers so I think everyone here needs to take anything you say on annexation or Mr Shaws motives with a shaker full of salt.

    • Linda, I prefer spicy foods (probably due to my Latino upbringing).I did see the Times article. Did you know that North Highline will be there regardless of who is in control of the area? The crime in White Center directly affects Burien. The County is unwilling or unable to care for the area (take your pick). Same goes for Seattle.The two officers per thousand residents that Seattle would add to the west precinct will be patrolling Alki not White Center.

      Yes I do support Mr Shaw over Mr Edgar. We know what we’re getting with Mr Shaw. There is plenty I disagree with Mr Shaw about (neighborhood plans is one of several). I stand by my endorsement that he would be better for Burien that Mr Edgar.

      Mr Edgar has been a fixture in the Council/planning meetings since at least 2008 (online records). Up until annexation he generally spoke about Lake Burien. That unto itself is no big deal. I see him as a “special interest” working to keep Lake Burien access private and trying to down-zone the land around it to prevent a park from being built there. Again, doesn’t bother me. As a private citizen he has a right to petition government for anything he wants. He lives on the lake (or does he?) and he should try and protect it the best way he can.

      However, he’s been proven wrong (on the “mistake” of Lake Burien’s current zoning) and is now he is angry about it. He’s stopped saying he lives on the lake and says he lives in Shorewood. I see both addresses on the F-1 form and he owns both homes (shorewood home is paid off).

      He, like Mrs Wagner (in her specific words) petitioned the council for something, didn’t get it and are angry at the Council. They both are running because, as they both say the Council doesn’t listen. I ask the question, “What weren’t they listening to?” These are two candidates who wanted something that, in my opinion, was not “better for Burien” as a whole. These are candidates with special interests who now want to sit on the council because they didn’t get their way.

      That, in part, is my interpretation of their candidacy for Council based on their prior history. They both want something and didn’t get it. They run for office and use fear and misdirection to scare people into voting for them.

      I didn’t run to be for or against annexation. I took a postion on it because it is the talk of the town. I started off against annexation, stopped listening to the rhetoric and did my own research. I found that annexation is better than the county running North Highline and better than Seattle annexing. I have nothing to gain from annexation. No rich friends or anything to make happy. I live in Manhatton, which is as far a way from North Highline as you can get in Burien. All of the reasons I’ve spoken about and support FOR annexation will have little to no direct impact on me. The gains from local control would have no direct impact Manhatton (lower crime….). The negative effects, that some preach, would have probably the most impact on Manhatton. We’re out there at the bottom of Burien and get little from Burien as it is.

      How about this, instead of directing atacks at those we disagree with let’s keep to the issues and truth? Everything I speak of in this response is the truth as interpreted by me. It’s truth as I’ve researched and/or seen first hand. I rely on no one’s research to state any of my opinions. I only use something if I can independently verify the research.
      Joey Martinez

  5. May says:

    Shame on anyone who tries to say that the Council for Affordable Housing is just a group of little local busineeses. The Council for Affordable Housing is the BIAW. In the years 2002-2010, this group pumped $11+million dollars into political campaigns to try to destroy the Washington State Dept. of Labor, to take over the Washington Supreme Court and other judgeships in the state, control small local elections-just to mention a few. The BIAW and the Council for Affordable Housing hide from the public their membership and donor lists. When you go on Goggle, it is almost next to impossible to find out that the Council for Affordable Housing is the PAC for the BIAW. They try to hide that too. So Len, this is not just a group of the small local busineeses. in Burien. The BIAW is a big, well funded special interest group that tries to control politics in the State of Washington-for the benefit of mostly large contractors,developers and builders. In the past they have gotten their monies from their members and the strangle hold fees that they skimmed off of the Workers Comp. Program in Washington. The PI, the Seattle Times, The Olympian have all done stories on the BIAW and its actions. But then you think that all of these newspapers are just rags. Also the attorneys for the BIAW are the same group of guys that that helped sue the City of Burien for $14+million dollars and won. The RHA PAC that Mr. Shaw got his money from represents landlords in Washinton. They have been his regular campaign donors for several elections. This explains why Burien does not have a renter’s bill of rights. Somewhere between 35-45% of Mr. Shaw’s monies are coming for big money special interst groups and not the little guys in Burien.
    However Len, thanks for confirming that Mr. Shaw is a real estate developer and landlord. It may explain why he is so eager to annex White Center to Burien even though it is not the best long term option for the citizens and financial future of Burien. Jerry Robison is a real estate developer, broker and real estate attorney also. This explains why the two of them are pushing hard for the annexation of White Center. They both represent special interest groups-big money developers and not the citizens of Burien. As Mr. Duff has taken his money ffrom the unions and the BIAW, he also represents big money/special interests. It is always important to follow the money in elections. It really tells what the candiates stand for. And Joey get a life-you lost-learn to use Goggle correctly to do your research.

    • May, I prefer Alta-Vista as my search engine. Also, I spent many hours at the King County Archives digging up old records no longer online. I am allergic to dust and had issues but I did my home work.

      I do agree with you as far as the BIAW as a whole. However, contributions they make don’t buy votes or make a candidate beholden to the PAC. ANY PAC channels their money to people who ALREADY believe in something that is compatible with that PAC. Any PAC would stop contributing to that candidate when that person no longer supports the PAC message.

      I don’t fit or believe in the BIAW so didn’t submit anything to them for endorsement. However, I do understand why a candidate would accept money from a PAC. Everything is expensive. I purchased 2,000 door hangers out of my own money and dropped over $500 on them. My family and a church I help out (computer stuff) contributed enough so I could purchase 100 yard signs with cheap metal stakes. The cost? Over $400.

      Joey Martinez

      • William Forest says:

        Joey.. Heads up .. You are probably unaware of it but it is illegal for any tax exempt church to contribute money to a political candidate. I notice you did not mention the name of the church but you are putting their tax exempt status in jeopardy by witnessing on the b town blog that they contributed money towards your campaign, whether you used it for making signs or sending out mailers or whatever.

  6. Get a clue burien city council says:


    Let it go. You lost to a guy that wasn’t running. I realize it was probably embarrassing but you aren’t going to change the results by sharing your opinion more. Clearly people didn’t agree with it before.

  7. Mr GACBCC (or Mrs?), I got over the results a couple of days after the initial returns came back. I mostly felt like I let my family down because of all the time I spent knocking and talking with people. The biggest thing I heard was that I was too young to be running for Cit Council. No one pegged me a day older that 25. The biggest reason I lost was due to a lack of name familiairity and young looking pictures. I showed strongest in all of the precients I campaigned in.

    Now back to your suggestion. What should I let go? My opinion? It’s mine as a private citizen. I thought this was the b-townblog, not the anti-annexation blog.

    Here is the thing, I am willing to hear and talk about your concerns on annexation. I see valid points in many of the arguments made against annexation. You have a right to speak to whatever you want and all you do is dismiss my arguments because I “lost”.

    I’d really appreciate you tackle the concerns and points I raise in your reply instead Mr or Mrs whoever you may really be.

    • Opps forgot my signature….

      Joey Martinez

    • Al says:

      I think the personal attack on Joey was so uncalled for. Your comments were really unnecessary “Eaton”. There is something here in the U.S. that is called “Freedom of
      Speech” which you are entitled to Eaton. Say what you want, but let him speak without the
      personal attacks just because you don’t agree with him….. AL

      • Note: the comment this one is referring to has been removed by the Editor.

        • Scott, I understand why you removed that type of comment and thanks for that.

          The personal attack didn’t bug me personally. The problem i had with the comment is it might have served to dirty the the anti-annexation crowd’s message. They have serious concerns and opinions that should be voiced and taken seriously. I’d also like to think they wouldn’t support that particular type and style of comment.

          This is an emotional issue for many and I get that. I’m willing to look past the issue and get back to the issue at hand.


          Joey Martinez

  8. Hotrodgal says:

    I agree. Eaton, this is below you.

    We all have our opinions but personal strikes make you into a troll.

    I’m wondering why some of the posters screen names
    are unknown to me here in the blog. Some may be regular
    posters or just new bloggers with something to say and I
    just missed them, but I’m kind of wondering if one or more
    are outsiders with special interests. I do tend to be
    cynical of highly polished posts.

    Would anyone who doesn’t normally post in the BB forums
    please confirm they are from the Burien area before I have
    to post a list those posters here? Just might save you the
    embarrassment of being publically called out here.

    • Bobby Leon says:

      So Hotrodgal, let me get this straight. Just because you don’t recognize someone, they must be from outside of Burien. And because some people have an education and know how to write and use words, they must be from big labor groups? And if they disagree with you then you are going to “out” them. WOW. I gues only anti annexation people who live within a few blocks of the lake and quit school and are regular contributers should express their opinions. Thank you for setting me straight and standing up for my Freedom of Speach. What would the anti annexation croud do without you. By the way, I have contributed before and I live in Burien.

    • Lee Moyer says:

      I’m curious as to how one using a screen name would confirm residency to you or even why they need to. After all, Hotrodgal could be anyone anywhere.
      I respect the opinions of those who use their real name and take the time to use reasonable grammer and spelling to make their opinions clear more than I respect the screen name opinions that sound like the transcript of a bar room argument.

  9. Hotrodgal says:

    Thank you Scott.
    Everyone deserves an ultra-blurb erased.

    …and I’m sure that “one” is going to be
    happy you are our mod (in the morning).

    headache…thought you were talking about me. 🙂

  10. Coverofnight says:

    Wow! All this back and forth is giving me a headache! Can someone simply tell me if any candidate is both anti-annexation and anti-union? Thanks!

  11. May says:

    To Joey,
    I really meant it when I said that you need to get a life and some perspective on what you are saying and doing. You have given out some mis-information on this blog site that is untrue and/or is lies about Bob E. and city issues, such as
    1. You said that Bob was a cheater and would be fined ten of thousands of dollars by King County-not true, according to King County.
    2. You stated that he only recently has gotten involved in city council issues and he is a single issue guy-not true, he has been involved in many issues in the city and has worked on them for more years than you have lived in the city-Shorewood, Seahurst Part, neighborhood plans, town square, Sustainable Burien, Salmon Creek, Block Watch, the third runway mitigation, the Shoreline Master Plan, the Comprehensive plan-just to mention a few. I think you have only started going to the council meetings in the last couple of months and seem to know little about what has happened in this city or all of the issues-I’ve seen this guy on TV speak about many issues.
    3. The city attorney said on TV that the Lake Burien neighborhood did not lose on the merit of their case but on a technical issue-I saw him announce this on TV. You are wrong about your comments on this case. And you obviously didn’t TV watch or attend that city council meeting.
    4. Posting on this blog whether or not this guy owns his house seems to be a bit invasive to his privacy and is not related to the blog topic. It seems to be just gossip get even stuff because you are angry because you lost. It fails into the category of being as rude as personal comments about your health.The guy lives in Burien and is a legal candidate-where he lives is as insignificant to this election as is whether he owns his house or not. Just like it was for you.
    I think you owe this guy an appology about the untruths you have put out about him because you think it will help Gordie to win or what ever. You are a political hack for Gordie.
    Most of the time you do not really deal in facts and research when you talk about things
    on this blog. It mostly is about your opinion and your believed first amendment rights.
    You just got that church in trouble for saying that they gave monies to your election. Returning the money will not change the fact that they got involved in a political election.
    And it is now out on the public record. You just tried to justified taking money from anyone that you can get it from because elections cost money. Where are the ethics and pricinciples in that argument? You can go ballistic like you usually do on this blog because of my response or you can stop, chill out and think who you are damaging and for what purpose. Really, get a life-you are not a contender in this election.

    • Sorry May, I haven’t gone away… just been in training all day.

      In reply to your numbered comments.

      1) I never said King county, I said the PDC (Public Disclosure Commission). That would be adressed with them IF someone were to file a complaint. I do not support or advocate anyone doing that. In light of the reasons he’s given for trying to withdraw from the race it would be ill advised for the PDC to do anything and is a dead issue as far as I am concerned.

      2) I stated that according to Burien online pubic records (broadcasts, minutes…), which only go back to 2008, that Mr Edgar has addressed the the council and planning commission (other than on annexation) are in regard to Lake Burien related issues a great portion of the time. I’m not inclined to request older documents from Burien since they’ve got quite a bit of requests as it is. I stand by my research and statement.

      3) Again I spoke to several people who were on the commission at the time to get my information and stand by the statement as well.

      4) Firstly, this information is public record and freely available to the public. All candidates submit the forms when running for office and if they don’t want to disclose that information (like Mrs Holman, I think is her name).

      Secondly, I feel it is relevant to the candidacy and should be known that Mr Edgar has a vested ownership interest on the lake. That in of itself is no big deal. However, when you combine the facts with the knowledge that he refuses to confirm the residence it may raise issues with some voters. Either way he is a legal candidate however.

      I could call you a political hack for Mr Edgar, however I don’t believe you are. I feel you believe strongly in Mr Edgar and have every right to support him. I, on the other hand, believe that Mr Shaw is the better candidate of the two. Do I have reservations on some of his stands? Of course I do.

      I won’t tell you to go away and get a life because I value your opinion to speak and be heard. I would love to argue the merits of the candidates and why I personally feel each is better than the other if you’d like.

      As to my health. I run a 14 minute mile and hit the gym 4-5 days a week doing high intensity training. It’s a bad run time until you realize I’m a big guy. Blood pressure is normal, blood sugars are normal, EKG shows, again, normal. I have a bum knee and shoulder due to sports injuries in highschool but I play through the pain in the activies I do.

      Any other questions on my health?

      I also stand by my defense of taking money from PACs that agree with your stances. I don’t believe in the BIAWs message and did not solicit or accept any money from them. If a candidate accepts a contributor/endorsement from someone that the voters object to that is on them. I took no such contributions. The church thing is also on them and me. I didn’t know the law in this regard and am working to rectify it if it needs rectifying.

      Let’s get back to the merits of each candidate at hand!

      Joey Martinez

  12. Jackie Martinez says:

    Wow – I am absolutely shocked! My husband is the most, kind, caring, hard-working man that you will ever meet. This city would be lucky to have him on the council. One thing that we teach our children is to “treat people the way that you want to be treated”. Our community needs to come together, not try and rip eachother apart. My husband is simply stating the facts – that are true to him and his research, and to the best of his knowledge. If you don’t agree, that’s okay. Everyone has a right to their opinion, however, this is not the place for personal attacks. My children and I are very proud of you – Joey Martinez

  13. Paula says:

    May….The forth and back is indeed getting heady..(look it up) ; and I find myself sort of surfing over most of this stuff now, but I did catch that you think that because of Gordon Shaw’s backers, “that is why the City of Burien doesn’t have renter’s rights”. The Landlord/Tenant Act is governed by the state.

  14. TcB says:

    This is a pretty confusing set of facts and comments. I guess we all will vote and find out what happens. Personally I’m pro neighborhood, I like that Burien has neighborhoods like Seahurst, Three Tree Point, Gregory Heights, Evansvale, Chelsea Park, and others. I also believe that it would be better to be in control of the area north of us, rather than let developers continue to pack it full with King County’s lax zoning process. The anti-annextion crowd is the developers friend, but is using FUD tactics to spin it and claim that pro-annexation is good for developers…. I guess it will all come out in the wash.. Right now I think more people are concentrating on thinking about cheaper booze.

  15. may says:

    The Quality of Life PAC-Political Action Committee just ran a big half page ad in the Highline Times for Gordon Shaw. This PAC is again a big state money group trying to influence the election in the small City of Burien. Who is this group? And why are they pumping money into an election in Burien? This group was fined $130,000 for election violation practices in Washington State. They claim that they represent a large group of realtors. But many local realtors question whether they really represent their interests and the interests of their cities. Again the question is why are they trying to influence the election in Burien by buying newspaper ads for this candidate? Look carefully at who is funding the elections for the Burien City Council before you vote. Is it local money or outside of the city, big money interests?






Share Your Opinion

By participating in our online comment system, you are agreeing to abide by the terms of our comment policy.

...and oh, if you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!