As disappointing as the November 6, 2012 elections are, both locally and nationally, a bright and shining result is in the resounding defeat of Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-TRAN) Proposition No.1, the latest effort to force Clark County residents to cave to the demands of Portland, Oregon and accept their financially failing light rail into our community and run a Bus Rapid Transit line down Fourth Plain Boulevard.
Although the actual vote dealt solely with voting on paying for operations & maintenance of the line from Portland’s Expo Center to Clark College & BRT, for now, it is also widely known that voters saw it as a proxy vote on the project itself, since we have repeatedly been denied the promised vote on whether or not we even wanted it.
Even 3rd Congressional District Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler stated her support hinged on the vote of the people in regards to this measure.
At last count, the effort to add more sales tax is going down in flames with a vote of 56,407 (43.38%) wanting to approve the measure and 73,609 (56.62%) solidly rejecting the measure. That is a stunning defeat for CRC & C-TRAN considering half of the county is denied even voting on the measure, voting being restricted to the gerrymandered sub-district established back in 2005 after another stunning defeat of a C-TRAN tax increase in 2004.
Even though voters has once again thrown a roadblock in the way of the Columbia River Crossings boondoggle folly, we read in the Columbian’s coverage of the measure’s defeat where Mayor ‘Teflon’ Tim Leavitt continues to ignore the will of voters by claiming the result “only confirms that voters do not support raising sales tax to pay for light rail. Now it’s up to local leaders to find another way to pay for the operations cost,” adding, “I think it’s imperative to continue to move forward.”
Scott Patterson of C-TRAN echoed a similar position with, “Clearly, what the vote tells us is that voters said no to a sales tax increase. Now it’s time for C-Tran and the board to take a close look at the results and weigh potential next steps.”
In other words, the hell with you voters, we’re going to do as we please.
Seeing the measure going down in defeat, proponents released Plan ‘B’ early the very next morning, November 7. Identity Clark County, a conglomerate of well to do business and community leaders advocating this boondoggle and the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce had both withdrawn their support for the sales tax increase, obviously realizing voters opposed such an increase and in lieu of a sale tax increase voted for by the people, opted for some other means that will likely once again, go around voters and force them to pay for this project anyway.
According to the Columbian, the Plan ‘B’ proposal would “use eight revenue sources to collect at least $2.9 million in 2019. The biggest of those sources — reallocating savings from no longer sending bus routes No. 4 and No. 44 across the Columbia River — accounts for about $1.2 million, according to the group. Other sources include charging for use of CRC park and ride facilities, a “windfall” of extra sales tax revenue from CRC construction, and a fare surcharge on light rail, or “light rail toll.”
If you recall, another sale tax increase was won in 2011 solely to give C-TRAN more tax dollars to preserve existing service and yet, here we read they will now propose cutting existing service of buses that they so desperately had to have just last year.
The previous intention of building three parking garages that would offer free parking to users to climb onto light rail to take their money out of our community and spend it in Oregon is also in jeopardy as reality sinks in that those garages might not be able to be free after all.
And adding a surcharge, or “light rail toll” as they list is the exact opposite of what they have been using to entice people to ride the light rail line, avoiding the upwards of $8 tolls each way over the bridge.
Completely ignored is that the very same voters who just rejected a sales tax increase will be the very same voters impacted by Plan ‘B’ but likely not permitted to vote on it.
Pretty slick, huh?
Two days after the election, we are told of a group of incumbent and just elected officials banding together proposing a redesign to make it more palatable to voters and overcome the numerous deficiencies seen to date, inadequate clearance over the river, uncertain funding, questionable financial practices, misleading the public on the eventual cost, lying that light rail is required to be included and more.
The Columbian was sure to include a copy of the statement issued by these officials, including the names of all who signed on to it. Their statement includes, “A redesign will take more time, but significant delays to the project already appear inevitable. We know (a bridge replacement) cannot succeed without our support, and that what we’re proposing will take a lot of hard work. … Once there is a project alternative that has the support of Clark County citizens, we will put all of our resources into making the bridge project a reality.”
That is about as sound of a position I’ve heard yet, design something feasible and that the voters will support.
As can be expected, ‘Teflon’ Tim Leavitt chimes in with, “There has been over a decade of planning with literally thousands of public comments and thousands of hours of community volunteer and elected representative effort. Yet, these supposed conservative representatives are, in this letter, thumbing their nose at our public and their involvement, (and) rejecting the return of our federal income taxes right back into our community. … I’ve had enough of this nonsense.”
This from the very Mayor who blatantly lied his way into office by proclaiming strong opposition to tolling the new bridge and flip flopped almost immediately after winning the election. The same Mayor who proposed silencing critics of the project by cutting off the microphone before city council and now restricts when people make speak. The same Mayor who has repeatedly denied voters a chance to voice their opinions on the project by a vote on it.
And he has the audacity to cry that he is tired of this nonsense and accuse others of thumbing their nose at the public?
As can be expected, Saturday November 10 saw the Columbian feature the article, Build that bridge, CRC backers say alleging that 50 supporters are responding to the earlier call for a redesign.
I say alleges because, unlike when the ten Republicans proposed a redesign, readers are not given either a copy of their statement or the names of the alleged 50, just the names of a handful who now say, “We question the wisdom of those who would ignore a decade of research, discussion and work to build a new I-5 bridge and want to start over. In the last seven years over 1,000 public meetings, open houses and events were held on the CRC and 30,000 points of contact made with the public. To reject the project now is to waste millions of dollars, years of work and disregard the hard work of community groups in Washington and Oregon.”
Maybe they forgot that the over “a decade of research, discussion and work” failed to come up with a proposed bridge design with adequate river clearance in order to gain Coast Guard approval in the permitting process?
Pushing ahead, blindly as this alleged 50 wants to do also completely ignores a host of other problems revealed in the Willamette Week article, A Bridge Too False.
Instead, we see supporters expecting officials to simply “mediate” the bridge height and build it anyway, even though it would require certain river shipping to cut off masts and deck heights, the Army Corps of Engineers dredge would be unable to navigate upriver passed the new bridge and even proposed was making the new bridge a “drawbridge,” which is the very reason given for replacing the old drawbridge design, eliminating the lift aspect of the current bridge that causes traffic to back severely on both sides of the river.
For many years now, troubling aspects of this current folly have been being brought to the attention of local officials and the CRC. All concerns have been swept under the rug as these same officials ridiculed opposition, ignored obvious problems and just kept on marching with their eyes and brains fully closed.
And now, voters have once again sent a clear message that we do not want this current project as designed.
The question now is, will those who have decided they are the communities rulers listen?
Or just keep doing as they damn well please and sticking us with the generations of debt?
