Rep Jim Moeller’s Latest Act of Desperation, Lie

by lewwaters

MoellerIt is becoming common knowledge that the Columbia River Crossing Project is falling apart as more and more, people open their eyes to the lack of transparency long associated with it and the many false claims used in promoting it.

From poorly designed plans to calls for tolls on top of tolls, increasing gas taxes and license fees on cars to come up with funding for it, people are waking up and standing up against it.

Tired of being silenced, marginalized and just outright ignored, those of us who will long be on the hook to pay for a light rail carrier we have rejected have been pushing back, defeating funding measures associated with CRC and electing officials who are willing to scrutinize the project.

None of that has fazed one of the strongest proponents of the CRC, 49th Legislative District Representative, Democrat Jim Moeller, quite possible the single most arrogant person elected to our state legislature.

As already posted, he and fellow Democrats from the 49th are holding what can only be described as a “Kangaroo Townhall” this coming weekend in a desperate attempt to rebuild support as proponents enlightened to the truth of project are switching sides and coming out against the boondoggle.

But a “Kangaroo Townhall” doesn’t seem to be enough for Moeller as today, in response to a document released by StopCRC, I received a document Moeller is circulating up in Olympia as even those expected to side with him in the legislature are falling out.

As you can see, Moeller claims the purpose of his document is to “clear up some misconceptions” regarding the CRC with a two page attachment of what he labels “myths.” In reality, they are “truths” that he doesn’t want known.

For instance, “Myth A, The CRC has a poor track record.”

Over a decade, nearly $170 Million spent and cannot even come up with a bridge design acceptable to the US Coast Guard due to inadequate river traffic clearance is not a myth. It is what we have seen unfold as desperate proponents now try to “mitigate? The Coast Guard into caving and approving the lowest point on the river for traffic that will cost upriver businesses some $116 Million in profits, hamper future growth and even prevent the US Army Corps of Engineers dredge from clearing to do work upriver.

Myth B, The CRC is a waste of taxpayer funds.”

What can be said except, DUH! Slated to cost $3.5 Billion, paid for largely out of tolls that may reach $8 per crossing, sucking up $170 Million with one contractor already receiving three times the agreed upon ceiling is what but a waste?

Myth C, Light Rail is not required for transit funding.”

Light Rail being a requirement was one of the first lies exposed coming from CRC. We actually have two admissions showing that light rail is not a requirement.

At a June 2, 2009 meeting of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors, Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart, also a strong proponent of the CRC said, “it is not legally true that you must have a multi modal project to get approval or funding from Federal Highway Administration. There has been a lot who have said it because they believe that functionally, it would be necessary to have a project.”

Again, in a January 2010 response to a request for documents from Tonja L. Gleason C.P.A., Public Disclosure Coordinator for the CRC we read, “There are no documents in our possession that claim that the federal government requires light rail as a part of the CRC project.”

Myth D, Tolls will take away from our local economy.”

With the estimation by then mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt in 2009 of tolls reaching $8 per crossing and the recent effort by rookie 49th Legislative District State Senator Annette Cleveland of desiring to add a toll on top of the planned toll, how will that not take away from our local economy?

The more commuters must pay out the less they have to contribute to our local economy, it’s just that simple.

Myth E, The CRC is a job killer.”

As already shown, the insufficient bridge height can only hamper job growth upriver for companies dependent upon the river for shipping their goods that many may no longer fit under the bridge.”

In addition, numerous businesses downtown Vancouver and likely on Hayden Island will be destroyed to accommodate the bridges as well as multi-million dollar parking garages for commuters to drive the distance to catch light rail near the river and that are to be offered free.

Construction of the bridge will most likely be primarily by an out of area contractor who will bring most of their own seasoned workers for the project with hopefully a small handful of local jobs, if any.

Myth F, River Traffic is of vital importance.”

I’m sure many businesses located upriver will be pleased to see their importance to the community is considered a “myth,” by Jim Moeller.

We also see from a September 20, 2012 Columbian Article, “In the Coast Guard letter, Rear Adm. Taylor urged the project planners to consider river users’ needs based on recent data, not a 2004 survey he said ‘was not comprehensive.’ His letter also suggested the CRC should focus more on changing its own design before expecting river users to change because of it.”

It’s not incumbent upon the users to adapt. They’re there operating on the river today,” Overton said. An ideal first step, he added, ‘is to avoid those impacts altogether’.”

Apparently, Moeller forgot, or wants to hide that the bridge cannot be built without US Coast Guard approval.

Myth G, The Columbia River Interstate Bridge is not the problem.”

Here Moeller floats the disproved claim, “the bridge is structurally at risk in an earthquake.”

The spans are not listed on the WSDOT Structurally Deficient Bridge list.

A 2006 CRC Report where they commissioned a “panel of experts” to perform a seismic assessment said it was “technically feasible” to upgrade the spans and at a much lower estimated cost than we are now facing.

CRC proponents often float the notion of a 9.0 earthquake would cause bridge collapse. Stop and think, what would be left standing if we ever did experience that strong of an earthquake? Additionally, if that were to happen, light rail would not be functional while twisted and protruding tracks would likely hamper emergency vehicles trying to move around to those in need.

As anybody who travels the bridge realizes, the real bottleneck is further south. Coming back north, traffic begins thinning out by mid-span and is up to speed as you exit the bridge.

Clearly the congestion problems are caused by bottlenecks inside of Oregon that they do not wish to address.

Myth H, The BNSF Railroad bridge offers a better solution.”

Debatable, but even admitted by Jim Moeller himself, a realignment of the rail bridge to line the swinging portion of it in line with the hump in the Interstate Bridge will reduce bridge lifts.

And let us not forget, he also floated above the river traffic is of no great importance as well as proponents floated the notion recently of making the new bridge spans a draw bridge as well to compensate for the restrictive height.

Myth I, CRC lacks vision.”

Since day one, the CRC’s singular focus has been bringing light rail into Clark County against the wishes of voters who defeated it directly in 1995. What sort of “vision” is it to ignore many problems and citizens voices with the focus remaining only on carrying light rail?

That one notion is why CRC is having a problem obtaining the necessary Coast Guard permit to begin construction, light rail cannot make it over the grade required for adequate river clearance.

If that isn’t “lack of vision,” I don’t know what is.

Myth J, There is a lack of support by voters.”

Possibly the most ludicrous of all of Jim Moeller’s lies.

Feb 1995 – Clark County is a halfhearted participant in metropolitan planning schemes, despite recent growth-management legislation in the state of Washington, and its voters in February 1995 overwhelmingly declined to pay for a trans-Columbia light-rail link. Clark County’s politics are sympathetic to sprawling residential and commercial development, while Washington’s lack of a state income tax attracts many of the area’s entrepreneurially minded residents.

A state-wide Resolution Bill 51 for transportation improvements was seen largely as a back door approval for funding light rail and was rejected state wide in the 2002 general election.

November 2004 voters defeated a sales tax increase in Proposition 1 in the general election. Part of the statement against in the 2004 voters’ pamphlet says, “C-Tran contributed $3,000,000 out of the $65,000,000 cost for I-5 HOV lanes. Now Clark County Commissioners can ask taxpayers to raise car license fees for additional tax dollars; possibly paving the way for light rail.”
“C-Tran paid over $3,000,000 for light rail studies. Portland owns the MAX gravy train. Washington taxpayers will pay a percentage of Tri-Met’s total transit costs even if only one inch of light rail crosses the river; more Clark County taxation without representation!”

In 2005, it was brought back and passed with a gerrymandered sub-district, eliminating over half of the county voters in precincts shown to oppose light rail and raising taxes to fund it from the 2004 vote.

November 2012, another Proposition 1 to fund light rail operations & maintenance and once again seen as a proxy vote on light rail itself was defeated by a 56.51% to 43.49% vote. Proponents immediately began claiming it was not a vote on light rail itself as they seek a way to bypass voters or gerrymander another sub-district to enable passing.

If there is voter support for light rail, why then does Jim Moeller and other proponents continue to deny voters another direct vote on it?

Jim Moeller has shown himself totally out of touch with the wants and needs of Clark County citizens and has expressed his desire to cater to that “economic powerhouse” south of the river.

He has sued constituents to invalidate our votes when he doesn’t like them.

And now he is resorting to outright lies to push us into a project we continue to scream we do not want, while making us pay for it.

This is not a Representative, it is the act of a dictator.

Don’t let yourselves be fooled by this pack of lies he is circulating.

UPDATE: Tiffany Couch has released her own rebuttal of Jim Moeller’s claims.

25 Comments to “Rep Jim Moeller’s Latest Act of Desperation, Lie”

  1. I am not fooled. I am shocked that a seasoned and veteran elected official would make such a huge blunder as to tell businesses and people upriver are unimportant. I am stunned that he would tell anyone that people down here want this light rail bridge to proceed. I am floored at the perpetuation of lies. Where did his ethics go?

    Like

  2. I spoke with Monica Stonier about the project yesterday. She would prefer that the project not include light rail, but says that if it can’t be built without that element, she will support the project as envisioned by CRC. The good news is that she will support a project that does not include light rail and would prefer that to what’s currently being proposed. I would encourage voters to contact her and encourage her to take strong stand against light rail. She seemed pretty reasonable to me – it would probably help if she had input from more people. Personally, I think the whole project is a massive waste of time and money and should be terminated, but I’m willing to compromise if necessary.

    Thanks for this post Lew. I paraphrased your points (is that plagiarism?) and emailed them in a rebuttal of Jim’s document to about a dozen legislators in Olympia.

    Like

  3. Moeller has never had any.

    Like

  4. Craig, it isn’t plagiarism if I approve 😉

    As for Monica, sorry but I do not trust her. The only reason light rail ‘MUST’ be included is because Portland is holding us hostage to it. hence, the often heard “no light rail, no bridge.”

    If she is willing to stand up to Portland and Moeller, she’ll have my support on that.

    But she’s a rookie eager to please.

    And as Jon Haugen found out, disagreeing with Jim Moeller doesn’t bode well with Democrats.

    If she is anti-light rail, it is incumbent upon her to take a stand and let the chips fall where they may.

    Like

  5. I am not anti-lightrail. I am not anti-tolls. My opposition to CRC centers on fact that the whole process has been manipulated by Portland. The “force people out of their cars” subtext is NOT an acceptable goal. I have NOT met even ONE credible person who supports this project.

    Like

  6. I think you hit the nail on the head with “credible,” Martin.

    Like

  7. Bouquet of flowers for Martin with Hershey’s kisses

    Like

  8. Martin, I have never met anyone with any ethics or higher moral fiber that endorsed light rail / CRC project. A great example of that is Governor Kitzhaber. When I lived in Oregon he was the governor the first time he was governor, he was quickly dubbed governor taxhobbler. It was appropriate and since he has endorsed this it only says one thing to me… why shouldn’t he relieve himself of the expensive tax burden that currently encumbers the max system. What better option than to have non-oregon citizens pay for Oregon’s debt burdens. That would have been all I needed had I still needed any convincing.

    Like

  9. Lew, is there a way to send yours and Tiffany’s rebuttals to the same legislators that Moeller sent his letter to? Sharon Nasset has the list.

    Like

  10. Robert, I think a copy & paste or print out would work.

    If by email perhaps a link.

    Like

  11. Lew, sorry about stepping to the side on the subject matter a bit, here. I didn’t know where else to put this in but had to share with everyone.

    I just read an article about a consulting firm hired by our state transportation chief, Linda Peterson…to review funding for the three transportation mega projects including the CRC. The company??? CH2M Hill, a consulting firm who has already received funds for the CRC. All I can say is…they’re currently involved in a case with the US Dept. of Justice for committing fraud and other charges, have agreed to pay $18.5 million to resolve criminal and civil charges…and are in an ongoing criminal investigation. Lew, I wasn’t sure if I could post the link from the USDOJ but I’d be more than willing to do so if that’s okay with you. BTW, it’s a report from the USDOJ “Office of Public Affairs,” which tells me it is public record.

    Like

  12. oops…that’s Lynn Peterson, not Linda. Sorry about that.

    Like

  13. Please send that post through asap Lew. I am going to the townhall on saturday and would love the chance to preview it for mention at the event w/Moeller.

    Like

  14. Goldie, feel free to post any links you think are relevant. I wouldn’t mind seeing it myself.

    If you have it only in pdf, you can email it to me at lewwaters@gmail.com and I can post it.

    Otherwise, anything pertaining to CRC or anybody associated with it is always of relevance.

    Like

  15. I meant the one from Goldenoldie mentioned above. Thanks!

    Like

  16. Carolyn, I’m doing my best to attend the town hall. Lew, I’ll be sending you the link via your gmail in just a few!

    Like

  17. Lew, I’ve sent you the link. I’m still shaking my head in frustration that our State Secretary of Transportation would make such a move.

    Like

  18. Here is the link, Carolyn. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/March/13-civ-275.html

    Thanks Goldie.

    I already posted it on the Columbian’s article http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/14/transportation-chief-review-megaprojects-crc/

    We’ll see if anybody else runs with it.

    Like

  19. Good! I also posted it in the old dinosaur forum since I don’t do Facebook. I’ve also sent it to a couple of our elected officials who are doing their part to raise a few eyebrows.

    Like

  20. Thank you both so much!

    Like

  21. Carolyn, glad I stumbled across this information before Saturday. I’m just an average middle-class, taxpaying citizen who happened to check out the company involved and was blown away that a government official with clout in the transportation process would make such a selection!!! Where’s the integrity these days??? I’ve been sick of this entire project from its early years because of far too many issues and now we’re witnessing even more issues which are leaping out at us from all sides, thanks in part to the job Ms. Couch performed as well as all of us making a big stink that if we’re going to get a crossing, we want to get our bang for the buck!

    I still cannot fathom that our federal government would stoop so low as to support a local transit entity’s expansion into another state…a transit entity like TriMet with well over a billion in the red…and expect local taxpayers/toll payers/fee payers to foot the bill for the bridge infrastructure and Clark County residents who have to work in Portland would be taxed to pay for that promised funding by Kitzhaber. It makes no sense whatsoever. I’m wondering…if the tables were turned and it was C-Tran asking for funding for a light rail service of their own into Portland, how quick would John Kitzhaber have been to sign over that promissory note for funding. Bet ya he’d deny it.

    Like

  22. I also forwarded it to the Willamette Week, they have been running critical articles for some time and they should like this one.

    Andrea Damewood, who seems to now have the freedom to criticize CRC said, “And, as Eric Florip pointed out, the company’s also been paid big bucks by the CRC already. So independent!”

    They really believe we are dumb.

    Like

  23. This was the guy who handled the Alaskan Way Viaduct boondoggle! This project is still in cost overrun debt mode and caused a lawsuit due o the “force down the throat of the voters” where the judge made Gregoire stop and take a vote!

    Like

  24. Lew…Willamette Week??? SWEET!!!

    Go MIss Andrea! I’m pretty sure she’ll take it and run with it!!! Glad I procrastinated planting my onion sets, lol.

    Like

  25. Some people should never comment on Facebook…especially in the comment section of the Columbian Forum. I’m referring to the man of the hour in this blog article. Does the Democratic representative realize how ridiculous he sounded, referring to the need of the I-5 Bridge replacement because of an accident on the I-205 bridge? He didn’t even have the decency to wish a speedy recovery for the young lady victim!!! A Duhr moment for sure!!!!

    You know, if we allow some of our elected officials continue to babble off the way they do, they’d find themselves without a job…and it would be their own doing!!!

    Like

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: