We have long known that the Columbian mouthpiece, better known here as the Lazy C, is deep in the tank for the Columbia River Crossing light rail project. We have seen them marginalize legitimate concerns of citizens and elected officials who scrutinize the project and at times, just not report revelations that may shed light on it.
Their blind devotion to forcing Clark County’s middle class taxpayers into bailing out Portland’s financially failing light rail competes with that seen from Representative Jim Moeller (D Portland/Vancouver) who would like nothing more than to see every middle class taxpayer broke, paying excessive taxes and receiving what he deems they may through his legislation.
But the Wednesday, May 22, 2013 editorial, In Our View: Inslee Turns Up The Heat contains one of the most flagrant out of context mispresentations that border on outright dishonesty as I have seen then publish to date.
The editorial concerns the desperate and foolhardy act of Governor Jay Inslee in vetoing the compromise off of $81 Million to “keep the lights on” at the CRC by the bipartisan Senate Majority Coalition, pending the decision to be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard concerning the inadequate bridge height for the proposed light rail carrier.
They reported on the veto in the pages of the Lazy C as did this blog at Gov Inslee, “It’s All or Nothing” in Bankrupting the Middle Class. Both the Lazy C and my post reference a Washington State Wire article by Erik Smith, Governor Takes Breathtaking Gamble on Columbia River Bridge Project with one difference being, I actually link back to Erik’s article where the Lazy C doesn’t.
But, the fourth paragraph from the end includes a partial quote from Smith’s article on the design, falsely giving the impression that Erik Smith supports the CRC light rail project.
What they quote,
“There is ‘no drawspan (in order) to allow the passage of barge loads that require high clearance. There is no rise in the center, thus allowing the Portland-area light-rail system to gain entry to Clark County via the new bridge. And the overall bridge height has been kept low enough to avoid trouble for the flight paths at a nearby civil aviation airfield on the Washington side of the river’.”
The Lazy C cleverly leaves out the first half of that paragraph that says,
“The bridge design, years in the making, aims to replace a bridge whose earliest segments were erected in 1917, but which, it should be noted, was substantially expanded and rebuilt in 1958. While the Interstate Bridge is of the steel-truss type that was common a century ago and its design makes its age apparent, its soundness hasn’t been so much an issue as the traffic jams that come at peak hours and whenever the lift segment is raised.
Also completely ignored by the Lazy C is the next 2 paragraphs,
“An early artist’s conception for the new bridge illustrates the salient features: Low clearance, no drawbridge, and a flat design that works for light rail but makes limited accommodation for river traffic.”
“Critics say it is the wrong design in the wrong place. The bridge would make it impossible for major fabricators upstream of the bridge to ship bulky loads downriver, and they say it would do little for traffic congestion as there are no current plans to widen the freeway approaches. At the same time it has sparked political debate in the greater Vancouver area about the extension of light rail, because it would obligate Clark County residents to pick up part of the cost for operating the Portland-area Tri-Met system. That idea has been shot down repeatedly at the polls. Opposition also runs high to tolling, with some estimates indicating that Clark County residents would pay as much as $8 to make their daily commute to Portland. About $100 million has been spent on bridge planning so far, most since 2006, but critics say cautionary voices have been squelched.”
Smith also wrote a little further down,
“But even without the bridge as a sticking point the tax plan has proven difficult for lawmakers to swallow. Senate leaders have balked at the idea of passing the taxes in the Legislature rather than sending them to the ballot, and they are doubly skittish regarding any plan that would commit the state to the new bridge as currently designed. As recently as last week, Senate leaders, in a meeting with reporters, reiterated their opposition.”
Obviously, the Washington State Wire has been at best non-committal when it comes to the CRC light rail project and rightfully so, considering they are based in Olympia. But it has caught their attention, Erik telling me in an email correspondence weeks ago,
“outside Vancouver this has been seen as a local light-rail issue. But it gets statewide traction as a river-navigation issue – and people simply haven’t seen it until now.”
One of the main reasons it hasn’t been seen is due to the bias of the Lazy C, who has not seen fit to report on the many troubles and legitimate concerns raised by opponents, businesses and elected officials. To the Lazy C, those of us who see through the smokescreen of the CRC light rail project are “Hounds of Whinerville,” “Ankle Biters” and “Cockroaches.”
I doubt the Lazy C spoke to Erik about his article and if there is any doubt that he disagrees with Gov. Inslee’s veto or the Lazy C’s attempt to create an aura of support that was cleared up yesterday when I corresponded with him about his article.
He said,
“I think Inslee is going to lose this one – it was a stupid move. Even if the CRC wasn’t injected forcefully into the debate by the veto, the idea of a transportation package without a public vote is too much for the Senate majority to swallow. But what this really does is to create a sense of drama, make Inslee appear to be a leader for a couple of weeks. When it fails, he will be able to blame the “troglodytes” in the Senate. Maybe that’s the ultimate strategy.”
And fail it should since Inslee is engaging in a strong-arm tactic to force taxpayers into supporting a project that will not benefit our region and most likely will due great harm to taxpayers who see jobs dissipate, taxes and fees increase dramatically and river navigation hampered from now into the future.
The Lazy C also says,
“The CRC’s locally preferred alternative was approved five years ago by six key agencies on both sides of the river and is endorsed by the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, not to mention two governors and federal transportation officials.”
If you note, left out of the list of backers is TAXPAYERS who will be on the hook paying for this boondoggle for generations into the future.
We voted it down in 1995 by a 2 to 1 margin and have defeated every single funding measure presented since as they ignore the will of the middle class taxpayers and blindly push ahead.
And now, we see them getting close to dishonesty by lifting words out of context to give the impression of support when there is none.
Can this really be such a good project if supporters must stoop to such levels to promote it?
A reputable newspaper, given the many missteps, cover-ups, failed designs and efforts to circumvent the will of the people would be running the headline below, not the one the Lazy C has up.
