Nope.
The only lesson this thing offers is to tax-increase proponents. If you lose it at the polls the first time, just do what C-Trans did, and remove the right of all the people to vote while keeping the right for all of them to pay.
It begs the issue that Evans doesn't live here, and the fact that he he is an Oregon resident makes his observations as useful as boobs on a boar hog. The Columbian supported this garbage, so, naturally, they'll print absolutely anything that supports their position. I mean, what difference does it make what a non-Washington taypaying resident of Oregon has to say about the taxes WE pay over here? Next, especially as an Oregon resident, he doesn't have the responsibility to pay this tax... so why is it any of his business?
The world of the C-Trans tax-increase supporters is a stilted one. They tend to apply generalizations as if they were specifics. They justify their despicable actions by attempting to lull everyone into thinking they actually accomplished something, outside the selective application of the will of the people in a finely tailored way that excluded the voices they DIDN'T want to hear.
First of all, it wasn't the voters of Clark County that passed this piece of work.
It was, in fact, the voters of a gerrymandered piece of crap that specifically EXCLUDED all of the voters of Clark County.
Yet, when you read the self-justifying puff-pieces, it's almost as if the writers want us all to believe that this crap was supported by EVERYONE in Clark County. That, of course, is not possible, since not ALL of Clark County was allowed to VOTE on this garbage.
But EVERYONE in Clark County gets the dubious privilege of PAYING this tax increase, or doing what I intend to do: the vast majority of my shopping across the river.
Piece after piece is written... ALL of them ignoring the basic fact of the matter: this tax increase would have passed without a campaign due to the exacto-knife gerrymandering proponents used to shove it down the entire county's throat.
We will see more of this dishonesty in government and the proponents of tax increases. Their plan, to tax the entire county without getting the entire county's permission, was achieved brilliantly.
That it was dishonest, undemocratic, unethical and immoral cannot be denied. That those who ran this effort and endorsed it bear a large part of the responsibility also cannot be denied. And puff pieces that leave out ALL of the facts, such as this sorry effort by Walt Evans won't change that.
There will be no revisionist history as long as I'm around. And trash like Evans', which deliberately ignores the gerrymandered aspect of ALL of us paying a tax increase without ALL of us getting the opportunity to vote on it won't change any of it, either.
Evans tells us: "In future elections over spending measures, we can expect to see greater efforts to capture voters' hearts and minds. Only then will voters weigh arguments over value for money, whether thslimedsal is slimmed to a minimum cost, and ask if it adds assets to the community that earn the right to use public money to accomplish the task on the ballot."
That, of course, had exactly zero application here. The VAST majority of precincts that voted against this turd the first time around were excised out of the election. It had nothing to do with the "capture of the voter's hearts and minds." This election was over before it started, because the lines were drawn up based on the results of the last election.
And no number of puff-pieces can change that.
Local View: C-Tran victory offers lessons for spending proposals
Sunday, October 2, 2005
By Walt Evans
As a Portland resident who works in law offices both there and in Vancouver, I place great value on C-Tran's commuter bus service and use it often. So I watched and read with great interest as the Sept. 20 election campaign unfolded.
Why did voters endorse this proposal after defeating the previous transit proposal? What made the difference?
The reasons provide lessons to public agencies and citizen supporters of future spending measures in a time of strong public resistance to any tax hikes.
First, voters saw value for their money. Transit supporters connected costs and benefits effectively. Without this link, most spending proposals are doomed.
Voters are smarter than some people realize. Spending measures fail when voters believe a public agency has wasted money in the past, or has squandered funds on things that failed to connect with local citizens.
More...
No comments:
Post a Comment