Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Leavitt blows it again: instead of sniveling about the size of the bridge, he should be demanding that we get to vote.

Erstwhile Pollard clone Tim Leavitt, who wants to be the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver's next Commissar (Mayor), again blew the call by failing to demand that the people of Clark County get a vote on the entirety of this unwanted, unneeded and MASSIVE waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge Replacement/Loot Rail Scam.

As I pointed out before, here and here, there is no reason to elect this guy mayor, since if Royce Pollard suddenly stopped, Leavitt's entire head would disappear from view.

Both of these clowns support a bridge replacement that will accomplish precisely and absolutely zip in the critical areas of congestion and freight mobility. Clearly, in their stilted view, no amount of Other People's Money wasted is too much to pay for loot rail.

Leavitt has never publicly opposed Pollard on any waste of our money, and votes with him on essentially 100% of the economy-slamming scams run by Vancouver; everything from subsidizing a hotel that the city sued the voters to keep from having a voice on, to charging an idiotic, business-killing head tax... Leavitt has been there, carrying Caesar Pollard's water.

So far, Leavitt, who is a follower of this blog, has yet to take me up on the offer I extended to him to explain where I've misread or misreported this situation. To that end, I extend the following offer to Mr. Leavitt: Feel free to provide your excuse for failing to demand that the entire county should determine if we want a new bridge or not; feel free to provide an explanation as to why you believe that harming the 60,000 commuters with an additional $1300 projected fee to go to work every day is a "good idea," and feel free to explain why the hell anyone should vote to elect you mayor when the only difference between you and the one we already have is about 30 years in age.

I will provide the entirety, unedited, of your response; if any. But like last time, I doubt that I'll be hearing from you. Like allowing the people to vote on this massive waste of our money, responding would require a level of courage you don't possess.

Two sides clearly divided on bridge

Oregon-side officials still seeking consensus

Monday, January 26 | 9:07 p.m.


PORTLAND — A high-level meeting of elected officials did little Monday to reach consensus on how many lanes should be built on a new replacement Interstate 5 bridge.

The Portland City Council and the Metro Council, in a rare joint work session, spent close to two hours in a wide-ranging discussion of the lane issue, bridge tolls and projected effects on greenhouse gas emissions and urban development.

The meeting, however, only underscored the division between Washington and Oregon on a bridge-freeway-transit project that could cost $3.5 billion or more.

There was plenty to fuel suspicions that some Oregon officials want to nail Clark County commuters by jacking up bridge tolls and slashing bridge lanes.

Bridge tolls are projected to cost $2.56 each way during rush hour, which would cost a commuter to a weekday job in Portland more than $1,000 annually.

Nevertheless, Metro Councilor Carl Hosticka questioned if such a toll would be too low.


1 comment:

Tim Leavitt said...

Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!

Again, I'll refer you to my blog...leavitt4vancouver.blogspot. for the details and accuracy of my position on the Columbia River Crossing.

My remark about a 'measly $3 billion" was a comment of sarcasm as related to the hundereds of billions the Feds are spending on financial bailouts...as accurately quoted (yes) in The Columbian article! Of course I know that $3 billion is a lot of money! Come on, now...

I'll remind you that I was Chair of the CTRAN Board of Directors who chose a CRC Locally Preferred Alternative that included #1) a restriction on the cost of light rail into Clark County (to be limited to what the Feds pay for...no additional local money from you, me and our neighbors to pay for construction cost); and #2) the voters of CTRAN will have the opportunity to decide on funding operations and maintenance of any high capacity transit coming into Clark County. Eight of the nine electeds on that Board (including the likes of Betty Sue Morris, Marc Boldt, and Jeanne Stewart). Again, details on my blog.

Lastly, if it's important for the blog to maintain some integrity, facts should be checked before statements made...

The current Mayor and I have both agreed and disagreed on many issues over the past 6+ years of my tenure on the Vancouver City Council. That is bound to happen, no?!?

I'll just point out some issues of recent difference in opionion. These noted below are related to fiscal matters of the City:

For example, three months ago, I voiced quite clearly my opposition to raising utility taxes on our citizens and businesses, imploring the Council to consider further trimming expenses in city government during this time when we are all 'tightening our belt'.

For example, six months ago, I offered an amendment to the CRC City Council resolution to remove an assumption of tolling on the proposed bridge project. Everbody but the Mayor supported that amendment.

For example, some year+ ago, I opposed an increase in sales taxes, imploring the Council to remain patient with all of the development occurring, as the City will get it's revenues on 'the back side' as retail sales increase.

These are but three of the more recent fiscal-related issues where the Mayor and I have not seen eye-to-eye.

There may be dislike for what we have agreed upon, but to suggest that we've never been in disagreement on issues is not factual.

I appreciate the dialogue, the opportunity to correct 'the record' and provide more clarity to my positions.

thanks much --