Sunday, January 11, 2009

Tim Leavitt stops by: my post has "serious misinterpretation" and I've taken him "out of context."

Tim Leavitt, Vancouver City Councilman and mayoral candidate stopped by yesterday (actually, he didn't "stop by." He's actually subscribed to this blog) and left the following response to my post here: Leavitt blows it: Rabid support of an unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement cements his worthlessness as an elected official.

Blogger Tim Leavitt said...
There is some serious misinterpretation included in this piece about the newspaper quotes of my position...taken way out of context. If you're interested in scratching below the surface and learning the details, I would encourage you to read my entries about the Columbia River Crossing at my blog:

thanks much -

I disagree.

I "misinterpreted" nothing.

I took nothing "out of context."

The newspaper quotes I used are these:

Vancouver Councilman Tim Leavitt, who represents C-Tran on the 10-member sponsors council, was the only one who spoke up in favor of a 12-lane crossing, saying that he was not interested in compromising safety, congestion and economic prosperity.


“It’s frustrating to me that our Congress passed a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector and they couldn’t throw in a measly $3 billion for this immense federal asset for the West Coast,” said Tim Leavitt, a Vancouver councilman who will represent C-Tran on the 10-member sponsors council. “Please give us some money. Why do we have to beat each other up locally?”

Note the link contained in each paragraph. Clicking on the link would take the reader to the entire story as printed in the Columbian. They could then determine context for themselves... but there is nothing wrong with the context as I presented it.

That ANY politician could describe $3 billion as "measly" shows both an arrogance and tonedeafness breathtaking in it's dimensions.

As for my "serious misinterpretation," Mr. Leavitt provides nothing, save a link to his own blog (That actually tends to strengthen my conclusions upon review) to dispute what I've written here.

We're not going to get the federal money because the project is worthless on its face and even the most rank bureaucrat in DC understands immediately what we all already know: the entire purpose of replacing this bridge is to bring light rail into Vancouver... period.

Replacing this bridge will do absolutely nothing to relieve pressure in the I-5 corridor; it will do nothing to decrease congestion, nor will it do anything to improve freight mobility. Thus, it is a wasted $4 billion that a barn-headed ape should be able to see in a minute.

But not the downtown Mafia. They want what they want, and they'll waste $4 BILLION taxpayer dollars to get it.

I have yet to see or find anything that indicates that Mr. Leavitt is opposed to this colossal waste of money. I have yet to see or find anything to show where Mr. Leavitt is opposed to "No-Choice" Royce Pollard, America's Gulag Vancouver's Mayor on this massive waste of money or anything else.

Nor have I seen ANYTHING to indicate that Mr. Leavitt is demanding that the people who will bear this expense; the people who will have a $100 or more per month fee rammed down their throats to get to work should have the final say.

Nope... those with the final say will rarely use the bridge they're sticking us with and certainly will not have to pay this toll, day in, day out, to get this thing built. It's not that much different then the tribal Mafia attempting to ram their unwanted mega-casino down our throats: none of them live here or even close to here, and none of them will have to bear the negative consequences of this massive economic black hole. That tends to make it easy to support when you won't live in the community you're trying to crush.

I've indicated that there isn't a dimes' worth of difference between Mr. Leavitt and Mr. Pollard. They're so focused on superseding and ignoring the voters that the blinders they both wear makes it impossible for them to understand that they work for US, and not the other way around.

Over at, the question, remaining unanswered, was asked of Mr. Leavitt:


Are you now saying that your votes on the Hilton, The Monterey, The police station sale, the indoor farmers market. and the capitulation of the city in the Sharma payoff to name just a few were all indefensible?

And which of these votes opposed Mayor Pollard?


I invite Mr. Leavitt to come back here and explain where I've got it wrong. The unimaginable waste of the CRC, a bill now exceeding $90 million vaporized and wasted dollars for a study with a pre-ordained outcome (everyone alive KNEW that the ONLY alternative the CRC was going to come up with would be "replace the bridge and slam light rail on it) that *I* could have replicated for $20 provides him with no cover.

I invite him to come back here and explain how he intends to fight for our RIGHT to have the final say on this debacle.

I invite him to come back here and explain where he has differed in the past with Mayor Pollard on the issues that matter.... like those provided by mooney over at and shown above.

Show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, if I've pegged you accurately (and I believe I have) then NEITHER you NOR Pollard should be elected to dog-catcher.

Any response to this (And I'm not holding me breath here) will be shown in it's entirety... so those issues of "misinterpretation" and being taken "out of context" won't impact.


No comments: