Tim Leavitt swings by: Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!

.
A few days ago, Tim Leavitt came by and left the following comment on a post I wrote on January 26. I apologize to Tim and anyone else over the delay in acting on this... I just received the email notification it had come in.

While I am puzzled at the almost three week or so delay, better late than never. Whenever Mr. Leavitt comes by, I will take the same time and effort to share his communications as I will to attack his positions that I oppose.

After all, fair is fair, and as much as I may disagree with Mr. Leavitt, I do appreciate his effort to communicate.

Thus, here is his comment, completely unedited, as I received it, followed by my response.

Tim Leavitt said...

Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!

Again, I'll refer you to my blog...leavitt4vancouver.blogspot[sic]. 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[sic] 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.[sic] 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[sic] 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 --

tim

3:56 PM

I appreciate any elected official taking the time out of their day to communicate. He's a busy man and clearly, he views this ability as important.

What set me off initially was Mr. Leavitt's remark that I had engaged in "serious misinterpretation" and that I had "taken (him) way out of context."

Upon reflection, I continue to disagree. In providing both quotes and links to the actual article that was the basis for my post, I should have removed any question or doubt concerning either "misinterpretation" OR "context."

Mr. Leavitt's comment (above) provides a perspective, but not what I would consider to be a response to the issues either I raised, or a poster over at clarkblog.org brought up that addressed specific issues that Mr. Leavitt has failed to respond to.

I have alleged that Mr. Leavitt is, in effect, "Pollard Light." I have indicated that there is nothing in record or outlook of any substance to separate the two. I have indicated that I believe that Mr. Leavitt has rarely disagreed with Mayor Pollard on his votes or his views. I am ready to be persuaded that I am wrong.

I have some specific questions to ask that might make that possible. Hopefully, Mr. Leavitt will review these questions and provide answers that will disprove my theory.

1. In what way do you differ from Mayor Pollard on the following:

a. The construction of a replacement I-5 Bridge.

b. The inclusion of light rail.

c. Our right to vote on those two issues as to whether, or if, we actually want either one.

d. The purchase of the Columbian Building.

In what way DID you differ from the mayor on your votes concerning:

a. The Hilton.

b. The Monterrey.

c. The police station sale.

d. The indoor farmers market.

e. The Sharma vote.

f. The so-called "head tax."

g. The imposition of a city B&O tax.

That is not to say, Mr. Leavitt, that I do not appreciate your efforts to point out where you have, in fact, differed with the mayor on your respective votes in the past.

You went to some trouble to provide instances where you did, in fact, differ with the mayor. And I thank you for that.

I would ask you, however, to specify:

As a percentage of votes, is it safe to say that you've voted with Mayor Pollard, say, 95% of the time?

Is the number greater... or lower?

And Mr. Leavitt, I would point out that your votes on the CTran Board miss the point: Before you voted for ANY of this, I believe that we should have had the opportunity to vote on if we wanted ANY of this.

Your votes seem to make the best of a bad situation-type result. And that's not what we hire you for.

The only question you ask us seems to be this: will we pay for operations and maintenance of light rail?

A series of MUCH better questions to ask us all are these:

a. Do you want to pay tolls?

b. Do you want another bridge?

c. Do you want light rail?

You see, Mr. Leavitt, you ain't asking us those questions.

Why?

Do you see that by your actions, you're increasing the already unfair burden on as many as 60,000 commuters or more a day by at least $1200 yearly?

Why is it that such an action seems to mean so little to you?

You are giving us precisely zero choice. In your world, the goal is to replace a bridge that we do not want replaced, making sure that the bridge has light rail; and only THEN ask us if we want to pay for the operation of said light rail IN ADDITION to the HUGE tax increase tolls represent. You're not giving us a voice that matters.

This is as unfair and unethical as that despicable C-Trans vote where 50,000 or more voters were excluded from voting for a tax increase, but none of us have been excluded from PAYING it.

Did you support THAT theft?

"Integrity" is an interesting concept when you and those like you are willing to slam us with a huge additional tax just to go to work... a tax that I believe the vast majority of the elected officials supporting this effort WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY TO GO TO WORK.

How EASY it is for YOU to impose a tax on US that YOU won't have to pay on a daily basis, day in, day out, for years. What about YOUR "integrity?"

What about ASKING US FIRST?

As always, I will blog your response, presuming you provide one.

Just remember, Mr. Leavitt: "integrity" is a dual-edged sword... and it cuts both ways.

Thank you for your time.
.