Well, I guess I was mistaken when Marc Boldt told me he would do an advisory vote.

On March 20, while at the GOP Convention, I discussed the bridge situation with Marc Boldt, my brother-in-law and county commissioner.

As a result of that discussion, I posted the following: Saturday, March 20, 2010

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance.

I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.

Well, this IS classic, just not as I expected.

I got a call from my wife at work, warning me that things weren't going exactly the way I had been led to believe.

And, so, what's the story?

County Commissioner Marc Boldt, a fellow Republican who previously served with Mielke in the state Legislature, said he’s not inclined to support an advisory vote now.

“Once you go down that path, your ballot could be full of advisory votes,” Boldt said.

Exclusive of the absurdity of such an observation (It really doesn't matter if their are 50 advisory votes on the ballot or none, I would submit that any time there is a multi-billion dollar project that will cost 65,000 or more Clark County commuters $100,000,000 a year, blowing a hole in both family AND county budgets, there should, at a minimum, be an advisory vote) Marc looked me in the eye and promised me that such a vote, a non-binding advisory vote, would take place.

Apparently, it isn't.

I, of course, felt just the tiniest bit slighted considering what Marc had told me.

To my face.

So, I asked a couple of questions via email:

Marc,

The up or down vote on light rail will only apply to operation of light rail, not if either the bridge or light rail will be built. If the bridge is to be built, it must have light rail infrastructure on it. Since the only reason to replace a 6 lane bridge with a 6 lane bridge is to bring light rail into Vancouver, there is absolutely zero chance to build it without light rail.

If there is an advisory vote on the bridge there will be no light rail vote because when the people vote this down, and they will, any chance of one dime of federal money will vaporize.

The light rail/CTrans people don’t need to make a sub district, they can just use the one they have now. Meanwhile, the people of this county will pay the bill, even though, once again, no one will ask us. Further, when the light rail operations vote goes against them, they could just make their sub district THEN, using THOSE results. In short, an advisory vote that will likely kill this deal cannot stand as an excuse to not hold this vote because CTrans might use the outcome as some sort of template for a sub district.

Clearly, they will do that ANYWAY, since that’s what they did with the CTrans vote where 10’s of thousands of us were excluded from the vote, but not excluded from paying the tax. No matter what the outcome of such a vote would be, CTrans will keep trying until they get what they want.

Kill this bridge through an advisory vote, and there won’t be any light rail operations vote.

Failing to do this will result in a minimum of 65,000 commuters and their families being highly upset because one, the toll is going to vacuum $1300 or so per year out of each of their pockets (of which the county will not get one dime of revenue) and two, you will be held responsible for not allowing them any say.

As for an advisory vote, the assistant director of elections for the secretary of state said in the article that

State law does not explicitly prohibit advisory votes, according to state elections officials.

“There’s nothing that says they couldn’t,” said Katie Blinn, assistant director of elections for Secretary of State Sam Reed. “This whole animal of advisory votes is simply advisory. The process is not spelled out in state law, so there aren’t black and white parameters around it.”

Thus, there are no legal reasons not to hold such a vote, Potter’s babble notwithstanding; and anyone telling you different is lying.

The directive to Potter shouldn’t be “find a way to keep us from doing this.” Instead, it should be, “Find a way to make this happen or we will replace you with someone who will.”

Potter is, of course, dead wrong on his positions concerning advisory votes. Advisory votes by their very nature have precisely zero effect or authority or legal requirement to make any alteration of any kind on any issue.

Unless he can find a LAW that EXPLICITLY makes such advisory votes illegal (And the secretary of state’s office has indicated that he cannot) then he is flat wrong. And Stuart’s moronic idea of a “scientifically valid survey” will cost a hell of a lot more than $3000 and supersede the BEST survey: the results at the ballot box, which transcends any other type of survey in its inclusion and accuracy.

Marc, I get that you don’t want to take flack over allowing the people to have a say. But in this instance, giving the people a voice is the right thing to do for two reasons:

First, on a project of this magnitude with the horrific impacts that will result on family budgets across this county, the people deserve a say.

Second, you promised me that an advisory vote would be held.

I recognize that I’m a nobody relative to Steve Stuart or the unions. But someone, somewhere, has to care about what the PEOPLE want.

An advisory vote will provide that opportunity.

The comments on the article in question were generally supportive of such a vote, save for the usual fringe-leftist scum and union hacks who think we owe them a job and who certainly don't want a little thing like the will of the people to get in their way.

One particularly moronic slimeball commented that those of us who want to determine the will of the people on this issue should move to Somalia.

Well, it's a lesson learned. About politics, about what's important, and about my brother-in-law.

He had the opportunity to do something for the people of this county; to provide them with a voice... to make up for his support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who, as I warned, scammed people into actually believing he was opposed to tolls.

And he did nothing.

I will remember. 2012 isn't that far away.