An open letter to my Brother In Law, Commissioner Marc Boldt.

.
You told me that you would make sure there was an advisory vote on the bridge and light rail this November. You looked me in the eye and told me that during the GOP Convention at Prairie High School on the 20th of February.

Well? Where is it?

I get why Steve Stuart doesn't want a vote. He's a leftist democrat, owned by the unions. HE doesn't want anything to stand in the way of the billions of dollars of our taxes to go to his union buds. He doesn't care about blowing a $100,000,000 hole in our local economy every year to pay for tolls.

But you should. And you promised me.

To my face.

So, instead of finding all the reasons why you CAN'T, I think you'd better start focusing on ways that you CAN.

Here's Marvin Case's take on it.

Answers would be nice. But the vote would be even better.

Why not?

Clark County commissioner Tom Mielke has suggested that an advisory ballot be
presented to county residents to gauge public opinion on a multi-billion dollar
plan to replace the I-5 bridge. What could it hurt?

Mielke floated his idea in recent weeks during public meetings. He said an “advisory vote” would help elected officials and project planners better determine what the public thinks about a new bridge. Mielke and others support the idea of a third bridge and corridor connecting Washington and Oregon, and believe the public would get
behind that idea rather than a new I-5 bridge located more or less in the same place as the existing bridge.

On the one hand, such an advisory vote would cost money. The county auditor estimated the cost of such a ballot measure, in conjunction with a primary or general election, would cost about $3,000. Mielke says he can raise that money from private sources so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. He points out that, even if taxpayers paid for the election, the cost would pale in comparison to the $80 million in planning money spent so far on the Columbia River Crossing project.

The cost of such an advisory vote would seem to be the only downside.

On the upside, such a vote would give planners a much better idea of what the public
thinks. They wouldn’t have to rely on computer models and sampling to collect
public opinion. One would think planners would welcome the idea of an advisory
vote because they would be able to collect opinions virtually without any cost.
Of course the exact wording of a ballot title would be important. Maybe two or
three ballots titles wouldn’t cost any more than one.

While an advisory vote on the new bridge plan is not likely, some area residents will be able to vote on a tax increase to fund light rail. That vote, offered by C-TRAN, will
probably appear on a ballot next year.

The C-TRAN vote to pay for the operation of light rail will be combined as one ballot measure with other C-TRAN needs. Voters will need to carefully examine the ballot issue when it is put before them to identify the light rail element and then vote as they see fit.

Politicians dating back several years have affirmed that voters will have a say in the bridge and light rail topic. The current commissioners have said the same thing, that a vote will be needed to make the new bridge and light rail a reality.

Too often elected officials are reluctant to ask the public to decide important issues. Why is that? What is wrong with asking voters to approve important matters such as tax increases? True, the public elects representatives to study and act on an array of matters without constant referral to the public. But the public should weigh in on important and/or highly controversial matters. Replacing the I-5 bridge is one of those important matters.

Mielke only wants an advisory vote, meaning that planners and elected officials would not be bound by the result and could still do whatever they want whether that coincides with public opinion or not. A lopsided vote against a replacement bridge, however, would likely slow the planning process.

This writer supports the bridge replacement idea although light rail seems like a colossal waste of money. A dedicated bus lane would be much less costly and would get travelers to and from downtown Portland much faster.

This writer also believes that the time has not yet come for a new I-5 bridge. While the area is congested during rush hours, that is not the case for most hours of the day. Some level of congestion is a fact of life in larger metropolitan areas. A truly independent analysis might show that a third corridor and bridge would prove to be a better short-term action, followed some years later with an I-5 bridge replacement project.

Despite all that, Mielke’s idea of an advisory vote should not be so easily dismissed by other elected officials and transportation planners. It would apparently cost nothing
to the taxpayer. It would provide useful information. It would keep the public involved and engaged during what would likely be a spirited educational campaign.

So, why not?

Marvin F. Case

Publisher

Why not indeed, especially after YOU promised ME?

I need to know. And so will everyone else.
.