Role reversal? Where have the Republicans gone on the county commission?

.
When Tom Mielke ran for commissioner, it was on a simple, populist-based platform of no I-5 Bridge replacement, no light rail and no tax or fee increases.

So, imagine my dismay when I discovered that Mielke wants to jack up our fees for vehicle ownership in the midst of a recession?

Mielke urges higher vehicle fees to fund road projects
Boldt says he’d back effort if property taxes are reduced

By Stephanie Rice
Columbian staff writer

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Here’s how badly the county needs money for future road projects: Clark County Commissioner Tom Mielke, a conservative Republican who owns nine cars, supports increasing vehicle licensing fees.

Mielke said Tuesday that increasing licensing fees would take the burden off developers from having to pay as much in traffic-impact fees.

He quickly added that he would like to balance a fee hike with reducing property
tax rates so homeowners would not pay as much for roads, either.

He said he’s encouraging county staffers to figure out a specific proposal.

“I don’t know how to do it,” Mielke said.

His fellow Republican, Commissioner Marc Boldt, said he supports increasing licensing fees on the condition property taxes were lowered.

They both feel all drivers, and not just property owners and developers, should shoulder more of the burden of paying for roads.

By state law, commissioners could raise the $43 annual vehicle licensing fee by $20 without putting it to a public vote.

If voters so approved, the fee could be raised by as much as $100.

Commissioner Steve Stuart, a Democrat, would be the board’s lone “no” vote. He said the county needs to work with existing funds, ranking projects on a need-based scale that favors safety and attracting business development.

More:

I've got to tell you: I'm not interested in the least in taking "the burden off developers from having to pay as much in traffic impact fees."

Boldt has long since lost many of the Republican tenets of his political upbringing, having voted to allow the county to confiscate our weapons in the event of a declared emergency, having voted for a sales tax increase for meth treatment without referring said tax to the voters; and his lie to me, personally, that he would make sure there was an advisory vote on the bridge project/loot rail when he never intended such a vote to take place; helping to insure that we're burdened with an additional $1300 a year for each of the 65,000 that will come directly out of our local economy.

He rarely supports Mielke's heretofore conservative ideas and has repeatedly failed to even second Mielke's multiple motions for an advisory vote, either with the county or at the CRC.

That he would go along with this under the facade of reducing our property taxes is as much a shell game as the idiot democrats screwing us with an income tax. Any such reduction would be temporary, and therefore worthless.

That brings us to Stuart, who suddenly finds himself in a re-election race, although how much of a race it turns out to be remains to be seen.

Stuart is well aware of his vulnerabilities; his corruption with David Barnett and his slavish desire to throw us under a bus while jamming us with a toll for a bridge with loot rail that we neither need nor want does expose him to some vulnerability... since corruption and massive tax or fee increases during a horrific recession aren't particularly politically attractive to the 65,000 commuters, Stuart's aura of invulnerability is as much a facade as Boldt's Republicanism.

So, here we have the role-reversal. Mielke and Boldt want to jack up our fees. Stuart, in genuine political fear for his future, takes the hero position of "no" on this issue... almost as if it were set up as an election ploy to strengthen Stuart's effort at re-election.

Because whether that was the plan or not, this is the practical outcome.

In the article, Stuart's assumption of a what would otherwise be a Republican political position seems so reasoned and well thought out, since he is, of course, correct.

Why Mielke is throwing this political lifeline to Stuart is beyond me. Why Mielke is carrying this water for the development community who so cavalierly ignored him in 08, giving him essentially no money to run on, is simply beyond me.

Causing the people of this county to pay increased fees so developers get a break will do nothing to increase housing construction; the issue isn't development fees which are all passed on to the buyer anyway. Instead, the issue is the difficulty in getting financing and the uncertain financial future of those who might be interested in buying homes.

In short, screwing the people of Clark County to increase developer profit margins will not have the desired effect unless the economy of this county where unemployment continues to hover in the stratosphere improves, along with the financing available to buy these houses once built.
.