A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City Councilman.

I absolutely do give Pat Campbell credit for engaging with his political opponents, something rare in a politician anywhere and unheard of at the local level among those ramming the bridge and loot rail down our throats.

While I believe Campbell and those like him to be wrong on every level: the facts, the impacts, the costs and the outcomes, Campbell at least makes the effort.

And for that, he is to be congratulated.

He wrote in the comment section of my post: With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

I know some of you were quite upset last Tuesday thinking you had elected Leavitt. I am not so sure of that. I think it had to be more that just the anti-toll folks:

1) Ogle and Turlay were anti-toll and not elected.

2) Burkman was pointed out as being "pro-toll" and was elected.

So in my mind there was more to Leavit's election that just the tolling issue. An opinion- Pat Campbell

To which, I responded:

There may very well could have been. But isn't all that beside the point?

The man ran on a lie. This sudden awakening was a crock. I find it highly unlikely that Leavitt magically gained knowledge on tolling after the election that he didn't have before the election. And that's the trouble, Pat.... even more so then his cynical and absolute decision to use the tolling issue to gain support from the anti-toll segment of the electorate.

Of course, Leavitt also got $40,000 or so from David Barnett that didn't hurt, either.

The idea that Leavitt NOW knows what he apparently didn't know then is absurd. His position was purely electioneering; he had no intention of being opposed to tolls. He was for tolls from the very beginning; his decision to publicly abandon that issue now and let the Columbian PR arm go to work to rehab his image was a purely political decision as well.

The ONLY way to genuinely "oppose tolls" as Leavitt campaigned on is what I told him: the simple thing to do is stand up and tell those in charge: if you toll this thing I will do everything I can to kill it.

And his cowardly response to the issue of an advisory vote: how DARE he tell the public that such a vote would be meaningless. It's only "meaningless" because Leavitt is not about to risk a massive public repudiation of his pro-toll position. He doesn't want a mere thing like the will of the people to get in the way of his agenda... much like, come to think of it, you.

There is no excuse for building this without asking us. None. And Tom Mielke appears to be the only one who has tried to get this project in front of the people for our input. Leavitt doesn't want that. Stuart doesn't want that. The governor doesn't want that and frankly, it appears that you don't want it either.

In the entirety of my life I never believed that any government that governed me could possibly care so little about the will of those they would govern.... until now.

Regardless of whatever else Leavitt ran on, he ran on this lie. And now, the question: when do we believe him? How do we know when he's lying... and when he's telling the truth?

I knew he was lying from the beginning. Said so from the beginning. Steve Stuart on his campaign? There is NO WAY Stuart would allow anyone who didn't share his perspective to win.
Leavitt defrauded the people as much as Sam Adams in Portland. And for that, he deserves everyone's condemnation, including yours. But I'm not holding my breath.

Because like all of the bridger/looters, none of you are going to have to pay for this unneeded and unwanted monstrosity. As a result, it's completely unrealistic to expect you to make any effort to hold Leavitt accountable or to do the right thing in his regard.

Thanks for stopping by, Pat.

Leading to this effort by Mr. Campbell:

I am for the bridge and light rail after coming to the conclusion that we need to get started before our current transportation system collapses. (Some would argue it already has.)

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward. - Pat Campbell

To which I reply: Pat, thanks for stopping by again. But for purposes of this discussion, what the people may or may not want is secondary to the issue of Leavitt's lies, manipulations and misrepresentations of his positions, all for a political purpose.

That Leavitt lied is irrefutable. That he received votes because he lied is also irrefutable. That such was the purpose of his lies is self-evident. That you and others similarly situated are doing nothing to hold him accountable for those lies speaks for itself.

You seem to be supporting him because, as I pointed out, it's OK to lie when the liar supports your position. You should be holding him accountable by any number of ways available to you all, and yet you're not. But then, Leavitt's now in your "pro-toll" fold publicly, instead of privately, where he's been from the very beginning.

As far as the bridger/looter project?

Pat, I will be the first to admit that I-5 here locally is a mess…. But I believe it to be a designed-in mess.

When I moved here after I got out of the Army, there were just under 200,000 people living in Clark County. Now, of course, there are over 430,000, a huge increase over the 21 plus years I’ve lived here. Next to nothing has been done to our transportation system to keep up with that growth, and now we’re faced with spending what amounts to $4 billion dollars so light rail can take the “camel’s nose under the tent flap” approach as, perhaps, THE most expensive transportation project for the number of people it will actually carry in the History of this planet… all while the true problem remains unaddressed; a lack of road miles for our increasing population.

While our transportation system is light years from “collapsing,” (after all, 65,000 commuters go over the bridge before noon, and 65,000 commuters come back after noon every business day) it is, certainly, distressed. But the distress will not be relieved by kicking the dead horse known as replacing, with the same number of through lanes, or ANY number of through lanes, a bridge in the same place.

At some point, we are going to get additional bridges. Portland, as I understand it, has 11 bridges that cross the Willamette. That we have a grand total of TWO to serve the needs of a community of a half million is absurdity wrapped in stupidity.

So, do we add a third and fourth bridge now? Or do we wait 20 or 30 years when it becomes so obvious that even a CRC supporter can believe in the need…. And it cost twice as much?

Because right now, you and your fellow travelers are talking about spending what amounts to an unlimited number of billions (Think Boston’s “Big Dig.”) on a project that will not do what you seem to think it will do; all the while disrupting life, traffic patterns, Clark College, and the budgets of tens of thousands of commuters… for a project that tends to show the net impact will be zero change by the year 2030.

You tell me:

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

How, precisely, do you know this to be true? And of that “group” you name, how many of them will have to pay for this?

See, Pat, it would be easy for me to make you, through force of government, pay for something that I’m not going to use… or pay for.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention. And when the issue was brought up, and Leavitt actually had the gall to look at his constituents and say, in effect, that such a vote wouldn’t make any difference or have any value, I almost threw up.

When Leavitt trashed the idea of an advisory vote as “meaningless,” I had to leave the school. If ever there were a display of arrogance towards the people and what they want in addition to his obvious lies about being opposed to tolls, THAT was it.

NO vote on ANYTHING should EVER be “meaningless.”

Leavitt has REPEATEDLY told people that he won’t support an advisory vote because he KNOWS the project would lose overwhelmingly. So here, you say even more people want this then don’t… but you have nothing to prove that… and you certainly have nothing that indicates support from those who would be on the hook the most to pay for it: the commuters of Clark County.

So, why don’t you people put this to bed? Find a way to hold a county wide advisory vote on this project. If you do that advisory vote and the people actually DO support this, then I will never say another word about it.

It would be cheaper and far more accurate than any poll done to date, and it would forever put this question to bed.

But Pat, we both know that you’d never make such a demand. You tell me that you support the whole package… so why would you ever risk letting a little thing like the will of the people actually get in your way? After all, it won’t be YOU paying the $1200 to $1800 per year in tolls to go to work every day, will it? And I’ve got to wonder: would you be so hot to make this thing happen if you had to pay, out of your pocket, $1500 or so a year, like you’re working to force everyone else who will have to use this bridge to pay?

"Economic stagnation?” What happens to our local economy when your project vacuums out $100,000,000 million per year out of our local economy, monies that will go to tolls instead of, for example, movies, pizza, newspapers, ice cream, park fees, the Clark County fair and the like because YOU and the others supporting this monstrosity will task 65,000 other families to pay for something THEY don’t want…. Money from which no government entity will see a dime in revenue that otherwise would have produced almost $9,000,000 or more in sales tax.

What impact is THAT going to have on our economy? Or is the economy of the unions who are going to be the direct beneficiaries of this project what concerns you the most?

Mr. Campbell went on:

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward.

Sorry…. But that’s nonsense.

That Patella’s effort failed is meaningless given the fact that he had no time and no money.

PLEASE don’t believe for one second that, for example, if Patella had paid signature gatherers, or the ability to go up on TV or radio that he wouldn’t have come back with 20,000 signatures.
Pat, you’ve been in politics long enough to know that there is much more to an issue than whether or not the campaign to address it was funded or handled properly.

You want to know for sure?

Then hold the vote. But that you can extrapolate what the people want from an unfunded campaign in too short of a time and divine what the rest of us want is absurd.

Hold the vote, Pat.

But then, as I said, we both know you won’t. But that you and the rest of the CRC seem to have deluded yourself into actually believing that the people truly want this waste of billions is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing of all.

In closing, let’s not lose site of the main issue: Leavitt ran a platform that was primarily based on telling people he was actually opposed to tolls. I knew all along that he actually favored tolls, and the whole thing was a political ploy. Rightly or wrongly, nothing in your response refutes that.

That Leavitt is a liar is irrefutable. And there’s no way this particular pig can be dressed up to change that.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

.

Zemanta" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=4a6df10d-8025-411d-bc40-32ed9dc3d20e">