I admit it, Tim Leavitt has me totally confused.

.
Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm

For years now, I've been condemning the entire concept of replacing the I-5 Bridge without first building a third bridge to the area west of Portland, a much cheaper, more efficient alternative to relieve local pressure on the I-5 corridor.

When we remember that the only reason to replace the bridge right now is to bring light rail into Vancouver, we discover the cost of all of this likely exceeds $1 billion per mile, perhaps the most expensive transportation project in the history of Man and by far the most expensive light rail project ever done.

The local impacts on our economy will drag on for decades. Few of those cheerleading for this bridge will ever pay the easily-exceeding $100 per month tolls, with a ripple effect that will impact tens of thousands of families and local small businesses as this project blots up untold hundreds of millions of dollars in disposable income, and it will do so for untold decades to come... an issue still not discussed or researched by those advocating the most for this project.

Unfortunately, Tim Leavitt ran for mayor on a platform of fighting against tolls. This blog called Mr. Leavitt to task for that maneuver, since his "anti-toll" stance was an election campaign conversion, and until he ran for office, he was pretty much in lock step with his general election opponent. Further, everyone with functioning brain synapses knows/knew that there was no way the bridge/light rail project would ever be built without imposing tolls on those least likely to afford it... the commuters.

Leavitt made it clear that will he "opposed tolls," when it came right down to it, since he was not an "obstructionist," he would not oppose the construction of the bridge if tolls were required.

THAT was certainly confusing. In order to truly oppose something, shouldn't one's principles keep one from acquiescing to convenience? If you won't oppose something that has the principles you claim to be in opposition to... then how can you be opposing those same principles when you know they will be required on the project in question?

So, Mr. Leavitt comes out and tells us he's now ended his opposition to tolls.

He has a variety of reasons for that change in perspective. My response was to poiint out that as a prefaced, Mr. Leavitt never opposed tolls under any conditions from the start.

"Opposition" on principle should always trump "obstructionism." If one is possessed of honor and integrity, one should keep one's word regardless of any "new knowledge."

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the
state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his
campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the
estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

I was astonished. How is it that after years of the bridge issue, Leavitt didn't seem to know this before he was elected... before he promised that he would "fight against tolls?"

Not all that many options explain it. And those that do cast Mr. Leavitt in a somehwta less favorable light.

But now my confusion has increased geometrically. We're told, from Mr. Leavitt's own blog, the following:

If We Must Have Tolls, We Must Fight to Make Them Equitable

This Bridge Must Not be Paid for on the Backs of Clark County Commuters

Citizens, colleagues and friends--

When I ran for the office of Mayor, I told you honestly and in good faith that I would fight against tolls on the CRC. Unlike others, who were determined to put tolls on the table first and foremost with no regard to the injustice they bring, I was determined to fight them.

What many voters were unaware of was that Leavitt's promise had something of a limited shelf life.

Leavitt's political betrayal of the people who supported him on this issue was complete. The only surprise of mine was it took all that long for him to toss aside his principles in ways that make me long for the days of Pollard's honesty... my many political disagreements with him aside.

Leavitt went on:

But unfortunately, not every battle can be won. It has become apparent that tolling has been widely accepted by the project partners, community advocates, business and economic leadership, and most importantly, our state legislators (who make the final decision about tolling).

The dishonesty of such a claim cannot be overstated. Has anyone suddenly embraced tolls now that were not equally enamored by that yoke around the commuter neck during the course of Leavitt's campaign for mayor?

"Our state legislators" (those with a 'd' after their names) were (and are) huge fans of tolls during the entirety of Leavitt's campaign. He knew that then as much as he suddenly seems to know it now.

You see, Leavitt knew during his campaign who was actually going to make the decision about tolling, He just never seemed to want to bring that up.

After all, to do so would tend to weaken his faux anti-toll position, wouldn't it? And we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way... would we?

In the end, that "not every battle can be won" does not mean that on principle alone, "not every battle should be fought."

Spreading the tax burden to tens of thousands of others besides those commuters forced to pay for the bridge is as unacceptable as the idea of running, and winning on a position only to abandon it out of political expediency.

All of that said, I recieved an anonymous request that the following message be provided. In the interest of fairness, I would ask the reader to click on the link provided to read Mayor Leavitt's own words, without editorial comment or analysis from me.

Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm