Critique of the democratian's muted call for a county wide referendum on the bridge/loot rail project.

.
Continuing to notice declining readership, the democratian took a first, very tentative, step in regaining both some semblance of that pool of dollars and towards some (minor) respectability.

Unfortunately, the call, while certainly appreciated and some 5 years late, didn't go nearly far enough, and left out the most critical element, save holding the vote itself: the "then what" element.

We hold this vote, the same vote my brother-in-law lied to me about, and the vote comes out opposed to this project across every demographic and party affiliation... "then what?"

We already know the "then what" aspect if the project wins at the polls.

But what if it loses?

What good does it do to "hear what local residents are thinking" if those thoughts are then ignored?

Upon finding their pet project and waste of $100,000,000 plus to date soundly rejected... what's the next step?

Old habits for the democratian die hard.

They ask us:

Are supporters of a new bridge and light rail afraid of rejection by voters? They shouldn’t be, because there’s no reliable way to predict the outcome.

The only reason they haven't held a vote is because the powers that be, in fact, already DO know what the outcome to such a vote would be. And it would be just a tad bit embarrassing to continue to work hard to get something built that the voters have rejected... wouldn't it?

Talking about $1.50 per gallon gas prices is irrelevant, you would have us replace the cost of that gasoline with a geometrically more expensive loot rail system that would be subsidized for riders at least $26 per day per rider or give us the option of paying $1300 or more per year in tolls.

I'll take the price of gasoline over the price of this project every day and twice on Sunday.

You ask if a 67.4% "no" vote is a mandate.

The only mandate more impressive and engraved on stone were the Ten Commandments.

Is a 1.5% victory by the main bridger/looter in the last election, a victory where the incumbent barely survived against a very weak candidate with a campaign of next to nothing a mandate for those supporting this?

Bridge supporters pointing to worthless polls with slanted questions designed to get pre-ordained answers that never touched the issue of cost have nothing to hang their collective hats on.

The fact is that contacts I have... on more then one occasion... have told me that the reason The Liar opposes a vote is because he knows such a vote will lose... and has said as much, more than once.

All of that said, I have been hammering the local paper like a nail, in part over their failure to call for a public vote on this issue.

I acknowledge that they have now... finally... made that call.

Now what I'm waiting for is to find out from them what a rejection of this project would mean to the paper and to our elected officials. It's a simple request: do an editorial on what a voter rejection of this project would mean to the paper... how or if that would change your years-long effort to get this thing built, how hard you would work on reversing course, how hard you will work now in actually presenting BOTH sides of every bridge/loot rail related issue in every article... if at all.

Having quantified the opposition to this horrific project... what does that mean to it's biggest cheerleaders?

And unless something drastically changes... I would say at this point, it would mean nothing at all.

And putting it in stark terms, I would ask the paper this:

When the voters reject this project, if this vote is ever held... will you join with us? Or will you continue to oppose, vilify, and, in a word, keep "John Lairding" us?

The world wonders.
.