More bogus democratian fringe left loot rail propaganda.

.
We all know how addicted the rag is to what increasingly appears to be a drug-induced haze over loot rail.  After all, while we know loot rail is the entire basis for replacing a bridge with costs that will bury us into billions of debt for generations to come, and that the people of this community actually don't want this steaming crap pile dumped on our doorsteps.

Today's Goebbelian effort introduces a warped concept of that they refer to as "logic."

If you used the bridger's/looter's logic, loot rail will solve every transportation issue known to man.

It won't, of course.  It doesn't come close to the positive impacts of a 3rd Bridge, which could be built for a third or so less while reliving congestion on the entire I-5 corridor in Clark County and the Portland area.

Loot rail and a new bridge, oddly with precisely the same capacity as the current bridge, will somehow end congestion and freight mobility problems we currently experience?

That's the lie at the heart of the matter.  Anyone taking a sober assessment and reviewing the reams of data available is well aware that this is not being built to solve a problem, because it solves no problem impacting our community.

This morning's rag has gone to work using yet another propaganda effort to get us to ignore the laser of crime loot rail represents.  It stupidly tells us

"This is not rocket science, and it’s not so much a transit issue as it is a matter of law enforcement. It is no coincidence that in 2010, when crimes on MAX trains increased 14 percent, TriMet also reduced the number of fare “supervisors” from 30 to 13 due to severe budget restrictions. (These are the security officers who patrol MAX trains looking for fare evaders and potential crime suspects.) So, rather than jumping to the conclusion that light rail is a crime conduit, it’s more logical to deduce that, when enforcement goes down, crime goes up. And that applies to most areas of our society."

Typical of the rag's blinding bias, they mention the alleged problem (More of that "restricted when used to discuss Jacks, but perfectly acceptable speculation when THEY want to use it.")  of crime as if it were just a footnote.

Presuming they are accurate and the issue is a matter of reduced enforcement based on reduced budgets, how would they propose to fix that?  How is it they seem to believe that we can stop a system, a system that would be controlled by the incompetents on the other side of the river could be fixed... except by tolls that pay, not only for that steaming manure pile, but loot rail maintenance and operation as well?

The democratian attacks the logic of those of us concerned about crime on loot rail... crime that has been going on for years... crime that government seems incapable of addressing, controlling or paying to stop.  The people in the zoo to our south have been clamoring for years to get this situation fixed... and what do they have to show for it?

No, the rag's "logic" argument falls apart when you begin the review process.

"Logic" must start with the premise that the bridge needs to be replaced.

It doesn't.

"Logic" must start with the idea that loot rail, crime-ridden or crime-free, would have any measurable favorable impact to either congestion or freight mobility issues.

It won't.

"Logic" must have, as the most important underpinning, the idea that this community actually wants this horrific waste of money.

We don't.  And they know we don't.

For the rag to condemn the logic of others when they, themselves, have no logic for any of this is, well, typical of both the LACK of logic they're using to get their agenda rammed into place AND their all-too-typically-rank hypocrisy.

Crime is not, by any stretch, the only reason to dump this project.  It is but one of many.

In this instance, it might have been helpful if what they had to say made sense.  Maybe, one day, it will... but only if their position were to actually reflect the needs... and the will... of the people they allegedly serve... the community that attempts to sustain them.
.