Memo to Jack Burkman. Please stop lying about light rail.

Jack, you know I've supported you when you've gotten it right on the issues, (Ballpark, for example) but I've also drilled you when you've blown it... and in this instance, you've blown it big time.

In a facebook response of yours a few days ago, you wrote the following:

Jack Burkman · SubscribeSubscribed · Top Commenter · Council Member at City of Vancouver, WA

When the CRC project started, there were many options evaluated to meet the federal requirement that mass transit be part of the project if federal money was involved. At that time there were several options that could possibly meet that need.

Buses running in the traffic lanes didn't meet the mass transit need over the long term. If they ran in their own dedicated lanes, they might meet that need. Bus Rapid Transit carries more people and is less costly to operate and also requires its own lanes. Light rail is less expensive than BRT to operate and carries even more people. That makes LRT the best, long term option, especially from an environmental impact perspective which is a key piece of the environmental impact analysis. Remember that the federal evaluation of the CRC project looks at the long term benefits and impacts.
...
Over the years, yes years, the project advanced and options were evaluated. Since 2005 there have been more than 1,000 public meetings reaching over 30,000 people. Many of these dealt in one way or another with this mass transit issue. The federal process requires this kind of outreach.

Ultimately light rail was chosen as the Locally Preferred Alternative and fully evaluated within the federally required Environmental Impact Statement. That federal document, the FEIS, was approved by multiple agencies in Washington and Oregon – a requirement of the federal government. After evaluation of that process and document, the federal government issued their Record of Decision (ROD) documenting approval of the process and document, allowing the project to move forward and request federal funding.

If light rail were removed, the federal government would most certainly care! There would no longer be support from all the agencies – required by the Federal Government. To change from light rail to bus rapid transit or buses in their own lane would necessitate redoing that intensive public process. We would need to show why we were not choosing the most efficient and effective solution.

Simply stated, we would effectively have to start CRC over. The idea that pulling light rail is a ‘little change’ is not supported by the facts, only by wishful thinking.

The problem, of course, is that what you've written isn't true.

For me, the only question is this: Is your false, revisionist history deliberate?  Or is it the result of your ignorance on what was really happening?

Because here's what REALLY happened:  You were had.

The City of Vancouver?

Had.

The dim bulb mayor?

Had.

See, someone else has looked at this situation, and they seem to have a somewhat different take on events:

The Oregon Supreme Court has succeeded in doing what scores of public meetings, thousands of pages of reports, and endless public relations spin could not: Give us the original rationale behind the proposed $3.5 billion Columbia River Crossing.
.

The answer, according to the court: The massive Interstate 5 bridge and freeway project is a “political necessity” to persuade Clark County residents to accept something they previously didn’t want—a MAX light-rail line from Portland to Vancouver. (To read the Feb. 16, 2012 Oregon Supreme Court decision regarding the Columbia River Crossing Project, click here (PDF, 18 pages))
.

Project opponents filed a legal challenge to the way Metro, the regional planning agency, granted sweeping land-use approval to the project. The Oregon Supreme Court sided mostly with Metro.
.

But Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, writing for the majority, highlighted an inconvenient set of facts for CRC backers.

.

He wrote in the Feb. 16 opinion that most of the project—namely the 10-lane freeway bridge and new interchanges—was put forward to get Clark County to agree to the light-rail line.

.

De Muniz cited statements that Metro made in the land-use process and Metro’s lawyer repeated before his court.

.

“It was politically impossible for the light rail project to proceed without also building new interstate bridges across the Columbia River,” De Muniz wrote.

.

“Or as Metro later summarized it: ‘There is no light rail without the freeway bridge[s] being replaced.’”

.
Backers have cited traffic and safety issues as the top reasons to build the CRC. But the court ruling means those and other justifications were created after officials decided to give a sop to Clark County, now worth $2.5 billion.

The irony here cannot be overlooked:

Just today, the Mayor of Vancouver (And CRC Contractor employee) Tim Leavitt, had a propaganda story printed in the Reflector... a story that now appears to be quite discredited, like so much of Leave-it's babble.

But then, Leavitt has never been real big on telling the truth.

There was never any question that replacing an already paid for, perfectly serviceable bridge was driven by anything EXCEPT light rail to the downtown, Vancouver, area; the Oregon Supreme Court now says as much.

The idea that this scam was anything BUT a light rail project has been beyond belief from the get-go, the concept that adding additional bridges both northwest of the current I-5 bridge location and east of I-205 was somehow not a better, cheaper, more realistic plan and a plan that wouldn't relieve pressure on the I-5 corridor far more efficiently than tearing down a paid for bridge simply defied disbelief.

So, in reality, NONE of this is for ANY reason you stated; according to the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, we're begin gamed... scammed... and we're being led down a path because those smarter then you in Portland are COUNTING on your stupidity and ignorance on the matter along with fellow loot railers... and you keep delivering... in spades.

So do us all a favor, and start telling the truth.

Exclusive of anything else, no other option of any kind was ever considered; the phantom "locally preferred alternative" was the only POSSIBLE outcome, because, as the Court pointed out, loot rail was the tail wagging this dog... and these "considerations" were pure eyewash to cover this "selection" and give it the veneer of respectability when anyone watching knew that the ONLY selection by the downtown mafia was going to light rail into Vancouver and a wholly unneeded and unwanted new bridge.  That was the deal as it turns out, up front; millions were wasted on bogus "reviews, hearings and considerations" when the outcome was, as I have alleged for years, predestined and pre-ordained.

See, Jack.... no amount of lipstick that you layer on to this pig changes the underlying condition: it's still a pig, and your bizarre reliance on a corrupt process as a justification for ANY of these lies and efforts to screw us should be beneath you... but it, apparently, is not.

And in this case, the truth seems to be that you were had.  Big time.  And because this rip off is just that, a rip off, we would be much better served if this entire project were killed and we just started over on the 3rd and 4th bridges this area needs and that the people would, actually, support.  if that means starting over?

Then so be it. We've still got $250 million more to waste to catch up to the SR 520 debacle.

And you're helping to waste billions we don't want wasted... and all without asking us.