Advisory votes on bridge options.

Interesting situations here:

The three bridge options are each being introduced by a different commissioner and, if placed on the ballot, will give voters a chance to give an up or down on each idea.

Commissioner David Madore's bridge proposal seeks voter input on a span in east Clark County at Northeast 192nd Avenue that will connect to Interstate 84 in Oregon.

Commissioner Steve Stuart's bridge proposal asks voters about replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge.

Commissioner Tom Mielke's bridge proposal seeks input on a west county bridge to better connect the region with Highway 26 and Highway 30 in Oregon.

So, here's my take: 

As I've stated previously, the only option that Oregon will accept is the unmodified, as written, CRC Scam.  Oregon will likely continue to play the petulant, arrogant jerk card that so attracts fellow petulant, arrogant jerks like the democratian, Stuart, The Liar,  Montague (Who, sources tell me, got spanked yesterday in a way that's really going to hurt) Briggs, Parker and the rest of the downtown mafia who think they run the joint... and oppose any other option except jamming the loot rail spike directly into our tax dollar jugular.

That said: I would reject putting the CRC on the ballot because Stuart wants it there.

Back when it mattered, Stuart and his fellow democrat, Boldt, helped to kill an advisory vote.

Now that it DOESN'T matter (since the project is dead) Stuart's idiocy makes as much sense as re-running the failed M&O Levy from last year.

When it mattered, Stuart (Who's career as a commissioner is likely over in the next even-year general election) is doing anything and everything he can to use the system to campaign: thus his sudden love affair with the freeholder/charter issue that he so roundly condemned JUST TWO YEARS AGO.  He and the rest of the CRC Scammers had their chance.

Hopefully, he won't get a second and this thing will die, putting him on the sidelines... again.... to pout.... again.

As a county, we absolutely DO need additional bridge capacity over the river.

We absolutely DO need a bridge from 192nd in West County, and we absolutely DO need a bridge in West County.

Of the two, the East County plan looks the most likely, because it's the shortest and doesn't require construction of a corridor to support the run up to, or away, from the location.

The West County plan, which I've been advocating for years, looks the most problematic because it requires a corridor through a populated area, and is the longer of the two options... thus the more expensive.

I'm also hearing about a tunnel option.  But the questions for all of these options really boil down to two:  Which has the most bang for the buck; and which will Oregon go along with... something of a two-parter.

The answer to the first appears to be the East County option.

The answer to the second is "none."

What's problematic for the CRC Scammers is this:  That the Scam is the only plan Oregon will accept is precisely zero justification to build it given the multiple, crippling reasons not to build.

In the end, it is hoped that regardless of the outcome, nothing is on the ballot to allow a vote on the I-5 rip off.  They've had their opportunity to seek out and implement our view for the last decade and deliberately choose not to do so under the arrogant, bizarre idea, proven by their policy implemented back in 2005,  that they were going to do all they could to keep our views out of their project.

The downtown mafia has lost.  In the words of the lazy C:

If there is anything this new journey does NOT need, it's a rear-view mirror. To CRC supporters (including The Columbian's editorial board): It's over. Time to move on.

Steve Stuart apparently didn't get the memo.  It's time for him to get it now.