The citizen's board should be made up of voters who are appointed by the commissioners and the respective city councils.
Each entity would get one representative: One for each city/town in the county, and one for the unincorporated area. Board members would hold regular town halls for their respective constituents.
As citizens, they are not to be held accountable to the councils that appointed them to avoid Leave-it's idiocy on the CTran scam.
The citizen's advisory board should have the mission of answering the what, where and how questions.
What:
What is the purpose? (Freight mobility, congestion relief or relief of the I-5 corridor?)
Identify exactly what we NEED (as opposed to "want.")
Do we need additional bridge(s)? If so, how many? Where?
What types of mass transit, if any?
Costs?
Where:Once these determinations are made, the committee should put their conclusions up to a vote of the people of this county.
Locations for this bridge(s)
How:
How is it paid for?
NO action should be taken until the people have approved it; no design, construction, or permitting.
After Phase One approval by the voters with a vote during a general election; when a final design is developed, including costs and all other pertinent information, a final vote of the people of Clark County to approve the project shall be required: and the people shall be indemnified for any and all cost over runs.
Of course, the CRC Scammers will hate this idea: the LAST thing they want is to allow the people to have a say on what we do,where or how we do it. Some of the more moronic are concerned over Oregon will allow this construction or not.
I say that doesn't matter: the purpose of this is to set up the position of Clark County on these matters.
What Oregon wants or doesn't want is completely irrelevant. If they don't agree, they can rot. It is much better to do nothing than it is the WRONG thing. And the idea that we should moronically agree to whatever Oregon wants merely because they want it?
That sounds like something a complete idiot like Molehill would declare.
This is a framework to begin the discussion. None of the swine supportive of the last effort should be allowed to have any say of any kind, given their proven inability to either listen to constituents or use common sense.
Clearly, these decisions cannot be left to those who nearly wrecked this county on the CRC Scam. There slavish devotion to hurting the hundreds of thousands of people of this county has disqualified them from getting a second bite of the apple.
6 comments:
The HUGE assumption in your suggestions is that a new bridge is intended to relieve congestion by INCREASING capacity but the other side, mostly Oregon but also those here in Washington, intend to relieve congestion by REDUCING capacity. That is the reason CRC was so secretive. Who needs any kind of committee, analysis, vote, or whatever until the fundamental question is resolved?
Which I think is covered under this:
What:
What is the purpose? (Freight mobility, congestion relief or relief of the I-5 corridor?)
Identify exactly what we NEED (as opposed to "want.")
Do we need additional bridge(s)? If so, how many? Where?
What types of mass transit, if any?
Costs?
Again, the purpose here isn't to get Oregon's approval. It's to draw this county's line in the sand and that's it... regardless of what Oregon may or may not like.
the next step is a run on Valiums downtown
So you're saying that one of the purposes of the CRC was to reduce traffic in Whoregon, Martin?
Jack, CRC's purpose was to "force people out of their cars." They intended to reduce traffic by making it too difficult and expensive to drive. Plus, some toll revenue would be diverted to various pet projects - like a Performing Arts Theater & ballpark in Vancouver. It was social engineering NOT transportation engineering.
THat's why I moved my business out of NoPo, Martin - too hard to get around
Post a Comment