It's also just the tiniest bit strange that the legislature could cobble together $350,000 for this waste of money... but could only come up with $200K for an audit?
And stranger still, Jayne apparently has no recollection... or care...or concern over the smoking gun memo that laid out a POLICY of minimizing and ignoring public input...like this:
Some excerpts from the CRC memo meant to ignore public input:
As I see it, the PSC is a decision making body. It is expected to make the following decisions during the course of the project:
• Approval of the Problem Definition
• Approval of the Evaluation Framework
• Approval of the range of alternatives
• Approval of the alternatives to be considered in the EIS
• Approval of the locally preferred alternative
The approval of the locally preferred alternative by the PSC would trigger individual agency public hearings. Each elected official body (Board of Directors, Commission, City Council, and so on) would take action, presumably to endorse the locally preferred alternative recommended by the PSC. The PSC members would be entrusted to make the other decisions on behalf of their fellow elected officials with no need for public hearings or individual agency endorsements.
At each decision point, the PDT would disseminate a briefing packet ten days in advance of the meeting containing the following information:
• The PDT’s recommendation
• The Task Force recommendation
• A summary of public comment
• A summary of agency comment. I am assuming the concurrence points (formal or informal) of the joint regulatory review group would precede the PSC decision points, but this bears more thought and discussion with Jeff and Heather. It seems risky to me to have the PSC decide something, only to discover that the joint agency group disagrees or wants a different wording of the document.
I assume that each PSC member would be briefed in advance of the decision meetings by senior staff of their organizations. Senior staff is responsible for providing requested information and responding to questions. It is expected that each of the PSC decision; meetings would result in a decision with no need for extended deliberations in future meetings.This approach would require extensive coordination among PDT members prior to the meetings.
The decision meetings would be open to the public, but only minimum legal notices would be provided and no display advertising would be placed. We would not encourage public participation. The Task Force chairs would be expected to attend and respond to PSC questions concerning the Task Force recommendations. Task Force members would be made aware of the meetings. Meeting notes would be prepared and posted on the website.
Beyond these formal decisions, the PSC may want to consider interim items---component identification and evaluation, initial alternative descriptions, funding options to be included in the alternatives, and so on. I feel such meetings can be scheduled, but should be kept to a minimum and not scheduled on a regular basis. Staff members from each of these organizations are actively participating in the PDT, in the working groups, and in the Regional Partners Group (RPG). Indeed, several of the PSC members also sit on the Task Force where these items are discussed in detail. The organizations have ample opportunities to influence the direction and content of the work that will ultimately be presented to the PSC. If individual PDC members desire more detailed information on the progress of the project, they can consult one-on-one with their senior staff members. Again, the PDT should manage the “care and feeding” of individual PSC members to ensure they have the required level and frequency of information.
Non-decision meetings should be treated as opportunities for the PSC members to advise the PDT on key issues. No “official” decisions should be made at the meetings. No public notice would be provided and Task Force participation would not be sought. Meeting notes would be prepared but not posted on the website (the same as RPG and working group meeting notes).
These people could have been serial killers and it would have been the same... because once it's the rag's agenda... NOTHING can get them to change their mind unless there's a payoff for them in it somewhere (Look up "ballpark scam" for further information.)
So, yeah. There is a trust issue, all right. But it has nothing to do with Oregon "trusting" us. It has to do with the people of Clark County trusting scum like those who wrote the memo excerpted above and implemented by the same scammers who are going to get paid off on this go round as well.
According to the moron who wrote the editorial, the only concerns that should be accepted are those of the Government of Oregon. They keep hammering the "trust" issue because they want to drill this into our heads that it was, you see, OUR fault that the bridge the people of his county DID not and DO not want WASN'T built. That Cleveland, a major liar in her own right, keeps babbling about it is reason enough to know it isn't true.
Given the manner in which the Washington Senate yanked away the Columbia River Crossing proposal in 2013, after years of planning between multiple stakeholders, it is understandable that Oregon officials are gun shy.I'm sorry. I was a stakeholder. Tens of thousands of us are stakeholders. But none of the scum shilling this ripoff ever bothered to ask us what WE wanted. They made their decisions and proceeded to attempt to ram it down our collective throats.
And the PEOPLE are THE biggest, most important, "stake holders," and the rag has done all they could over the years to make sure we're kept silent on this issue.
So, if Oregon... or Cleveland... or ANY of the CRC Scammers are all butthurt about the outcome, the reality is they have no one to blame but themselves.
Because if they had LISTENED to us in the beginning... then the $200 million they made vaporize would still be in the collective wallet instead of in the pockets of the special interests who own them.
As if that is bad somehow.
We are, it is said, supposed to "repair trust" with Oregon. We are, it is inferred, supposed to forget ALL about Taxhaber's "No light rail, no bridge" scam.
What about "repairing trust" with the community this despicable waste of wood pulp serves?
Look, here's the reality: the rag has lied to us both by omission... and commission. Much like, come to think of it, it's doing so today in this dead fish wrapper of an editorial.
The issue has nothing to do with "trust." What it has to do with was the rag's rabid determination to ignore the population of Clark County in its inexplicable pursuit of replacing a function, paid for and SAFE bridge with something that would literally suck $100,000,000 per year (to start) out of our local economy.... and for what?
Gaining 60 seconds on the southbound commute into Portland while paying a toll of $8 per day (to start) that those pushing the hardest for this insanity WON'T HAVE TO PAY?
Of course, readers of the democratian STILL haven't heard anything about the Oregon Supreme Court Decision that laid out how all of this is a con designed to stuff light rail down our throats.
It's only been 5 years. What's the hold up? Not enough time?
And that's the rag's biggest problem.
They lie to us. SO what's changed?
Nothing. They lied to us then. They're lying to us now.
And of the many ironic lies and fantasies the editorial column has polluted this community with; this one has to be at the top of the heap.
Portraying this inanity as something that was a result of "broken trust," because back in the day, we used to have a FEW legislators who actually represented the people of their districts who DO NOT WANT THIS RIP OFF BUILT before they were bought by the special interests who own them now like the 13th Amendment was never passed... is, frankly, as idiotic as claiming this sewer bilge of a newspaper is unbiased and factual.
"Light rail capable" means "shoving light rail down our throats." Because the moment such a bridge would be opened, the pressure to actually start using that idiocy would be unrelenting.
Here's the thing: the scum running the paper want this so badly?
Then they need to begin to demand... editorially... that such an effort be put to a county wide vote.
And it wasn't that long ago that they not only refused to take such a position, when Boldt was finally kicked off the commission, they "editorialized" against anyone voting in the advisory votes at all.
This crap isn't any different. They are recycling their lies and exaggerations from back then, saying the same things and hoping for a different outcome.
What the rag calls a "trust" issue was, in reality, a "represent your district issue." If anyone has to "restore trust," it's the clueless idiots who steadfastly refuse to represent the will of the people in this and any other issue... those who lied to get what they wanted (And oh, My God, Cleveland was lying every time her lips moved...) and now, they seem to have had their brains addled by ink fumes when they claim that "But until Washington representatives can present a united front regarding a bridge proposal, Oregon lawmakers will be reluctant to listen."
Because the reality is clear: the united front the legislators need to present is a complete rejection of replacing the I-5 bridge until after 2 other bridges are built, one to the east of I-205 and the other to the west of the I-5 to Hillsboro or something in that area.
That's what makes this trust issue as bogus as another hate filled anti-Madore column, spewed out by Lyin' Lefty Lou.
NONE of the people scamming the bridge/loot rail resurrection have made any case whatsoever justifying this massive, unaffordable rip off.
And I would submit to the clown that wrote this that the FIRST step in this process has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature or the cancer on our community you work for.
What it has to do is the implementation of the direct will of the people of this county.
And that one sentiment right there never seems to make it into any of the lying columns... like this one, today... that those morons crank out.
The I-5 Scam is dead. And it needs to stay dead.
No amount of their whining and sniveling is going to change any of that.