There is simply no lie this newspaper will not tell to further their agenda.

The unconscionable lies of the Columbian are part and parcel of why I, and thousands of others refuse to by this colossal waste of space... a crime of the First Amendment's freedom of the press, because they are left to actually LIE in support of their agenda. And that makes them no better then scum

Today's lie?

-- A bill allowing C-Tran to designate a subdistrict for light rail funding advanced out of the House Transportation Committee on Friday. It moved out of the Senate committee earlier.

This would be a significant development for light rail in Vancouver, and it should appeal to all Clark County residents — in or out of the subdistrict — because it would advance the user-pay concept. Taxes would increase only in the area directly affected by light rail, and only residents who are directly served by light rail would vote on such an increase. The increase, likely a small boost in sales tax, would fund maintenance and operation of light rail, which could be built with up to $750 million in federal transit funds.

And here are two more good things about a transit subdistrict: It would be an option, and voters are the ones who decide.

Words fail me... almost.

To call this a lie is to do disservice to the term "lie."

If the people of Clark County, who will be denied the right to vote on this entire project, actually SUPPORTED this garbage, then we wouldn't NEED a "taxing district."

These scumbags would just put the whole thing up for a vote county wide, and then live with the consequences of that vote.

But the little worms supporting this are doing so,not BECAUSE we want it... but because THEY know we don't.

And along comes The Columbian, who lies over and over and over in ways that would make either the Nazi's or even that empty-suited clown Obama blush, and he's lied more in one month than the last 5 presidents put together in 30 years.

From a comment on this utter lie of an editorial:

Clark County residents are appalled at the notion that you can keep us from having a voice on a tax while you force us to pay it. Clark County residents view that as a stain on democracy, a kind of organized crime that would make Al Capone blush with envy. And Clark County residents view those who support such a concept as scum. And yes, that includes this newspaper.

Like the C-Tran scam you were so wild about, "voters" will NOT get to "decide."

SOME voters will make that decision, but not ALL voters. ALL voters will just be given the privilege of being forced to PAY this tax. And that is as despicable now as it was when you supported the last worthless effort.

The demise of this newspaper simply cannot come soon enough. Minister Goebbels could learn a thing or two from you.

It is of note to point out this paragraph:

SOME voters will make that decision, but not ALL voters. ALL voters will just be given the privilege of being forced to PAY this tax. And that is as despicable now as it was when you supported the last worthless effort.

The Columbian knew when they printed this sewage that the lines will be drawn precisely like they were drawn for the C-Trans crime. That is, they will be gerrymandered to maximize revenue, and minimize participation by the very voting public that should be, according to this excuse for a newspaper, glad that this disaster... this mass screwing of the people of this county is taking place.

It's time to organize a boycott of this despicable rag and anyone who advertises in it. This cancer has got to go... for they have long since lost any legitimacy when they are reduced to lying to the public... just like their Nazi and Communist predecessors.




In our view March 4: Three Small Steps
TIF bill, C-Tran subdistrict proposal, Zarelli’s rainy-day refinement all advance
Wednesday, March 4 1:00 a.m.

Tired of the deluge of negative news out of the Legislature? Depressed by all the moaning and groaning about lawmakers gulping and gasping as they wrestle with a projected $8 billion budget shortfall? Ready for some good news from Olympia?

We've got three small pieces of good news, none of which warrants organizing a parade, but when combined are fairly encouraging. These were not milestone achievements in themselves. In fact, the headline might be no more assertive than this: Three good ideas did not die in recent days when they could have. These days in the Legislature, you take your good news whenever you can get it.

Monday was do-or-die day for bills passing out of policy committees. These three measures still need to be brought before both chambers, so a lot of work remains. But here's the good news:

-- The concept of tax increment financing took a step forward as Senate Bill 5045 was advanced by the Ways and Means Committee. Tax increment financing — which exists in 40 other states including Oregon — allows local governments to use projected tax revenue generated by revitalization projects to fund the construction of those projects.

Two good examples are the Riverwest project in downtown Vancouver (C Street and Evergreen Boulevard), which through a similar Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) program three years ago secured $12.5 million over 25 years; and Vancouver waterfront redevelopment. The waterfront project is using other funding sources and is too advanced to take advantage of any TIF bill that might be approved by the Legislature this year, but it symbolizes the type of community revitalization that TIF stimulates.

"TIF would be a huge advance for Vancouver and Clark County because it would put us on a level playing field with Oregon, which has a very robust TIF model," Vancouver lobbyist Mark Brown said on Tuesday.

More:

Tim Leavitt swings by: Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!

.
A few days ago, Tim Leavitt came by and left the following comment on a post I wrote on January 26. I apologize to Tim and anyone else over the delay in acting on this... I just received the email notification it had come in.

While I am puzzled at the almost three week or so delay, better late than never. Whenever Mr. Leavitt comes by, I will take the same time and effort to share his communications as I will to attack his positions that I oppose.

After all, fair is fair, and as much as I may disagree with Mr. Leavitt, I do appreciate his effort to communicate.

Thus, here is his comment, completely unedited, as I received it, followed by my response.

Tim Leavitt said...

Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!Uncle, Uncle, UNCLE Already!

Again, I'll refer you to my blog...leavitt4vancouver.blogspot[sic]. for the details and accuracy of my position on the Columbia River Crossing.

My remark about a 'measly $3 billion" was a comment of sarcasm as related to the hundereds[sic] of billions the Feds are spending on financial bailouts...as accurately quoted (yes) in The Columbian article! Of course I know that $3 billion is a lot of money! Come on, now...

I'll remind you that I was Chair of the CTRAN Board of Directors who chose a CRC Locally Preferred Alternative that included #1) a restriction on the cost of light rail into Clark County (to be limited to what the Feds pay for...no additional local money from you, me and our neighbors to pay for construction cost); and #2) the voters of CTRAN will have the opportunity to decide on funding operations and maintenance of any high capacity transit coming into Clark County. Eight of the nine electeds on that Board (including the likes of Betty Sue Morris, Marc Boldt, and Jeanne Stewart). Again, details on my blog.

Lastly, if it's important for the blog to maintain some integrity, facts should be checked before statements made...

The current Mayor and I have both agreed and disagreed on many issues over the past 6+ years of my tenure on the Vancouver City Council. That is bound to happen, no?!?

I'll just point out some issues of recent difference in opionion.[sic] These noted below are related to fiscal matters of the City:

For example, three months ago, I voiced quite clearly my opposition to raising utility taxes on our citizens and businesses, imploring the Council to consider further trimming expenses in city government during this time when we are all 'tightening our belt'.

For example, six months ago, I offered an amendment to the CRC City Council resolution to remove an assumption of tolling on the proposed bridge project. Everbody[sic] but the Mayor supported that amendment.

For example, some year+ ago, I opposed an increase in sales taxes, imploring the Council to remain patient with all of the development occurring, as the City will get it's revenues on 'the back side' as retail sales increase.

These are but three of the more recent fiscal-related issues where the Mayor and I have not seen eye-to-eye.

There may be dislike for what we have agreed upon, but to suggest that we've never been in disagreement on issues is not factual.

I appreciate the dialogue, the opportunity to correct 'the record' and provide more clarity to my positions.

thanks much --

tim

3:56 PM

I appreciate any elected official taking the time out of their day to communicate. He's a busy man and clearly, he views this ability as important.

What set me off initially was Mr. Leavitt's remark that I had engaged in "serious misinterpretation" and that I had "taken (him) way out of context."

Upon reflection, I continue to disagree. In providing both quotes and links to the actual article that was the basis for my post, I should have removed any question or doubt concerning either "misinterpretation" OR "context."

Mr. Leavitt's comment (above) provides a perspective, but not what I would consider to be a response to the issues either I raised, or a poster over at clarkblog.org brought up that addressed specific issues that Mr. Leavitt has failed to respond to.

I have alleged that Mr. Leavitt is, in effect, "Pollard Light." I have indicated that there is nothing in record or outlook of any substance to separate the two. I have indicated that I believe that Mr. Leavitt has rarely disagreed with Mayor Pollard on his votes or his views. I am ready to be persuaded that I am wrong.

I have some specific questions to ask that might make that possible. Hopefully, Mr. Leavitt will review these questions and provide answers that will disprove my theory.

1. In what way do you differ from Mayor Pollard on the following:

a. The construction of a replacement I-5 Bridge.

b. The inclusion of light rail.

c. Our right to vote on those two issues as to whether, or if, we actually want either one.

d. The purchase of the Columbian Building.

In what way DID you differ from the mayor on your votes concerning:

a. The Hilton.

b. The Monterrey.

c. The police station sale.

d. The indoor farmers market.

e. The Sharma vote.

f. The so-called "head tax."

g. The imposition of a city B&O tax.

That is not to say, Mr. Leavitt, that I do not appreciate your efforts to point out where you have, in fact, differed with the mayor on your respective votes in the past.

You went to some trouble to provide instances where you did, in fact, differ with the mayor. And I thank you for that.

I would ask you, however, to specify:

As a percentage of votes, is it safe to say that you've voted with Mayor Pollard, say, 95% of the time?

Is the number greater... or lower?

And Mr. Leavitt, I would point out that your votes on the CTran Board miss the point: Before you voted for ANY of this, I believe that we should have had the opportunity to vote on if we wanted ANY of this.

Your votes seem to make the best of a bad situation-type result. And that's not what we hire you for.

The only question you ask us seems to be this: will we pay for operations and maintenance of light rail?

A series of MUCH better questions to ask us all are these:

a. Do you want to pay tolls?

b. Do you want another bridge?

c. Do you want light rail?

You see, Mr. Leavitt, you ain't asking us those questions.

Why?

Do you see that by your actions, you're increasing the already unfair burden on as many as 60,000 commuters or more a day by at least $1200 yearly?

Why is it that such an action seems to mean so little to you?

You are giving us precisely zero choice. In your world, the goal is to replace a bridge that we do not want replaced, making sure that the bridge has light rail; and only THEN ask us if we want to pay for the operation of said light rail IN ADDITION to the HUGE tax increase tolls represent. You're not giving us a voice that matters.

This is as unfair and unethical as that despicable C-Trans vote where 50,000 or more voters were excluded from voting for a tax increase, but none of us have been excluded from PAYING it.

Did you support THAT theft?

"Integrity" is an interesting concept when you and those like you are willing to slam us with a huge additional tax just to go to work... a tax that I believe the vast majority of the elected officials supporting this effort WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY TO GO TO WORK.

How EASY it is for YOU to impose a tax on US that YOU won't have to pay on a daily basis, day in, day out, for years. What about YOUR "integrity?"

What about ASKING US FIRST?

As always, I will blog your response, presuming you provide one.

Just remember, Mr. Leavitt: "integrity" is a dual-edged sword... and it cuts both ways.

Thank you for your time.
.

The delicious irony of the Columbian's latest whine: In our view Jan. 22: Freeze Public Pay

.
No, it's not because I don't agree with the basic sentiment, though I might take it a step further and suggest that the public employees might be forced to take a pay CUT; because, after all, when we as a community suffer, they should share that experience with us.

That is not to say that I don't get that such efforts might result in, GASP, lawsuits. After all, four scumbag state employee unions are suing the Governor now to make sure they can still pig out at the trough... since the very idea that the terrible economy we're all sharing shouldn't have any effect on those here to serve US... is out of the question. After all, they're SPECIAL.

No, the irony here is that this short-sighted rag of a newspaper shilled mightily and hard for the gerrymandered C-Trans election, where over 50,000 voters eligible to pay these clowns had no say in jacking up our taxes to do it.

And now, these idiots are complaining?

Gee, just think: had this waste of a media outlet given some foresight to this issue back when it mattered, we might not have to be dealing with the issue now.

So, to that end, I say: Right on, C-Trans! Stick it to us! Take every frickin nickle you can squeeze out of us!

After all, this very whining, sniveling newspaper wouldn't have had it any other way.. back when it mattered.


In our view Jan. 22: Freeze Public Pay
Some government agencies still don’t get it: In tough times, salary increases are out of line
Thursday, January 22 1:00 a.m.

Here we go again. With so many of us losing our jobs and so many more of us not getting raises, we see that C-Tran workers will be getting up to a 4 percent cost-of-living raise. A few weeks ago we saw that Vancouver Police officers were getting 5.1 percent raises.

See a pattern here? While the private sector grinds through a debilitating recession, it’s business as usual for many government workers, likely because they’re able to keep coming back to the public money troughs. We don’t begrudge workers’ accepting raises, but government agencies can no longer afford to decouple personnel decisions (raises) from continued cries for tax increases and increased fees.

And what makes C-Tran’s situation even more troubling is that the board approved 3.6 percent raises for managers, which flies in the face of what is happening in many other areas of government. Clark County commissioners have frozen pay for managers. So have Vancouver city officials. That same trend is seen at state and national levels. In his first day on the job, President Barack Obama announced, “I am instituting a pay freeze on the salaries of my senior White House staff.”

Unfortunately, these freezes on government pay are too few and too far between; apparently the C-Tran board didn’t get the memo.

C-Tran’s raises are especially perturbing to passengers, who on March 1 will see fares increase 15 percent. A monthly pass will rise 16 percent, and C-Van service for the disabled will double from $23 per month to $46. Yes, as we’ve argued before, under the user-pay theory, C-Tran passengers should provide more than just the current 21 percent of C-Tran’s revenue. For that reason, fare increases can be justified. But this isn’t about fare increases; it’s about increasing public salaries while you’re socking it to the customers, during the nation’s worst economic crisis in seven decades.

More:
.

Leavitt blows it: Rabid support of an unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement cements his worthlessness as an elected official.

As I pointed out a few days ago, Tim Leavitt, Vancouver City Councilman, has announced against "No Choice-Royce" Pollard, mayor of America's Gulag Vancouver.

I also pointed out at the time that there is nothing to distinguish the two from each other, save their age.

Both of these clowns are apparently quite convinced that their judgment is superior to, and supersedes the judgment of those they would govern. Neither has ever mentioned the idea of allowing the people of Clark County who would pay for this colossal waste to have the final word on whether or not we even want this... which, of course, we do not.

Both Leavitt and Pollard show the colossal arrogance endemic to past members of the city council, like Jim Moeller. In this edition of Pravda-Columbian, Leavitt is paraphrased as this:

Vancouver Councilman Tim Leavitt, who represents C-Tran on the 10-member sponsors council, was the only one who spoke up in favor of a 12-lane crossing, saying that he was not interested in compromising safety, congestion and economic prosperity.

That is a lie, of course, because nothing he can do will impact the "economic prosperity" of the tens of thousands using this colossal waste of money like slamming the workers with an additional $1200 or more a year they'll have to pay just to go to work. Apparently, Mr. Leavitt is not terribly concerned about the "economic prosperity" of the people of Clark County. Maybe, instead, he's only interested in the "economic prosperity" of the special interests that have him firmly in their pockets?

Leavitt's inability to extend democracy to the people by asking us if we want this bridge; his monumental arrogance in working to ram it down our throats; his total and complete Moeller-clonishness; his faux-Republicanism even as he endorsed Obama... his Pollard-mirror image on the issues that matter most... these things disqualify him from ANY elective office, let alone mayor.

Leavitt's cavalier attitude about both what the people want and where and how are taxpayer dollars are used is summed up perfectly in this quote:

“It’s frustrating to me that our Congress passed a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector and they couldn’t throw in a measly $3 billion for this immense federal asset for the West Coast,” said Tim Leavitt, a Vancouver councilman who will represent C-Tran on the 10-member sponsors council. “Please give us some money. Why do we have to beat each other up locally?”

A "measly $3 Billion?" Man... I'd heard that a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about real money.

This is dangerous, monumental arrogance. And there is no place for it in any elective office.

.