I admit it, Tim Leavitt has me totally confused.

.
Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm

For years now, I've been condemning the entire concept of replacing the I-5 Bridge without first building a third bridge to the area west of Portland, a much cheaper, more efficient alternative to relieve local pressure on the I-5 corridor.

When we remember that the only reason to replace the bridge right now is to bring light rail into Vancouver, we discover the cost of all of this likely exceeds $1 billion per mile, perhaps the most expensive transportation project in the history of Man and by far the most expensive light rail project ever done.

The local impacts on our economy will drag on for decades. Few of those cheerleading for this bridge will ever pay the easily-exceeding $100 per month tolls, with a ripple effect that will impact tens of thousands of families and local small businesses as this project blots up untold hundreds of millions of dollars in disposable income, and it will do so for untold decades to come... an issue still not discussed or researched by those advocating the most for this project.

Unfortunately, Tim Leavitt ran for mayor on a platform of fighting against tolls. This blog called Mr. Leavitt to task for that maneuver, since his "anti-toll" stance was an election campaign conversion, and until he ran for office, he was pretty much in lock step with his general election opponent. Further, everyone with functioning brain synapses knows/knew that there was no way the bridge/light rail project would ever be built without imposing tolls on those least likely to afford it... the commuters.

Leavitt made it clear that will he "opposed tolls," when it came right down to it, since he was not an "obstructionist," he would not oppose the construction of the bridge if tolls were required.

THAT was certainly confusing. In order to truly oppose something, shouldn't one's principles keep one from acquiescing to convenience? If you won't oppose something that has the principles you claim to be in opposition to... then how can you be opposing those same principles when you know they will be required on the project in question?

So, Mr. Leavitt comes out and tells us he's now ended his opposition to tolls.

He has a variety of reasons for that change in perspective. My response was to poiint out that as a prefaced, Mr. Leavitt never opposed tolls under any conditions from the start.

"Opposition" on principle should always trump "obstructionism." If one is possessed of honor and integrity, one should keep one's word regardless of any "new knowledge."

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the
state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his
campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the
estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

I was astonished. How is it that after years of the bridge issue, Leavitt didn't seem to know this before he was elected... before he promised that he would "fight against tolls?"

Not all that many options explain it. And those that do cast Mr. Leavitt in a somehwta less favorable light.

But now my confusion has increased geometrically. We're told, from Mr. Leavitt's own blog, the following:

If We Must Have Tolls, We Must Fight to Make Them Equitable

This Bridge Must Not be Paid for on the Backs of Clark County Commuters

Citizens, colleagues and friends--

When I ran for the office of Mayor, I told you honestly and in good faith that I would fight against tolls on the CRC. Unlike others, who were determined to put tolls on the table first and foremost with no regard to the injustice they bring, I was determined to fight them.

What many voters were unaware of was that Leavitt's promise had something of a limited shelf life.

Leavitt's political betrayal of the people who supported him on this issue was complete. The only surprise of mine was it took all that long for him to toss aside his principles in ways that make me long for the days of Pollard's honesty... my many political disagreements with him aside.

Leavitt went on:

But unfortunately, not every battle can be won. It has become apparent that tolling has been widely accepted by the project partners, community advocates, business and economic leadership, and most importantly, our state legislators (who make the final decision about tolling).

The dishonesty of such a claim cannot be overstated. Has anyone suddenly embraced tolls now that were not equally enamored by that yoke around the commuter neck during the course of Leavitt's campaign for mayor?

"Our state legislators" (those with a 'd' after their names) were (and are) huge fans of tolls during the entirety of Leavitt's campaign. He knew that then as much as he suddenly seems to know it now.

You see, Leavitt knew during his campaign who was actually going to make the decision about tolling, He just never seemed to want to bring that up.

After all, to do so would tend to weaken his faux anti-toll position, wouldn't it? And we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way... would we?

In the end, that "not every battle can be won" does not mean that on principle alone, "not every battle should be fought."

Spreading the tax burden to tens of thousands of others besides those commuters forced to pay for the bridge is as unacceptable as the idea of running, and winning on a position only to abandon it out of political expediency.

All of that said, I recieved an anonymous request that the following message be provided. In the interest of fairness, I would ask the reader to click on the link provided to read Mayor Leavitt's own words, without editorial comment or analysis from me.

Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm

A new term for the upcoming election: Leavittarian double-speak

.
Tim "The Liar" Leavitt continues to lie about his position on tolls for the massive and unconscionable waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge Replacement/Loot Rail project.

The Oregonian wrongly reported that Leavitt opposes tolls, a necessary factor in both getting the bridge Leavitt so rabidly supports and keeping Sam "If you're younger than 18, in Portland, you can get an" Adams' support for this massive waste.

Cost cutting may nip and tuck at the project, but the political earthquake centers in Vancouver. The mayoral race has morphed into a referendum on tolling as challenger Tim Leavitt emerges as a surprise front runner after building a campaign on opposition to toll charges.

Leavitt said tolls would place an unfair burden on the 60,000 southwest Washington residents who commute to Oregon for jobs and already pay Oregon income tax.

Pollard has said toll charges are a political and financial reality, and he would only support a one-way toll of no more than $2.

Significantly, the area's Congressional delegation as well as Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire support tolling and have endorsed Pollard's campaign.

Baird said Thursday the project likely would not be built without tolls.

The problem with reporting that Leavitt opposes tolls is that, in reality, when Leavitt snivels that position, he's lying.

NO ONE, including Leavitt, has provided any plan or path to constructing this monstrosity WITHOUT tolls.

Leavitt has stated that even WHEN tolls are imposed, he will NOT oppose the bridge.

Well, Mr. Leavitt, if you TRULY oppose something and that thing happens ANYWAY, you had better damned well BE an obstructionist.

If you DO NOT OPPOSE A BRIDGE WITH TOLLS.... and there is NO WAY THIS BRIDGE CAN OR WILL BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS.... then you, in fact, SUPPORT TOLLS.

Thus, Leavitt's Lies have given birth to a new term that I must admit that I coined this morning as I was sitting here, drinking coffee and reading this garbage lie about how Leavitt "opposes tolls."

Leavittarian double-speak.

Defined as what a lying politician is saying when he's telling you one thing... but he obviously means something else.

Unfortunately, if enough people believe in that liar's double speak, he'll get elected. Besides this is but a punch on this guy's ticket, his lies and double speak that will, if implemented, cost this community $10's of millions of dollars every year that HE and the OTHER bridge scammers won't have to pay.

So, to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, I congratulate you for giving birth to the most accurate term possible to describe the garbage you're spewing.

Leavittarian double-speak.

It's a term you'll be hearing for a while... like as long as I'm alive and as long as this scumbag tries to get elected to anything.
.

"The Liar" Leavitt comes clean and admits it: "No tolls" was a lie and a campaign ploy.

.
From the start, I knew that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt was lying about his opposition to tolls.

There was never any question of this; Leavitt's campaign was run by rabid bridge-at-any-cost-or-toll democrat Steve "Easy Money" Stuart. There is no way.... NO WAY... that Stuart would have helped someone to becoming his partner in crime if that someone didn't also share his views on corruption and the Bridge.

Leavitt, who certainly lies with the best of them, showed his cards with an early endorsement of Obama. It's difficult to view anyone who took that political step as anything but a leftist moron, and Leavitt here is no exception to that rule.

So, now the reality is finally public: Mr. "I'm not an obstructionist, I oppose tolls but don't care if they're implemented" Leavitt has finally spilled the beans... the obvious lie is now front and center.

Congrats, Timmy. You've shot to the top of the "scummy and despicable lying politicians" list with a bullet.

To the kool aid drinkers of the Clark County GOP, many of whom, but not all, are drinking the same kind of kool aid as part of the Herrera Herd; I say this: I tried to tell you.

Leavitt was NO DIFFERENT from Pollard in his goals or methods. The only difference between Pollard and Leavitt, and why I supported Pollard in the last election was that Pollard, as completely wrong as he is about this moronic waste of billions for his pet project that HE won't have to pay for is this:

At least Pollard didn't lie about where he stood.

Leavitt did. Repeatedly. And that makes him pure political scum.

"Backs off" that stance?

In reality... he never had that stance. He hosed the people and the media. He lied repeatedly, over and over and over again. And now you have it in his own words.

Leavitt backs off his anti-tolling stance on I-5 bridge

Mayor adds that local traffic on both sides should also help pay
By Erik Robinson
Columbian staff writer

Friday, July 16, 2010

A new bridge across the Columbia River won’t get built without tolls, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt acknowledged Friday.

Instead, he argued for a “more stable, more equitable financing plan” that wouldn’t rely solely on tolls collected at the bridge. Instead, Leavitt suggested spreading the burden to motorists who will benefit from five miles of freeway improvements on both sides of the Columbia without necessarily crossing the river.

“Folks could get on and off in the ‘bridge influence area’ and not get on the bridge,” Leavitt said Friday during a meeting of bridge project sponsors in Vancouver.

Leavitt is effectively reversing the anti-tolling stance that helped propel him into office last November.

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

“It’s becoming painfully apparent that I’m on the losing end of an effort to implement improvements in the Interstate 5 corridor without a local financing piece that will have a direct impact on the wallets of Clark County commuters,” he said in an e-mail Friday. “The tool that everybody else is locked into is tolls.”

Leavitt is now suggesting a form of point-access tolling, which would assess a fee for any single-occupant vehicle that enters the corridor. He specifically mentioned Oregonians who drive on I-5 between Marine Drive and Hayden Island, although the same burden would theoretically apply to travel between state Highway 500 and downtown Vancouver.

“By better capturing tolls from users south of the river, and thus broadening the base of collection, my hope is that tolls placed at the bridge crossing can be limited,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt noted that the Columbia River Crossing project includes plenty of interchange improvements beyond the bridge itself, including refinements intended to lessen the bridge’s hulking footprint on Hayden Island.

Project planners anticipate splitting costs among the federal government, the two states and money generated by tolling. Now estimated to cost between $2.6 billion and $3.6 billion, the project includes a replacement for the twin three-lane drawbridges across the river, an extension of Portland’s light rail transit system into downtown Vancouver, and freeway interchange improvements between state Highway 500 and Marine Drive in Portland.

On the campaign trail, Leavitt suggested boosting the federal share while paring back the project’s ambitions.

“I’ve come to the realization that the costs and parameters of this project cannot be pared enough to prevent the need for local financing,” he said Friday.

The mayor floated his alternate approach near the end of a meeting of local elected leaders and state transportation officials at the Washington State Department of Transportation offices in Vancouver.

Leavitt said afterward that he believes it’s the best way to minimize the financial burden on Clark County commuters.

“This approach to tolling represents a broader application of traffic demand management, broadens the base of financial participation, and might just pay off the bonds for the improvements more quickly, thus reducing the overall cost of the project,” he said.

Erik Robinson: 360-735-4551, or erik.robinson@columbian.com.

So, Vancouver has a mayor lied just like Portland's Sam Adams lied about having sex with a teenage boy.

Congrats, Vancouver. You really DO have the government you deserve.
.

Leavitt and Pollard

.
I haven't written anything about the outcome of the primary. Until now.

I have always maintained that Pollard will win.

And, I believe, he will.

The facts ultimately remain the same. While both of these guys would probably deny it, close examination bears out the fact that they are, essentially, the same, differing only in veneer. As I have posted earlier, on the issues that really matter, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Pollard and Leavitt.

On the most significant issue facing this region, the unneeded and unwanted replacement iof the I-5 Bridge, a $4 to God Knows how many BILLION dollar project being done entirely to bring loot rail into this community, they are in lock step.

Both of them want this carbuncle on the community's butt. Both of them don't care that it will suck $100,000,000 out of the local economy in a way that will result in reduced revenue to the city for other projects.

Pollard is completely, brutally honest about this. He doesn't dress it up like Leavitt; he not only says "tolls," he wants them everywhere they can be collected.

Leavitt, on the other hand, lies about his position on tolls. His rant over on his blog is a piece of disingenuous work not unlike the scam he ran to get the 3 voting hispanics in this community to vote for him.

That is, he rails against tolls... expresses indignation and anger at the idea... but does absolutely nothing to pull the trigger on what he will do when tolls are imposed... and if this pig gets built, there WILL be tolls... huge tolls that will hurt tens of thousands of people in the city he would lead.

Leavitt writes:

What he (Pollard) and his big-name, big-money backers (Like, for example, the unions endorsing Leavitt) refuse to understand, however, is that a toll that charges Vancouver's working class for the "privilege" of crossing the river because the current administration has done next to nothing to grow jobs here in the last two decades, with the added burden of paying Oregon income tax without receiving representation, is unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory.

What Leavitt is choosing to overlook is the fact that failing to get our permission to build this garbage heap is, by far, the most "unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory" cut of all... and Leavitt knows this.

Leavitt's blathering like this is utterly worthless. It's political snake oil because he will not pledge to do what needs to be done:

That is, he needs to make this an either/or equation.

Simply stated, his bluster about tolls is all show. Clearly, some were and are drawn to Leavitt and his faux anti-toll stance.

What Leavitt needs to do to show some balls is take a "no tolls" or else stance.

But he won't do that.

Why?

Because he wants the bridge AND loot rail, and he knows that killing tolls kills both the bridge AND loot rail, the two things he wants the most.

Were he to come out and actually declare that he will do everything he can to oppose this bridge; were he to extend all that alleged yet non-existent trust he has in the people to allowing us to have a say in this debacle... then and only then would his fake anti-toll stance make any sense.

Were Pollard to hammer him over his lie on this issue, it would drown out all of the rest of Leavitt's phony platitudes and fake outrage and envy at Pollard's downtown support and Pollard would crush Leavitt.

So, the choice is clear: you can choose between a slick con job that wants the bridge, loot rail and tolls (Leavitt) or you can pick Pollard who wants the same... but is at least honest enough to say so, no matter how despicable their positions may be.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt CONTINUES to lie: Claims "75% chance bridge will not have tolls."

.
You would have thought by now that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt would have learned his lesson.

According to Lou Brancaccio, this represents The Liar's position on tolls:

"Then there's my buddy, Tim Leavitt. He's running for Vancouver mayor. And he's trying like heck to separate himself from Mayor Royce Pollard. They've been hanging their hat in the same place — the Vancouver City Council — for several years now, so they're a lot like Cheech & Chong. Same ol', same ol'.

Tim realizes he had to find a difference, so he picks the new I-5 bridge. Now, both these guys appreciate the need for a new bridge. And both would accept tolls. But Royce says the tolls are inevitable. Tim says, "Not so fast, my friend." Tim feels some magic could be worked and the bridge could be built without tolls.

In fact, he said he feels there's a 75 percent chance of it."

You see, this is the lying scumbag we've all come to know and despise.

The Liar has a better chance of winning Mega Millions then he does to get a bridge in here without tolls.

What the ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS is that tolls DON'T MATTER to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, because WITH OT WITHOUT TOLLS, THIS LITTLE WEASEL IS GOING TO SUPPORT A BRIDGE ANYWAY.

Obviously, Leavitt is clinging to his calculation that if he just keeps lying about tolls, he'll get enough suckers on board to become mayor.

The problem is that in his massive arrogance, this scumbag truly believes we're stupid.

NO ONE ELSE IN GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE HAS EVER SAID THIS STEAMING CRAP PILE CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS.

NO ONE.

In fact, EVERYONE ELSE IN GOVERNMENT HAS SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE: IF THIS THING IS BUILT, TOLLS WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUILD IT.

And taking it a step further, The Liar has already said that even WITH tolls, HE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT BUILDING THIS BRIDGE AND LOOT RAIL.

My God, this man is a lying little weasel. He's pathological.

He's lying. He KNOWS he's lying. He's aware that anyone actually paying attention to what he says KNOWS he's lying. He doesn't CARE that he's lying. BECAUSE HE WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED.

It's bad enough that a rank hypocrite like Tim "The non-voting Liar" Leavitt wants YOU to vote for HIM. But to continue to lie like this in the face of common sense is to insist the world is flat, or that Obama has a clue. (Yeah, I know it's the same Obama Leavitt endorsed, but this guy can't use toilet paper without trying to get some sort of political advantage out of it, so what can you do?)

So, it's up to you, Vancouver. You can vote for this lying scumbag who rarely voted himself... due to his contempt for the gift provided to us all by the sacrifices of tens of thousands who died to insure we have the franchise... or you can vote for a guy you may disagree with, but who is at least honest and honorable.

Otherwise, you're going to get tolls anyway, along with a whiny, snivelly mayor that played you like he did the hispanics, who blathers: "We'll, at least I tried," when he knew all along that tolls were the ONLY way to get this done, but had to lie about it like Sam Adams lied about having sex with that teenager.
.
But that's Tim "The Liar" Leavitt for ya.
.
.

Leavitt the Liar: He DOES support tolls!

.
All along, Tim Leavitt has been lying.

Leavitt, best known for manipulating the few eligible-to-vote hispanics in Vancouver into endorsing him by manipulating their politically ignorant leadership, has been a militant supporter of both the unneeded, unwanted and moronically wasteful I-5 bridge replacement AND the EQUALLY unneeded, unwanted and moronically wasteful loot rail that is the entire reason behind replacing the I-5 bridge in the first place, since there IS no other reason to do so.

Well, today, it was put to him.

Leavitt, who serves on the project sponsors council with Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, has made his opposition to bridge tolls a centerpiece of his mayoral campaign.

In an interview afterward, Leavitt said he intends to press the federal government to pick up the cost of the $3.2 billion project. "Tolls are still not on the table for me," he said. When pressed to say whether he’d rule out supporting a new bridge if a toll became unavoidable, Leavitt indicated he wouldn’t go that far.

"I’m not an obstructionist," he said.

So, if he's "not an obstructionist," then what he ABSOLUTELY IS is a LIAR. Taking the correct, principled stand against this moronic idiocy if people will have to pay an additional $1300 a year tax to work in Oregon has nothing to do with "obstructionism." What it has to do with is common sense. And this one statement by Leavitt proves that he not only supports the bridge and loot rail... but he ASLO supports tolls as well, since there is precisely NO way this pig will be built without tolls.

I know it; Pollard knows it, and Leavitt damned well knows it.

To claim you won't accept tolls ("Tolls are not on the table for me") and then refuse to oppose the bridge replacement loot rail scam if tolls are required ("I'm not an obstructionist") is to admit you ARE a lying scumbag.

And yes, Tim... that means you.

As I've said many times before, neither Pollard nor Leavitt should be in government in any capacity. But at least Pollard has the guts to unabashedly stand by what he says.

Leavitt, on the other hand, is a total weasel. He's TRYING to get people to believe he's against tolls when anyone paying attention knows that's a lie. What he's TRYING (and clearly succeeding to a degree) to do is to scam people into thinking he's principled and has integrity and that he means what he says.

But that's a lie, because if he actually MEANT what he said, then he'd pull the trigger and tell the scum ramming this garbage down our throats the fact of the matter: if this pig has to have tolls, then I will oppose it with everything I have.

FAILING to do this, as Tim has FAILED to do this just means that he's TRYING to have his cake and eat it to. Gutless little worm.

God, I am so sick of scumbag manipulators like Leavitt I just want to blow chunks. I hate them and everything they represent.

Is it any wonder that Commissioner Steve "Yeah, Barnett bought me for $100,000... what about it?" Stuart supports this scumbag?

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.
.

When Gov. Gregoire, Pollard and Leavitt lie on the same subject: is it the political trifecta?

.
Occam's Razor (Variously named Achim's Razor or Achem's Razor) boiled down to it's simplest definition:

The generalization states that, if there are a number of explanations for observed phenomena, the simplest explanation is preferred. Called also scientific parsimony.

I bring this up to respond to our esteemed Governor's position concerning tolls for the organized criminal effort known as the I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail project.

We are told by the governor that when it comes to tolls, "There is no alternative."

Of course there is an alternative, Governor... a blindingly simple and obvious alternative:

Don't build it.

If we don't build this unneeded and unwanted crap pile, then voile'! No tolls required.

It's amazing, isn't it, how those demanding this steaming pile of detritus aren't the one's who have to pay for it... and how they have no wish to hear from those of us who will?

And that, of course, brings us to the two anointed candidates for mayor, Pollard and Leavitt.

BOTH of these candidates WANT US TO PAY TOLLS.

Let me repeat that:

BOTH of these candidates WANT US TO PAY TOLLS.

When I was in the military, (I'm sure the good former LT. Col Pollard can relate to this) they were very big on what's known as "back-planning." Back planning, simply stated, is the system of planning backwards from the goal you want to achieve.

Every mission has/had critical components required to achieve said mission. The loss or nonavailability of a critical component, particularly when viable replacements are not practical or available, means that the mission must be scrubbed, or, at a minimum, re-evaluated as to scope, breadth, and achievable outcomes.

Make no mistake about it: BOTH Pollard and Leavitt WANT THIS BRIDGE AND LOOT RAIL.

They don't care that we don't. They don't care to ask us if WE want it. And NEITHER of THEM will have to pay the $1300 or more or year required in tolls for everyone commuting... like the vast majority of I-5 Bridge replacement supporters who WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY.

Morons like John Laird throw a fit over a very few bridge lifts, asking moronic, idiotic questions like why we locals would put up with such a horrific condition. But like the rest of the downtown mafia bridge shillers, Laird will NOT HAVE TO PAY TO COMMUTE TO WORK. How EASY it is for the moronic to make demands on those of us who WILL have to pay so they can get their egos stroked at our expense.

Which brings us back to the Razor.

BOTH Pollard and Laird want the I-5 Bridge and Loot Rail.

There is NO WAY this thing can be built WITHOUT TOLLS.

Thus, BOTH POLLARD AND LEAVITT WANT US TO PAY TOLLS.

If, as we are led to believe by our erstwhile Governor, this bridge cannot be built WITHOUT tolls; and both of these blights on politics WANT this unneeded, unwanted, steaming pile of the waste of BILLIONS of dollars; and neither one has the testicles to either a.) demand that the entire county be allowed to vote on this moronic heap of dung, or b.) to draw the "toll line in the sand" and demand that the entire project, already wasteful of over $100 MILLION dollars in studies with pre-ordained outcomes be shelved if tolls ARE required, then of course they want tolls.

Because NEITHER of these clowns have stated "if we have to have tolls, then I will do everything I can to kill this project."

Pollard has been a thug about the issue since day one. He's simply forgotten the concept that HE is there to serve US, and not the other war around.

Leavitt has engaged in amateurish political theater since he started, with his most recent political soap opera consisting of the scamming of the hispanic, illegal alien vote.

So, let me be clear: because Leavitt will not oppose this bridge/loot rail project; because he will do absolutely nothing to force this issue to a vote of the people; because this thing cannot be built without tolls that will take tens of thousands of dollars out of the average commuter's pockets over their professional life time, then make no mistake about it:

Tim Leavitt wants us to pay tolls.

As for this "Change" garbage, I urge the voter to remember the utter disaster this "Change" mantra has brought us. Further, I would ask "change from what?"

Hasn't Leavitt voted WITH Pollard 98% of the time? Hasn't he gone along with Pollard's agenda, and that of the rest of the downtown mafia?

And when he denies it, he's lying. And since we've had the biggest political liar of my lifetime elevated to the White House (Endorsed by his acolyte, one Tim Leavitt) I, for one, am sick of liars who intend to indebt us for THEIR egos, getting elected.

Aren't you?

Leavitt CONTINUES to LIE about his position on tolls.

.
God but I hate liars in politics.

As I pointed out below, Tim Leavitt is portraying himself as the anti-toll candidate.

The problem with that is this scumbag won't oppose this unneeded and unwanted Bridge WHEN tolls are mandated.

Note, I didn't say IF tolls are mandated.

I didn't say that because *I* know they will be mandated; Pollard knows they will be mandated AND LEAVITT KNOWS THEY WILL BE MANDATED AS WELL.

So, how is this a scam?

Simple.

Leavitt CONTINUES to tell us that he's AGAINST TOLLS.

But if he won't oppose this massive waste of billions of dollars when we GET tolls... then what difference does his non-existent anti-tolls position make?

None at all.

And that what makes Tim Leavitt a slimy worm of a politician, a worm COUNTING on the ignorants who actually BELIEVE he actually OPPOSES tolls... when, based on the outcome, he ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS TOLLS, BECAUSE HE WILL NOT OPPOSE THE BRIDGE WHEN TOLLS ARE MANDATED.

So, when Leavitt spews this on his blog:

For several years now, through the CTRAN Board and the Vancouver City Council, I have been lobbying for the following on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver, the riders of CTRAN and the commuters of Clark County (and, for my detractors, allow me to say that this is all a matter of public record):

· No Tolls on the I-5 or I-205 Bridges

He is, plainly and simply, LYING.

You CAN NOT support something if they DO something you oppose, then go around saying you opposed it.

This moron, just yesterday, CONFIRMED that WHEN they slam tolls on this unbelievable waste of billions into place, HE, LEAVITT, WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT.

This makes Leavitt a scummy, slimy political worm, not unlike that empty-suited, Anti-American racist bigot Leavitt endorsed in the last election.
.

Leavitt continues to lie about the bridge and tolls.

.
The slime continues to ooze out of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt as he expands his faux Pied Piper routine about not wanting tolls... but not particularly giving a damn if there ARE tolls.

This is the biggest lie of the entirety of Leavitt's campaign.

The ONLY way to "oppose" tolls is to OPPOSE THE BRIDGE WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED.

But Tim "The Liar" won't do that. He wants us to BELIEVE he opposes tolls.... but the FACTS say otherwise, because this little weasel doesn't want us to hold him accountable for his failures to oppose a bridge that no one who has to pay for it wants (And, like the vast majority of rabid bridge supporters, Leavitt won't be one of those who WILL have to pay for it... he just wants US to pick up the tab) and his failures to demand that this entire sorry episode be put to a vote of the people who WILL have to pay for it.

The article in the Columbian says:

"Tolls to pay for a federal asset that provides economic commerce for the entire West Coast should not be put on the backs of the citizens of Clark County, period," Leavitt said, to cheers.

In an interview after the debate, Leavitt added that he would not try to kill the bridge project if it proved to be impossible without tolls.

Of course, as anyone within 100 miles of Vancouver knows, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS THING CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS.

I have to admit, I find Pollard's failure to pound The Liar on this aspect of his campaign to be astounding. Tim "The Liar" is obviously a sniveling little worm, lacking in the testicular fortitude required to man up and take a stand, a stand that would save this community hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on an unneeded and unwanted project designed and built ONLY to get loot rail into Clark County.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's rank hypocrisy cannot be overlooked, either. Another snippet of the article says this:

Leavitt, meanwhile, criticized Pollard for a tax hike that prevented police layoffs, saying the city could have saved $400,000 annually by outsourcing its parking meter management.

"In December, when we were in the middle of a recession, my opponent supported a utility tax increase," Leavitt said.

In September, WHILE we're in the middle of a horrific recession, Tim "The Liar" supports a tax increase that DWARFS the mere $400,000 utility tax increase.... by, literally, a factor of a million.

But then, Tim "The Liar" is someone who doesn't think much of money when it belongs to other people.

“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?”

That ANY politician could describe $3 billion as "measly" shows both an arrogance and tonedeafness breathtaking in it's dimensions.

So, in The Liar's twisted world, advocating a $400,000 tax increase in the midst of a recession is bad, bad... but advocating a $100,000,000 or so tax increase in the midst of a horrific recession is good..... good.

With almost every utterance, Leavitt shows himself to be a total, political scum bag. If the people elect this clown to run the city, they'll regret it.

And all along, The Liar will be saying "you knew what I was when you elected me."
.

This has got to be tough: Someone faking an identity on the Columbian lied that THEY were Tim "The Liar" Leavitt!

.
It's got to be tough to be a public figure these days, particularly when you're a lying scumbag like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

Leavitt, who has been scamming people into actually believing he opposes tolls on the massively wasteful, unwanted and unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail project has made a HUGE deal about how he's so "opposed" to tolls.

A search of this blog or google will result in quote after quote where this slimy little worm has REPEATEDLY come out in opposition to tolls.

Of course, to THIS slimeball, he really doesn't care if tolls are imposed; he's so beholding to the special interests that own his ass that he has pledged to support this eye-popping waste of billions EVEN IF IT HAS TOLLS, because, after all, this unprincipled scumbag doesn't want to be an "obstructionist."

Well, imagine my surprise when someone scammed his identity, and engaged in some major revisionist history in the comments section of one of the series of lying propaganda pieces spewed out by our local daily stain on journalism, who's despicable efforts to ram THEIR agenda down our throats has made them a joke in the field of news.

Anywho, this fake Leavitt wrote the following:by

Tim Leavitt : 10/2/09 6:18pm - Report Abuse

There are a lot of great comments here, and I agree with many of you! But I want to be clear about something. Contrary to the statement in this piece, I have not made opposition to tolling a centerpiece of my campaign for Mayor of Vancouver. There are many other issues at stake, and I've been discussing them regularly and in much more depth than my opponent ever could.That tolling has become a primary issue of discussion is true, but that is because I have made REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS of Vancouver the centerpiece of my campaign. There is never only one alternative to solving a problem. Tolling Clark County commuters is just one option, and one that obviously I am not fond of. Unfortunately, it's the only option that has been discussed for much too long now, and incumbent officials have become complacent.The discussion about tolls would be entirely different if there were enough jobs here in our community. If current leadership had spent any effort at all on sustainable job creation. But unfortunately, that hasn't been the case---and now they are telling our commuters that this bridge will be paid for on their backs.

Where to begin?

As I've already stated, the movement AGAINST tolling IS THE ONLY CAMPAIGN CENTERPIECE THIS MORON HAS.

It's the only issue he's known for, the only thing he can lay claim to as a substantial difference between himself and Pollard.

He's making every effort to tap into the anger brightly illustrated by the vast majority of comments preceding the comment of this fake Leavitt's. Where that blew up in his face was when he lacked the guts to come out and put a point on it: he failed to come out and say:

If this bridge has tolls on it, then count me out.

In fact, he's done just the opposite: he's come out and said that requiring tolls will have NO IMPACT ON HIS SUPPORT OF THIS MASSIVE WASTE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

And this is the main problem when you lack any integrity. You lie so much, for so long, in front of so many, that when you finally realize that people are figuring out that you're a liar, as Tim "The Liar" Leavitt is figuring it out, well, then, it's too late, and you've got to engage in a little revisionist history.

There is only one person who can be blamed for taking this bogus position on tolling. There's only one person who can be blamed for selling out the people of this entire region because he lacks the guts to oppose this unconscionable waste of billions of our dollars, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TOLLED.

And that person is our own, slimy little worm, Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

But then, this COULDN'T be the real Leavitt, could it? After all, the REAL Leavitt wouldn't ever lie.... would he?

Ann Donnelly had a great column today in support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, except for one thing:

.
She blew it when she characterized Leavitt as being opposed to tolls.

When Tim "The Liar" Leavitt says, on one hand, that he allegedly opposes tolls, but then says he won't oppose the bridge iif tolls are are "must have," then what he's REALLY saying is that he DOESN'T oppose tolls.

You see, Ann, if he REALLY opposed tolls, then he would make that a binding condition of his support for the bridge. As in:

Mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt and city council candidates Jeanne Stewart (an incumbent) and Bill Turlay (running against Jack Burkman for an open seat) oppose bridge tolls, while Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, Congressman Brian Baird, Portland Mayor Sam Adams, and Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard tell us tolls are inevitable.

I must admit to some level of disappointment on Dr. Donnelly's part. As a former chair of the County Republican Party, I would have thought she would have been somewhat less gullible, and somewhat more attuned to "the Liar's" toll scam.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has been attempting to lull people into actually believing his garbage about opposing tolls. It is something of a disappointment that Ann Donnelly would actually fall for it.

The liar has made it clear he doesn't oppose tolls. What he's trying to do, and apparently succeeding a small amount with those not paying attention, is to get people to BELIEVE he opposes tolls.

The problem with that is more then just rhetoric.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt does NOT oppose tolls if he will NOT oppose a bridge that has them.

And he won't do that. What he moronically calls "obstructionist," the rest of us call "standing up for principle."

Of course, to stand up for them, you have to have them. And this whiny, sniveling punk wouldn't know character and integrity if they walked up and bit him in the ass.

While I agree with much of Donnelly's analysis of the bridge tolling situation, I simply cannot believe she's allowed herself to get sucked in by The Liar's casket-salesman persona.

There are two candidates running for mayor. Only one of them is lying about tolls if this bridge is to get built.

It's unfortunate that Ms. Donnelly seems incapable of figuring out which one.
.

This morning's comedy skit "Mallory!"

.
I really do enjoy it (well, for the most part) when re-re's come by and dump a pile of feces on my doorstep in a burning bag, and "Mallory" was no exception:

We realize that you probably have about 5 or 6 readers ... it happens that this piece of crap blog came to me via GOOGLE ALERTS. Why don't you change your shorts, put your pants on and come out of your basement. A 'strong mayor' change would eliminate the high paid jobs of city manager...and, other dept. managers, saving tax payers $$$. Further, Leavitt has stated that he would FIGHT TOLLS - "...no tolls..." How does that make him a "liar" goofy? I'd bet that you are either an unemployed union electrician; or, an easy life Vancouver fireman union thug.

I seek out disagreement here so I can school the ignorant, as Mallory so finely illustrates. So, never one to pass up an opportunity, let's get this show on the road, shall we?

"We?" Odd the use of the pluralis majestatis term "we," one typically used by royalty. You know, the "royal 'We?'"

Since royalty has been out of vogue here locally, one can only presume that this person (these people?) speak for some group.

And that's OK. Just a little weird.

Number of readers I have?

Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I've come to discover that it's not the size of the dog in the fight... it's much more the size of the fight in the dog... though in this instance, your number is rather off.

How this "piece of crap" came to you is equally irrelevant. Like the flame to the moth, you'll be back because, well, you'll be so impressed by how I defend my positions (which at some point, you finally got around to addressing) that you won't be able to help yourself.

As much as I appreciate your advice in all things underwear, I would suggest that this is no place for sewer humor. And a 4 bedroom split level has no basement.

Now then, having successfully cleared your moronic vitriol aside, we get to the issue at hand.

"A 'strong mayor' change would eliminate the high paid jobs of city manager...and other dept. managers, saving tax payers $$$."

Bull.

Replacing one city manager with another doesn't save anyone a thing.

With a "strong mayor" form of government, there would be re-organization; but no one, least of all Tim "The Liar" Leavitt mentioned this to "save money."

The role of the "city manager" would immediately be assumed by the creation of an ADDITIONAL high dollar position of "Chief of Staff," a position Leavitt has ALREADY tried to create IN ADDITION to the city manager we already have. (He wanted that gig for his campaign manager... nice bit of incest, that.)

Contrary to "saving" money, Leavitt's plan would COST money, and a LOT of it.

Thus proving a., your ignorance generally and b., your ignorance about government specifically.

"Further. Leavitt has stated he would FIGHT TOLLS - "... no tolls..." How does that make him a "liar" goofy?"

"FIGHT TOLLS?" Here, let me explain it to you so simply that even you can understand it:

In an interview afterward, Leavitt said he intends to press the federal government to pick up the cost of the $3.2 billion project. "Tolls are still not on the table for me," he said.

When pressed to say whether he’d rule out supporting a new bridge if a toll became unavoidable, Leavitt indicated he wouldn’t go that far.

"I’m not an obstructionist," he said.

In the vernacular, this is known as attempting to have your cake and eat it as well.

There is no way... NO WAY, this thing will be built without tolls.

The Liar knows this.

And so, when tolls WILL BE IMPOSED, does that mean he will oppose the bridge?

Of course not. He's not, you see, an "obstructionist." This way, he can impress the uninformed (Like you, Mal) that at least he "tried," when, in fact, he did no such thing.

So, there you have it. He CLAIMS he opposes tolls, but won't do a damned thing about it when tolls are required.

There. Simple enough for you? Maybe a little less vodka in your kool aid?

As for how that makes him a "'liar' goofy," I'll leave that up to the individual reader.

As for "who I am," that's simple. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you over on the top of the left column of this blog?

Or, let me know. I can always draw you a picture.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's BIG PROBLEM: Tolls and his lies about them.

.
Here's the problem for The Liar:

We have a guy who has done everything he can to get a bridge replaced and loot rail jammed down our throats when we don't want either.

That's a problem, of course, but not a political problem, because the other candidate, Royce Pollard, has done precisely the same thing.

Both of these clowns have worked to waste tens of millions of dollars on a study to achieve an outcome that I could have provided for $20.

We do not need to get the I-5 Bridge replaced, period. But replacing it is the only way to get loot rail into downtown Vancouver, an option already rejected by the voters, 70-30, over a decade ago... and, of course, the primary reason these scum won't ask us now.... they know we'd reject it again.

So, we have precisely two candidates who want precisely the same thing in the face of the massive, overwhelming opposition to the issue in question.

The Liar's problem is this: how can he portray himself as someone who wants the bridge, but who wants to tap in to the anti-bridge, anti-toll sentiment that got Tom Mielke, Republican, elected in the midst of a blue tide? When it comes to positions and outcomes, both candidates are precisely the same. So, how does The Liar find a way to separate himself from Pollard?

I know ! I know! (Hand waving frantically) Even though Tim "The Liar" KNOWS this bridge MUST have tolls to be built, he can market himself as being AGAINST TOLLS!

Tim "The Liar" already knows there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS THING CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS, but when it's built, he can go around taking credit for at least TRYING to avoid tolling of a population that can't afford it.

Well, you would think that if Tim "The Liar" was a man of principle and integrity, why, why.... why, he'd step right up and say "if this thing has tolls on it, then count me out."

That's what you'd EXPECT a man of "integrity" or "principle" to say... wouldn't you?

Well, what did Tim "The Liar" say when asked about that very thing?

In an interview afterward, Leavitt said he intends to press the federal government to pick up the cost of the $3.2 billion project. "Tolls are still not on the table for me," he said. When pressed to say whether he’d rule out supporting a new bridge if a toll became unavoidable, Leavitt indicated he wouldn’t go that far.

"I’m not an obstructionist," he said.

Nor are you a man, you slimy weasel.

Effectively, the outcome is the same. That is, if the bridge that both candidates want gets built, then there WILL be tolls, and both candidates will support those tolls.

The DIFFERENCE is that Pollard, as much as I dislike his politics, has the balls to stand by his position of tolling everything in sight without lying about it.

Tim "The Liar" on the other hand, has EXACTLY the SAME positions... but packages himself in a different way to try and fool the voter into believing he's actually opposed to tolls, when in reality, it makes no difference to him, one way or the other.

And that makes Tim "The Lair" despicable scum.

We do not need this bridge to be replaced. Those screaming the loudest to replace it are those least likely to need to cross such a bridge, and, therefore, are those least likely to PAY for such a bridge. And, as both Pollard and Leavitt and the despicable rag that is our paper have demonstrated: how easy it is to demand something that others will both pay for and MUST use, if such a demand will get what they want.

When Leavitt continues to bang his "no tolls, but I'll still support the bridge even if there ARE tolls" drum, he's a lying, lowlife scumbag every time his slimy lips move.

Personally, I agree with Tom Koenninger about as often as I win the lottery. But this time, his take on the tolling issue and the even remote possibility of building this lipstick-covered pig without tolls has a great deal of factual information contained within.

That Koenninger would still want this piece of garbage built in spite of the horrific costs, considering that the construction of such a bridge replacement would accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING save for providing the most horrifically expensive loot rail project in the history of the fricken universe, however, is a subject for another post.

Leavitt is a lying, low life scumbag, and he needs to get his political ass kicked for his lies come this November.

Of course, when you surround yourself with other lying, low life scumbags, like Steve "I'll take those 30 pieces of silver, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, I guess your conduct and outcomes are inevitable.
.

A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City Councilman.

I absolutely do give Pat Campbell credit for engaging with his political opponents, something rare in a politician anywhere and unheard of at the local level among those ramming the bridge and loot rail down our throats.

While I believe Campbell and those like him to be wrong on every level: the facts, the impacts, the costs and the outcomes, Campbell at least makes the effort.

And for that, he is to be congratulated.

He wrote in the comment section of my post: With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

I know some of you were quite upset last Tuesday thinking you had elected Leavitt. I am not so sure of that. I think it had to be more that just the anti-toll folks:

1) Ogle and Turlay were anti-toll and not elected.

2) Burkman was pointed out as being "pro-toll" and was elected.

So in my mind there was more to Leavit's election that just the tolling issue. An opinion- Pat Campbell

To which, I responded:

There may very well could have been. But isn't all that beside the point?

The man ran on a lie. This sudden awakening was a crock. I find it highly unlikely that Leavitt magically gained knowledge on tolling after the election that he didn't have before the election. And that's the trouble, Pat.... even more so then his cynical and absolute decision to use the tolling issue to gain support from the anti-toll segment of the electorate.

Of course, Leavitt also got $40,000 or so from David Barnett that didn't hurt, either.

The idea that Leavitt NOW knows what he apparently didn't know then is absurd. His position was purely electioneering; he had no intention of being opposed to tolls. He was for tolls from the very beginning; his decision to publicly abandon that issue now and let the Columbian PR arm go to work to rehab his image was a purely political decision as well.

The ONLY way to genuinely "oppose tolls" as Leavitt campaigned on is what I told him: the simple thing to do is stand up and tell those in charge: if you toll this thing I will do everything I can to kill it.

And his cowardly response to the issue of an advisory vote: how DARE he tell the public that such a vote would be meaningless. It's only "meaningless" because Leavitt is not about to risk a massive public repudiation of his pro-toll position. He doesn't want a mere thing like the will of the people to get in the way of his agenda... much like, come to think of it, you.

There is no excuse for building this without asking us. None. And Tom Mielke appears to be the only one who has tried to get this project in front of the people for our input. Leavitt doesn't want that. Stuart doesn't want that. The governor doesn't want that and frankly, it appears that you don't want it either.

In the entirety of my life I never believed that any government that governed me could possibly care so little about the will of those they would govern.... until now.

Regardless of whatever else Leavitt ran on, he ran on this lie. And now, the question: when do we believe him? How do we know when he's lying... and when he's telling the truth?

I knew he was lying from the beginning. Said so from the beginning. Steve Stuart on his campaign? There is NO WAY Stuart would allow anyone who didn't share his perspective to win.
Leavitt defrauded the people as much as Sam Adams in Portland. And for that, he deserves everyone's condemnation, including yours. But I'm not holding my breath.

Because like all of the bridger/looters, none of you are going to have to pay for this unneeded and unwanted monstrosity. As a result, it's completely unrealistic to expect you to make any effort to hold Leavitt accountable or to do the right thing in his regard.

Thanks for stopping by, Pat.

Leading to this effort by Mr. Campbell:

I am for the bridge and light rail after coming to the conclusion that we need to get started before our current transportation system collapses. (Some would argue it already has.)

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward. - Pat Campbell

To which I reply: Pat, thanks for stopping by again. But for purposes of this discussion, what the people may or may not want is secondary to the issue of Leavitt's lies, manipulations and misrepresentations of his positions, all for a political purpose.

That Leavitt lied is irrefutable. That he received votes because he lied is also irrefutable. That such was the purpose of his lies is self-evident. That you and others similarly situated are doing nothing to hold him accountable for those lies speaks for itself.

You seem to be supporting him because, as I pointed out, it's OK to lie when the liar supports your position. You should be holding him accountable by any number of ways available to you all, and yet you're not. But then, Leavitt's now in your "pro-toll" fold publicly, instead of privately, where he's been from the very beginning.

As far as the bridger/looter project?

Pat, I will be the first to admit that I-5 here locally is a mess…. But I believe it to be a designed-in mess.

When I moved here after I got out of the Army, there were just under 200,000 people living in Clark County. Now, of course, there are over 430,000, a huge increase over the 21 plus years I’ve lived here. Next to nothing has been done to our transportation system to keep up with that growth, and now we’re faced with spending what amounts to $4 billion dollars so light rail can take the “camel’s nose under the tent flap” approach as, perhaps, THE most expensive transportation project for the number of people it will actually carry in the History of this planet… all while the true problem remains unaddressed; a lack of road miles for our increasing population.

While our transportation system is light years from “collapsing,” (after all, 65,000 commuters go over the bridge before noon, and 65,000 commuters come back after noon every business day) it is, certainly, distressed. But the distress will not be relieved by kicking the dead horse known as replacing, with the same number of through lanes, or ANY number of through lanes, a bridge in the same place.

At some point, we are going to get additional bridges. Portland, as I understand it, has 11 bridges that cross the Willamette. That we have a grand total of TWO to serve the needs of a community of a half million is absurdity wrapped in stupidity.

So, do we add a third and fourth bridge now? Or do we wait 20 or 30 years when it becomes so obvious that even a CRC supporter can believe in the need…. And it cost twice as much?

Because right now, you and your fellow travelers are talking about spending what amounts to an unlimited number of billions (Think Boston’s “Big Dig.”) on a project that will not do what you seem to think it will do; all the while disrupting life, traffic patterns, Clark College, and the budgets of tens of thousands of commuters… for a project that tends to show the net impact will be zero change by the year 2030.

You tell me:

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

How, precisely, do you know this to be true? And of that “group” you name, how many of them will have to pay for this?

See, Pat, it would be easy for me to make you, through force of government, pay for something that I’m not going to use… or pay for.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention. And when the issue was brought up, and Leavitt actually had the gall to look at his constituents and say, in effect, that such a vote wouldn’t make any difference or have any value, I almost threw up.

When Leavitt trashed the idea of an advisory vote as “meaningless,” I had to leave the school. If ever there were a display of arrogance towards the people and what they want in addition to his obvious lies about being opposed to tolls, THAT was it.

NO vote on ANYTHING should EVER be “meaningless.”

Leavitt has REPEATEDLY told people that he won’t support an advisory vote because he KNOWS the project would lose overwhelmingly. So here, you say even more people want this then don’t… but you have nothing to prove that… and you certainly have nothing that indicates support from those who would be on the hook the most to pay for it: the commuters of Clark County.

So, why don’t you people put this to bed? Find a way to hold a county wide advisory vote on this project. If you do that advisory vote and the people actually DO support this, then I will never say another word about it.

It would be cheaper and far more accurate than any poll done to date, and it would forever put this question to bed.

But Pat, we both know that you’d never make such a demand. You tell me that you support the whole package… so why would you ever risk letting a little thing like the will of the people actually get in your way? After all, it won’t be YOU paying the $1200 to $1800 per year in tolls to go to work every day, will it? And I’ve got to wonder: would you be so hot to make this thing happen if you had to pay, out of your pocket, $1500 or so a year, like you’re working to force everyone else who will have to use this bridge to pay?

"Economic stagnation?” What happens to our local economy when your project vacuums out $100,000,000 million per year out of our local economy, monies that will go to tolls instead of, for example, movies, pizza, newspapers, ice cream, park fees, the Clark County fair and the like because YOU and the others supporting this monstrosity will task 65,000 other families to pay for something THEY don’t want…. Money from which no government entity will see a dime in revenue that otherwise would have produced almost $9,000,000 or more in sales tax.

What impact is THAT going to have on our economy? Or is the economy of the unions who are going to be the direct beneficiaries of this project what concerns you the most?

Mr. Campbell went on:

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward.

Sorry…. But that’s nonsense.

That Patella’s effort failed is meaningless given the fact that he had no time and no money.

PLEASE don’t believe for one second that, for example, if Patella had paid signature gatherers, or the ability to go up on TV or radio that he wouldn’t have come back with 20,000 signatures.
Pat, you’ve been in politics long enough to know that there is much more to an issue than whether or not the campaign to address it was funded or handled properly.

You want to know for sure?

Then hold the vote. But that you can extrapolate what the people want from an unfunded campaign in too short of a time and divine what the rest of us want is absurd.

Hold the vote, Pat.

But then, as I said, we both know you won’t. But that you and the rest of the CRC seem to have deluded yourself into actually believing that the people truly want this waste of billions is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing of all.

In closing, let’s not lose site of the main issue: Leavitt ran a platform that was primarily based on telling people he was actually opposed to tolls. I knew all along that he actually favored tolls, and the whole thing was a political ploy. Rightly or wrongly, nothing in your response refutes that.

That Leavitt is a liar is irrefutable. And there’s no way this particular pig can be dressed up to change that.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

.

Zemanta" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=4a6df10d-8025-411d-bc40-32ed9dc3d20e">

It's got to be tough when the Mayor of Vancouver is an outright liar.

It's just a damned shame, really.

A political career, soon to be snuffed out, that started with such promise.

Now, desperation is starting to sink in. Desperation that the CRC is over,.  Desperation that the bridge contractor this slimeball is working for will lay him off when the senate kills the CRC funding and he gets crushed for re-election.  Desperation that the voters will kick his ass to the curb just like he kicked his lie-from-the-beginning-tolls-scam to the curb as soon as he could.

I'm hearing that Leave-it already knows it's over... that the money ain't moving out of the Senate any time real soon and the fed window is going to slam shut on his dreams of screwing us... Leave-it wandering around the senate, BEGGING those people to move the money.

How's it feel, Timmy?

I know it ain't happening.  In fact, the best is yet to come.  Maybe you know that as well... but to lie in writing?  To lie about the positions of key senators concerning tolls?  What kind of a moron are you, anyway?

Well, THAT is just, plain, Stupid.

With a capital S.

Here's how that works:

(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is located at the end of this message.) __

Good Morning,

Below is an exchange of Emails between Hiz Honor Mayor,” I was against bridge tolls before I was for them”  Leavitt, Yours Truly, Senator’s Don Benton, and Ann Rivers.  

In response to my Did You Know #2 Exposing the True Cost of Bridge Tolls, Hiz Honor found it necessary to advise me in Capital Letters that Senator Don Benton and Senator Ann Rivers (both Republicans) supported Bridge Tolls.  It is amazing how some politicians change their spots after being elected.  The Good Mayor must have forgotten that during Governor Chris’  run for Governor Hiz Honor, clinging to the coat tails of well know Republican Dino Rossi, he was pretending to be a Republican.  I can still see him at a fund raiser introducing Dino Rossi. 

As you can see from Senator’s Benton’s email sent 2/28 at 4:24 PM and Senator River’s email sent 2/28 at 5:27 PM, they have made it quite clear that they do not support Bridge tolls or the CRC as currently proposed.

 Next Hiz Honor appeared with his email of 2/28 to chastise the senator by asking them to return some of the tax dollars Vancouver sends to Olympia.  Actually, Hiz honor would have more dollars to fix our roads and highways if he and his current Gang of 4 and his predecessor did not waste our hard earned tax dollars on boondoggles such as the financially failing Hilton Hotel and Convention Center, eight financially failing publicly owned parking garages, and outrageous property tax kickbacks to developers in the form of tax breaks.

Next in his BTW sent on 2/28 at 5:23 PM email Hiz Honor attempts to take me to the Woodshed because
a.    I am a conservative
b.    Stating that I refused to answer his question:

(a)    Would I prefer an increase in sales tax, property tax or business tax?  You’re Honor that is like asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife.  

Mayor Leavitt I am somewhat older than you and can recite chapter and verse of why Revenue Enhancement (taxes to us non-politicians) must be increased.   I can also  answer or state with certainty that Infrastructure Investment does not, has not and will not over the long haul create permanent  jobs. It has been a failure ever since FDR tried it.  Once the boondoggle is complete the jobs go away and you ‘spend and tax, to create more jobs. BTW didn't you just agreed to sell one parking garage valued at 3 million tax payer dollars for 1 Million and are planning on building 5 more if you are successful in bringing Portland’s Financially Failing Light Rail Gravy/Crime to Vancouver.   As for tolls you apparently did not read the email that started this chain of emails, the True Cost of Tolls. It will be excessive. 

Your Honor, I  think that I have answered your questions.  Would you be so kind and answer mine? 

a.    Why can’t the bridge be built without Light Rail?
b.    If congestion is a problem (it is not in my opinion) why not build a 3rd bridge?

And finally, your 2/28 5.44 PM email sent to Senator Ann Rivers (R)  thanking  her for setting me straight on her position on bridge tolls.  I knew what her position was; you apparently are the one who was unaware of her position. 

As for  three years of community engagement, technical studies, independent expert reviews, and approval from the Feds. Community engagement has not been with the people. It has been between members of the Spend and Tax Crowd.  We, the people, have been excluded from two- way conversations. Our no votes have been ignored;    Forensic information provided by Tiffany Couch has been ignored. Failure to communicate with the United States Coast Guard has been a disaster. And although Federal Funding has not yet been secured, approximately 200,000 million dollars has already been spent without proper accounting and transparency.   

And, yes, I have read Senate Bill 5502.  I have to agree with Senator Benton.  Just in case Light Rail proponents ram light rail and bridge tolls down our throats Senate Bill 5502 will at least save some money for those of us on this side of the river.  BTW your honor it would be nice if you would read our Initiative Petition, allow our petition to be placed on the ballot and “Let The People Decide”.

My sincere thanks to Senators Benton and Rivers for listening to what the people are saying.

And so it goes,

Larry Patella
CDR USN (ret)

Please Read the Email exchange:
  
From: Leavitt, Tim [mailto:Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:51 PM
To: Local Mailing List
Subject: Re: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

Larry -

DID YOU KNOW...that Senator Don Benton and Senator Ann Rivers (both Republicans), support tolling?

Sincerely,
Tim


Local Mailing List <lmpatella@comcast.net> wrote:
(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is located at the end of this message.) __

Good Morning,

DID YOU KNOW #2

The TRUE COST OF BRIDGE TOLLS!!!!


Although we are repeatedly told that the CRC's Light Rail Platform will cost us 3.5 Billion Dollars, CRC already has a plan in place to pay for the 5.5 Billion in tolls. Below you will see a list of components, like State Contributions and Federal Dollars, but note that their own tolling revenue schedules are planning for 3.3 billion in toll collections.  

CONSTRUCTION COST:

Total Capital Cost (Cost to Construct)                $3. 507, 000, 000
Total additional Cost (Interest, Repairs, etc.)      $2, 032, 305, 306

Total Anticipated Project Cost                            $5, 539, 305, 396 (total over 30 years)


PLANNED FUNDING SOURCES:

State of Washington                                          $   450, 000, 000.00
State of Oregon                                                $   450, 000, 000.00
New Start Grant                                                $   850, 000, 000.00
Federal Discretionary                                        $   400, 000, 000.00   (Non-existing program)
TOLLING REVENUES                                          $3, 353, 969, 345. 00 (Per CRC Finance Plan)

Total Anticipated Funding Sources                       $5, 503, 969, 345.00 

To give you some idea as to how much Bridge Tolls will INCREASE OVER THE YEARS, you need to take a look at the CRC Debt Service Schedule. 

Starting in 2019 when tolls are expected to begin, the Net Yearly Tolling Starting at $62, 373, 695 .00 will, without voter approval and annual increases, grow to $109, 676, 530. 00 being picked from your and or your children's/grandchildren's pockets in the year of 2054. 

Over that period of time the spend and tax pocket pickers will have picked $3,353,969.345 Billion dollars out of your pockets.

It could get worse.  With Historical Cost Overruns of 30 to 200 % it is my personal opinion that total cost of the CRC could reach $10 billion or more dollars

with your help we can stop the wasteful spending of your hard earned tax dollars to build a Multi-Billion Dollar Light Rail Platform.  You can help us get your Stop Light Rail Initiative Petition of the Ballot. 

Currently Our Stop Light Rail Petition is under review by the Kelso, Washington Superior Court. We need your help in getting it through the court systems. 

If you want to keep the Pocket Pickers out of your pockets and keep down town Vancouver from being destroyed Please send a donation to your Legal defense fund. 

Make your check Payable to:
“Legal Defense For Stop Light Rail Initiative (Stephen Pidgeon), and mail it to Debbie Peterson, P.O. Box 872204, Vancouver WA 98687.

And so it goes,

Larry Patella
CDR USN (ret)


From: LM Patella [mailto:lmpatella@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:52 PM
To: 'Leavitt, Tim'
Cc: 'don.benton@leg.wa.gov'; ann.rivers@leg.wa.gov
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

Tim,

NO I did not, I will personally with this email ask them.   But I don’t.  As  most people in Clark County do not.  But that is not the issue,  the issue is why are the people being lied to?  There is a lot of difference between 3.5 billion and 5.3 billion along plus Cost Over runs.  Why are you afraid to  let the people decide?
Also I am certain that this boondoggle is going to pick billions out of our pockets and either destroy downtown or force business to move out so that the developers can take over with huge Agenda 21 property tax breaks.

Look forward to seeing you on Monday.

Respectfully,

Larry Patella


From: Abbott, Karmen [mailto:Karmen.Abbott@leg.wa.gov] On Behalf Of Benton, Sen. Don
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:24 PM
To: lmpatella@comcast.net; 'Leavitt, Tim'
Cc: Rivers, Sen. Ann
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

Tim,

I have no idea what gave you the idea that I support tolling for the CRC.  I DO NOT support the CRC, which means I DO NOT support tolling of a bridge that has already been tolled, and paid for.

Sincerely,

Don

PS – If there has been any communication from me or my office that has lead you to believe that I support tolling, please indicate which communication that was so that I may correct the error.

Senator Don Benton
Deputy Majority Leader
17th Legislative District


From: Rivers, Sen. Ann [mailto:Ann.Rivers@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:27 PM
To: 'Leavitt, Tim'; lmpatella@comcast.net
Cc: Benton, Sen. Don
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

For the record Larry, I am not opposed to tolls.  I was raised in an area where tolling was a way of life.  I am, however, opposed to the CRC and tolling of this project since it has become a nightmarish story that continues to unravel. This project does nothing to reduce congestion or increase freight mobility while shunting growth of upriver economic development. I feel that I have taken on the role of protecting my constituency from this project.   There are too many concerns to list here – I believe we need a project – but this isn’t it.  ~ Ann


From: Leavitt, Tim [mailto:Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:27 PM
To: lmpatella@comcast.net
Cc: Don Benton; Ann Rivers
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

Ohhh...almost forgot...

And, we've been sending a lot of tax $$$ to Olympia. It's about time some of those $$$ come back too SW WA to fix our highway and interchanges and support more efficient transit!

Go get 'em Senators!

Best, Tim


From: Leavitt, Tim [mailto:Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:23 PM
To: lmpatella@comcast.net
Cc: Don Benton; Ann Rivers
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

BTW, I certainly don't take issue with their positions about sooty of tolling, in general, because it is a "conservative" philosophy of governance....those who use will pay part of the cost; those who don't use don't pay. And, in my research, tolling is the least costly alternative for the local share. I've asked you before if you'd prefer an increase in sales tax, property tax our business taxes...and smartly, you've refused to answer. Why? I hope it's because you understand that a) infrastructure investment creates opportunities for jobs growth from the private sector, and b) tolling is indeed less costly to Clark County residents than all the other options, and c) employers are unlikely to expand and create more jobs as traffic congestion mounts, and d) your grandchildren deserve to live in a Vancouver that is investing in their livelihoods.

Best, Tim

From: Leavitt, Tim [mailto:Tim.Leavitt@cityofvancouver.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:44 PM
To: Rivers, Sen. Ann
Cc: Local Mailing List; Don Benton
Subject: RE: Stop Light Rail the Gravy/Crime Train

Senator, thank you for setting the record straight regarding your position on tolling with Mr. Patella.

We'll disagree about the merits and value and need for this project. I'll simply stand by three years of community engagement, technical studies, independent expert reviews, and approval from the Feds.

Larry, I encourage you to review Senate Bill 5502 for details.

Best to all,

Tim

Welcoming Temple Lentz to the club.

.
As a charter member, I hereby welcome Temple Lentz to the club.

We have a select membership, you understand... There was me; Peter Van Nortwick, Brent Boger (An associate member) and now, Temple Lentz.

To gain admission, you have to become a target for one Lou Brancaccio, who uses his bully pulpit to beat the hell out of you if he doesn't "like" you, or to cover your ass (See his deliberate efforts to cover for Jim Jacks over his misconduct in the legislature for an example) if he does.

So, on Saturday, he was psychotic enough to believe his column of libel was so "must read" that he postponed putting it up.  You know, so a few unfortunate souls might actually buy the waste of woodpulp to read it, as if what he said was worth paying money for?  Like that?

Brancaccio, who's reputation as a bully is cemented in local political circles, doesn't hesitate to play smash mouth politics... when those he's smashing can't smash back.  And what's that if it isn't the nature of a bully?

His latest target?  Why, it's one Temple Lentz. former campaign manager and former friend to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who threw her under one of those light rail cars he fantasizes about by providing Brancaccio with a well thought out and well stated analysis by Lentz over responding to a question from Brancaccio concerning the lie that was Leavitt's campaign.

She hadn’t been top-of-mind until I received a phone call this week. I was asked if I’d be interested in seeing an email that involved me.

Though why Brancaccio didn't say the call was from Leavitt is of some interest.

I said of course.

It turns out it had to do with an email I had sent to Leavitt about a year ago. Back then, Leavitt had recently reversed course on his no-tolls stand and now was in favor of tolling to get the new bridge built. So I asked him about it:

“Looking back on this entire toll issue, in retrospect, would you have done anything differently in your campaign for mayor? In other words, would you have not been such a staunch advocate for ‘no tolls?’” Leavitt sent me a pretty standard response saying he “wouldn’t change a thing” and making the distinction that he “promised the voters I would fight against tolls and fight for equity.”

Of course, that Leavitt was lying through his teeth by doing neither is of no consequence to Brancaccio now; now Leavitt carries their water like Gunga Din and that's really all that's necessary... right, Lou?

Sort of what I expected.

What I didn’t know was that before he sent me his response (dramatic pause required here), he asked his trusted political adviser — Lentz — for advice:

“Response? Thoughts...”

OK, if I had to guess what advice she would have given him, it would not have been what she dished out:

“Dear Lou, Go F* yourself.”

Imagine how much better off our community would be if EVERYONE this whack job contacted responded the same way?

(I cleaned this up for our readers.)

So this is why well-paid advisers get a paycheck. I did wonder what Leavitt thought about it all.

So I asked.

“Oh boy! That’s not how I responded to you, was it?”

I told him he had not. And in fact, Lentz eventually critiqued his note.

Then Leavitt went on to give Lentz some cover.

“Everybody has their own perspective, personality and attitudes.”

True. Some a bit saltier than others, but …

Unless it's me, of course.  Brancaccio doesn't extend that particular right to me.

And frankly, Leavitt said, he’s had an urge to say that to me, “but it’s absolutely not the best response.”

And once again, Leavitt is dead wrong.

In fact, it's the perfect response to Brancaccio, or, as far as that goes, anyone working for him.

When I spoke to Lentz — who currently is working in communications for a labor union in Portland — she was very straightforward.

“I didn’t feel it was a productive question so it didn’t deserve a productive answer.”

Asking the mayor about his “no tolls” stance wasn’t productive? Huh?

Since you've failed to condemn him... repeatedly... like you condemn so many others?

That is correct.  Amazing you figured it out.

Because I’m a pretty nice guy (see top of this column if you’ve already forgotten), I asked if I could buy her a cup of coffee.

You're a grade A asshole, Lou.  And we all know it.

But please … be gentle with me.

And this column... once again.... proves it.

As for Temple, she's got a fairly thick skin.  And while she shares the same far left spectrum as Brancaccio, she has put herself at risk of this kind of thing because of her lack of slavish devotion to the Propaganda Minister's agenda.

This column was the kind of garbage he cranks out that he believes is oh, so, clever.  After all, it's fairly clear he's a legend in his own mind.

So, welcome to the club, Temple.  Unfortunately, Lou's column just reinforces what a lying scumbag you worked so hard to get elected just so he could throw you under the nearest C-Trans bus... And given the lie that was his campaign, of course he wouldn't change a thing... because changing it would have kept him from getting elected.  And if you're a scumbag and you have to lie to get elected, well, that's just the price of doing business.

Just ask Steve "The Liar" Stuart.
.