According to the Columbian, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler doesn’t feel she can advocate for Columbia River Crossing construction funding unless the vote for transit operating support is extended to the full C-TRAN service district.
According to the Columbian, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler doesn’t feel she can advocate for Columbia River Crossing construction funding unless the vote for transit operating support is extended to the full C-TRAN service district.
18 responses to “SW Washington Congresswoman Conditions CRC Support”
While she isn’t going to come out and say it, the intent of extending the vote to the whole service district is obvious: getting people in rural Clark County to vote no for light rail that has little impact on them anyway. The point of the sub-district vote is to see if the people directly in the light rail’s potential service area support it.
Does anyone really believe she would support it regardless of the vote? Her “stand” on this has nothing to do with what the people want, and everything to do with being anti-progress.
No, there’s no way in hell she would ever support light rail, so trying to placate her would be futile.
Since the whole C-Tram district will be forced to pay for operating light rail why wouldn’t it be fair they get toi vote on it?
Boy, ya can’t can’t much more hypocritical than saying Herrera’s stand has “nothing to do with what people want”.
Since the establishment you support (Vancouver, Lake Oswego & Clackamas County)has and is doing eveything they can to avoid public votes and find out what they want.
Vancouver officials have already said they will ignore the vote.
Lake Oswego city council voted 4-3 to only allow a non binding vote.
Clackamas County commissioners and staff are plotting behind the scenes to get around any voter intervention.
Then there is the obscene $10 billion CRC project itself,
http://couv.com/issues-viewpoint/btg-joe-cortright
that has overwhelming opposition for it’s many fatal flaws.
The handling of the public money being the worst.
http://couv.com/issues-viewpoint/tiffany-couch-crc
The CRC should be suspended entirely pending
a full investigation of the CRC and the removal of the participants responsible for the reckless abandon.
Perhaps after a couple more elections there will be more responsible and honest officials involved.
Steve,
While I agree with you on the CRC, I wonder about having people vote on every individual transit line. If you put each bus line to an individual vote, I suspect they would each be voted down by the majority of people that line didn’t directly serve.
The only real purpose of the Vancouver vote is to show that the people who will use it, want it. The real question is probably why hold a vote on just light rail and not the whole project.
Exactly, Multnomah County voters aren’t going to vote on whether or not all the interchanges from Columbia Blvd to the state line should be rebuilt. Why do Clark County voters get more say on the project than Portlanders? If we got to vote, we’d probably scrap the freeway part of the project altogether and just do a mass transit bridge.
But my bigger point was, Jaime has zero intention of supporting light rail, whether Clark County gets a special vote on it or not. And regardless of what the outcome of that special vote is. Her saying otherwise is complete BS.
The CRC project is trying to bring an entirely new transportation mode into her district. Bit different than bus routes, buses, or bus stop signs.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if those within her district outside of the usual geographic area of discussion for this project contacted her offices, and this is an attempt by her to represent a broader cross-section of constituents.
The CRC project is trying to bring an entirely new transportation mode into her district. Bit different than bus routes, buses, or bus stop signs.
I’m not sure I understand that… are you suggesting that because Clark County doesn’t have LR, that their objections to LR ought to carry more weight that Multnomah County objections to freeway expansion–as freeways are not an “entirely new” transportation mode?
I’m certain that rural Washingtonians have little interest in paying for urban infrastructure–that’s not an unusual phenomenon.
Presently, the CRC is being peddled as a package deal; with LRT the price of freeway expansion (for freeway proponents), and freeway expansion the price of LRT (for transit supporters). Neither the pro-highway, anti-transit crowd nor the pro-transit, anti-highway crowd are entirely happy with this state of affairs, both because its a compromise and because the resulting price tag is outrageous–but that’s what is currently going forward.
The interesting question: Are transit opponents of the belief that they can get LRT stripped out of the project at some point, and roll Portland and MultCo into going along with this? Will the two involved governors, both of whom like building infrastructure of all sorts (and have no particular objection to mass transit) defend the current CRC plan against attempts to strip out the transit component as zealously as they have defended it against Portland’s attempts to reduce the scope of the highway component? At the current time, while the project is in the planning phase, Portland has adequate influence to see its concerns are met; but I can easily foresee legislative attempts (in DC) to modify the project through the appropriations process.
Just Saying
Let’s dispense with the tired “people vote on everything” red herring.
“The only real purpose of the Vancouver vote is to show that the people who will use it, want it.”
The people who have to pay for it are the ones deserving the opportunity to vote. As well as the many who don’t want what it brings.
Far more people Clark County do not want anything to do with TriMet/Light Rail or the Railvolution agenda it brings.
They don’t buy all the propaganda at all and are demanding a vote.
Voters would support a new tax for a reasonable bridge without Portland’s LR agenda.
They are being prohibited from having that chance.
Aaron Hall,
“Why do Clark County voters get more say on the project than Portlanders?”
You’re kidding right?
The entire gang of Portland, PDC, TriMet, Metro and their cohorts in Vancouver are having all of the say. Perfect right? Screw the stupid voters?
I’m Ok with Multnomah County voting on anything. If it kills the CRC great.
Jaime shouldn’t be supporting light rail, whether Clark County gets to vote or not. There’s plenty of indication the vast majority of her constituents do not want it.
But at least she is voter friendly.
Your calling BS on her is too funny.
The only reason Leavitt does not want a vote is because he is certain of a crushing defeat.
Exactly like Lake Oswego with the streetcar and Clackamas County with MLR.
As for “transit opponents”, or rather light rail opponents, I’ve not heard or read any indication that any of them are unaware of Portland’s insistance that any CRC include light rail.
So no, there are no rail opponents who think Portland and Mult Co will role over. Even with a Clark Co. voter rejection of Light Rail.
However, the large majority of Clark County voters who reject Portland’s Light Rail/development agenda are ramping up their battle and a new election is coming.
Obvioulsy Leavitt et al are doing all they can to force upon the citizenry what they do not want. Same as Lake Oswego and Clackamas County.
Steve S. Says:
“Aaron Hall,
“Why do Clark County voters get more say on the project than Portlanders?”
You’re kidding right?
The entire gang of Portland, PDC, TriMet, Metro and their cohorts in Vancouver are having all of the say. Perfect right? Screw the stupid voters?”
Not kidding Steve. You didn’t answer the question. The “gang” and their “cohorts” are NOT the voters of Multnomah County. The voters in Multnomah County are not voting on any part of this bridge. Why are Clark County voters getting special treatment? And why are they allowed to vote on just one aspect of the bridge instead of the whole project.
Sure, let’s have Multnomah County vote on JUST the additional freeway lanes being jammed into N Portland. Then that portion of the project would be voted down.
Steve,
You’re fond of pointing out disconnects between the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners and the citizens they represent, but here you seem to be implying that such doesn’t also potentially apply in Multnomah County.
Boy you guys sure cherry pick what you reply to and focus on.
Aaron Hall,
The “gang” and their “cohorts” are doing what Multnomah County voters want. If they wanted to vote on any part of this bridge they should be making it clear.
They are not. They never do.
They rolled over on the vehicle registration fee as well.
Clark County voters aren’t demanding special treatment. They don’t want what the gang & Multnomah Coounty voters are forcing upon them.
This is nearly as complicated as you struggle to make it.
They clearly do not want the Light Rail or agenda that goes with. All the ginned up rhetoric to prohibit a public vote is because the gang knows the outcome.
Those opposing votes are the ones who know the outcome won;t go their way.
Dance all you want but just admit it you are among those forcing you will upon a community that does not want it.
EngineerScotty,
The disconnect between the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners and the citizens they represent also exists in Vancouver.
Both are abundantly clear. Clackamas County has multiple recent demonstrations.
The TriMet levy, Governor’s race, other local and legislative races, the fee vote, Damascus Comprehensive plan, Boring petitioning to get out of TriMet. etc.
However, the COP, TriMet & Metro are dominated by their RailVolution progressive agenda that much or most of Multnomah County has routinely supported and voted for.
Or at least has not sounded off against in any way whatsoever. Well except for Bojack.
So let me know when there is a disconnect in Multnomah County.
And what do you advise Multnomah county do after Clackamas and Clark county fully reject Mult Co plans for their communities?
Like I said, the CRC should be killed for as many years as it takes to get rid of the gang who wasted the $150 million they can’t even account for.
Steve S Says: “Boy you guys sure cherry pick what you reply to and focus on.”
Just pointing out your more obvious (IMO) misinterpretations. And just because you repeat some of them over and over (and over and over) again, it still doesn’t make them true.
Steve S Says: “The “gang” and their “cohorts” are doing what Multnomah County voters want. If they wanted to vote on any part of this bridge they should be making it clear.”
And you know what Multnomah County voters want because…. ???
Because of the vote they had on the bridge? Oh, wait…. I don’t remember voting on that. My ballot must have gotten lost in the mail.
My apologies, Steve, I didn’t know you were psychic. You obviously know exactly what all of us Multnomahns want.
Steve S Says: “Clark County voters aren’t demanding special treatment. They don’t want what the gang & Multnomah Coounty voters are forcing upon them.”
Really? ‘Cause again, I don’t recall voting on any of this, or forcing Clark County voters to do anything. If one group gets to vote on the project and the other group doesn’t, then that IS special treatment. What else would you call it, Steve?
The “gang” and their “cohorts” are doing what Multnomah County voters want. If they wanted to vote on any part of this bridge they should be making it clear.
You can be against something without raising the pitchforks and doing everything and anything to derail a project. I’m sure someone could come up with things that you would not support that were not petitioned against.
If one group gets to vote on the project and the other group doesn’t, then that IS special treatment. What else would you call it, Steve?
That seems like something that just can’t be true in general. If the other group could vote on something if they had the will to do so, it seems like they really can’t go ahead and call it special treatment when some others decide to do what they didn’t. Would it be special treatment if Oregon citizens killed a new freeway that voters in other states supported? I don’t know enough about the process or lead-up to know if that’s exactly what is happening here though. What would decide it for me is if the fact that either Vancouver (or Clark County, if the congresswoman gets her way) voters get to vote on this was forced by grassroots work on the part of the citizens, or if the powers that be decided to treat them differently.
(I used to just use the name of “Aaron”, but since I see so many comments from Aaron Hall, I’m figure I should go back to adding my last initial to reduce the potential for confusion.)
Phew…. thank god. I thought there was a THIRD Aaron here.
Anyway, regardless of who puts the question on the ballot (whether it’s grass roots or from the top down), you’re attempting to give Clark County voters essentially a line-item veto for the part of the project they don’t like. That gives them more representation compared to other groups. So yes, that is special treatment. I don’t see how you can describe it any other way.
Just because it may be easier to get something on the ballot in one jurisdiction versus another, doesn’t mean voters are any less (or more) apt to want to vote. Saying Clark County voters are more motivated to vote (which may or may not be true) doesn’t mean anything. Give everyone affected the same chance to vote on it, or don’t have a vote at all.
Perhaps because Clark County residents have seen light rail pushed ahead in Portland –and attempted previously to their domain–despite the decisions of the voters, they are more alerted to that particular tactic. Has there ever been a vote, by the people, for the Milwaukie MAX?
The most recent vote which included what is arguably now “Milwaukie MAX” (and MAX up MLK to Vancouver), was Measure 32 in 1996.
That was a statewide measure, by the way. (Yes, the entire state got to vote on funding for light rail in the Portland/Vancouver metro area.)
But that measure also included statewide highway funding for a variety of projects. It was about 50/50 rail and roads. So the ultimate failure of the measure, if it is to be described as a vote against light rail, can also be described as a vote against highways.
Looking just within Metro boundaries, all but Clackamas County voted in favor of the measure. That means that Multnomah County voters were voting both in favor of a North-South rail project and in favor of highway projects statewide.
Ultimately, what is now the Yellow Line, on a different alignment, was built using a different funding scheme that didn’t require a direct vote (local or statewide), and has been a success.
It remains to be seen whether Milwaukie will be a success. It has a high pricetag, an as-of-yet incomplete funding arrangement, and will be the most disruptive non-highway transportation project thus far in terms of displaced businesses.
But looking just at Multnomah county voters, there is a strong track record of support for rail projects.
As I asked in another recent thread:
I don’t know how much stock you can put in any one given vote; although obviously they can be critical, too. I don’t question whether the Gresham MAX or Hillsboro MAX were prudent: I have generally been supportive of those. Whether the Interstate MAX or Milwaukie MAX fall into the same category—-whether analyzed by volume of passengers, cost per mile, possible alternatives—is a whole different question.
So many people missing the point.
The plan is to stuff about $1300 per year in tolls down each and every commuter’s throat to pay for light rail, since replacing the bridge’s 3 thru lanes with 3 through lanes will do absolutely nothing to address freight mobility or congestion.
The roughly $10 billion that will be wasted on this effort which is, in fact, a loot rail project with a bridge attached, the start of a $20, 30 or $40 billion or more series of projects to ram a an obsolete, horrifically expensive project down the throats of the taxpaying public in Clark County.
The smoke and mirrors here, such as “Let me know when we got to vote on the I-205 widening near Stafford Road, the 217 widening currently wrapping up, the I-5 widening over Delta Park, the I-5 widening at Wilsonville, etc. (And I support, or at least I’m neutral, regarding all 4 of those projects. But when was I asked?” has nothing to do with the demand that 65,000 commuters pay for something they do not want, need, or can afford, as the demands of this horrific project blow a hole in the local economy of Clark County $100,000,000 per year wide in disposable income that small business counts on around here to survive.
The fact is that the people in any given area should, in fact, be asked if they want to pay hundreds of dollars per year each in addition to the Oregon income tax they already pay, particularly when the whole point of the exercise is to bury us in life-long, permanent debt and tolls, when so many other other options are available.
If Multnomah wants to vote on this, or any other road project, then they should be allowed to do so. But whether they do or not is completely irrelevant to the right of the people of Clark County to do so, in a state where Article One, Section One of our state constitution says that All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
“ALL” doesn’t mean “SOME.”
If the fed were to pick up all of the costs, this would be a different question. But to build this steaming pile which will accomplish nothing to address the issues at hand except to enrich the special interests of the downtown mafia and identity Vancouver without a vote would have made Adolf Hitler blush in it’s audacity.
Meanwhile, Herrera is in the position to kill the entirety of this project. And unless she gets a county-wide (NOT “district” wide in the gerrymandered, CTrans yes district that cut out 100,000 voters from voting while requiring all of us to pay the tax they stiffed us with) vote on the entirety of the project then she should, in fact, kill it.
Her cat fight with a low life like Leavitt may define her political career. If she caves on this, she’s thru. Leavitt’s thru anyway, but Herrera? We’re about to find out what she’s made of. And unfortunately, I think I already know.