"Third bridge is solution"

[Chief]

Letter to the Editor in today's Sunday columbian...

Dear Editor:

It amazes me how most of our local politicians (except Rep. Jim Dunn) want to spend $4 billion so I can have a worse commute, pay a toll, and have increased crime. The intent of improving the I-5 Columbia River Crossing is to reduce congestion. The "chosen" option from the Columbia river Crossing Task Force includes tolls and light rail, which will not reduce congestion. A toll bridge with light rail will cause crime to increase and reduce property values in Clark County.

If our only choice is a replacement bridge with tolls and light rail, then I say do nothing. The best solution is a thrid bridge with no tolls. Then widen I-5 in Oregon to three or four lanes in each direction, and widen I-205 in Washington to four lanes in each direction.

Also, how about some tax breaks for business so we can find decent paying jobs in Clark County? None of this fits into the closed-minded mentality of our local politicians who want to shove light rail and tolls down our throats.

Wayde Hager
Vancouver

[Chief]

I need to slice and dice this one sentence by sentence. It's been a while since a certified ConStemperary raised their ugly head like this, so I need to point out how many ways this guy is flat wrong.

"It amazes me how most of our local politicians (except Rep. Jim Dunn) want to spend $4 billion so I can have a worse commute, pay a toll, and have increased crime."

First of all, this guy is a Jim Dunn fan, and I really don't want to waste a bunch more time on that topic. My views on him are well known, and if you need a review, then search this site using the key word "Dunn" and start reading.

For starters, Wayde says the commute is going to get worse, and I wonder why that is....just because he says so?? And his reference to "increased crime" marks him as a subscriber to Larry Patella's Local Mailing List; because we have heard that line from him more than once.

"The intent of improving the I-5 Columbia River Crossing is to reduce congestion."

Partly right Wayde, but that is not a complete statement of what the mission of the Task Force is. Those of us who actually attend the meetings, read the literature, and try to understand the subject know better too...

"The "chosen" option from the Columbia River Crossing Task Force includes tolls and light rail, which will not reduce congestion."

Now Wayde is really cherry-picking the things he doesn't like, and ignoring everything else in order to make yet another unsupported, grand, weeping statement about congestion.. First, nothing whatsoever has been "chosen" by anyone, although the Staff has narrowed the preferred alternatives. Next, nothing in this Country of the magnitude equal in size to the Columbia River Crossing is being built without a toll. Period, paragraph.

"A toll bridge with light rail will cause crime to increase and reduce property values in Clark County."

Vintage Patella. I'm not sure how Wayde thinks property values will fall with light rail; quite the contrary in my estimation. If anything, you would see property values skyrocket via reassessments, in order to raise the tax revenure to pay for transit. And these constant references to crime is opportinistic bitching about a problem that doesn't exist, at least not yet. There are crime problems on Trimet, in Oregon, and from what I have seen they are moving to address it. Using that as a premise to reject the whole CRCP is short-sighted, and typical for Waydes apparent peer group...

"If our only choice is a replacement bridge with tolls and light rail, then I say do nothing. "

Well Wayde, I hope you are prepared to be disappointed, because any replacement bridge will involve a toll. What that toll is, and what arrangements can be made for Clark County residents is yet to be determined, but there will be a toll on an I-5 replacement bridge.

"The best solution is a thrid bridge with no tolls. "

Again, you cannot have a replacement bridge without a local contribution, and the best way to get that contribution is to toll the vehicles who use the new bridge. That said, I'm not clear on whether Wayde means a replacement I-5 bridge, or if he is one of the "Aleternative 14" crowd...

"Then widen I-5 in Oregon to three or four lanes in each direction, and widen I-205 in Washington to four lanes in each direction."

Here we go again with the vague, unsupported statements that make little sense in light of his earlier comments...just how would you pay for all of that Wayde?? ODOT is about to start construction on the "Delta Park" widening project that Wayde and so many of his peers seem blissfully unaware of. In any case, neither of the two projects Wayde supports are congruent to the Columbia Crossing project, and cannot be done instead of a replacement bridge.

"Also, how about some tax breaks for business so we can find decent paying jobs in Clark County? "

I sure would like to know how Brother Wayde voted on the IDD Levy. I would also point out that Identity Clark County agrees with Wayde, and would love to see his property taxes raised to pay for Light Rail instead of any new Business taxes...

"None of this fits into the closed-minded mentality of our local politicians who want to shove light rail and tolls down our throats."

Again, vintage Patella. Call all of our local politicians "closed minded" when you just spent the preceding three paragraphs proving how closed minded (and willfully ignorant) that Wayde chooses to be. If anyone has a closed minded mentality, it is Larry Patella and his band of ConStemperaries just like Wayde here. I have no idea if he has been to any of the public forums, but it's obvious that his isn't getting his information from reputable sources, instead he sounds like a Patella copycat letter writer, and I'm not surprized that the columbian continues to run with ignorant letters like this.

[Waterbuffalo]

I'd like to say this:

Light Rail and expansion of roads are the two differences between us and the Portland Metro area. Vancouver would like to expand its road system to accommodate a respectable car system and allow sufficient flow of people from North and South, East and west. While the Portland leadership has chosen not to.

But because of geography, Cacades to the East (columbia River Gorge commission??) three semi-active at one time or another Hood, Mount St. Helens and the seattle peaks, Willamette River Valley in Portland, Columbia River south and west that has a major flood plain on our side of the river (think Vancouver lake??) and then the western side, the Clatskanie Bluffs, Scapoose and Portland Hills.

My point to the latter statement was to show that we have a couple "Narrow" river valleys to put all of our combined automobile users, trains, semi trucks, trains and many other users of access to public and private transportation needs. As we become a denser community, the levels of noise from all of this is going to go up from what it is now.

Do I personally agree with this letter writer or any of the comments on the subject? I'd personally say the jury is still out on the subject and the local and state government hasn't heard enough from us on the subject.

I want a system that is efficient and functional, within easy access. Now that's going to mean with the prices of construction materials its not going to come cheap?? But hey, I can dream can't I?

[Waterbuffalo]

I'd like to say this:

Light Rail and expansion of roads are the two differences between us and the Portland Metro area. Vancouver would like to expand its road system to accommodate a respectable car system and allow sufficient flow of people from North and South, East and west. While the Portland leadership has chosen not to.

But because of geography, Cascades to the East (Columbia River Gorge commission??) three semi-active at one time or another Hood, Mount St. Helens and the Seattle peaks, Willamette River Valley in Portland, Columbia River south and west that has a major flood plain on our side of the river (think Vancouver lake??) and then the western side, the Clatskanie Bluffs, Scapoose and Portland Hills.

My point to the latter statement was to show that we have a couple "Narrow" river valleys to put all of our combined automobile users, trains, semi trucks, trains and many other users of access to public and private transportation needs. As we become a denser community, the levels of noise from all of this is going to go up from what it is now.

Do I personally agree with this letter writer or any of the comments on the subject? I'd personally say the jury is still out on the subject and the local and state government hasn't heard enough from us on the subject.

I want a system that is efficient and functional, within easy access. Now that's going to mean with the prices of construction materials its not going to come cheap?? But hey, I can dream can't I?