MartinHash

Comment history

Lawmakers advocate a public vote on new I-5 bridge

Jon Haugen, you seem to be the best investigative reporter the Columbian has for which legislators support or don't support a vote - the professional reporters should be able to build on your work. I'm excited at the prospect of reading a well-researched, two-sided article in the Columbian in the near future.

March 14, 2011 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawmakers advocate a public vote on new I-5 bridge

Why is the 17th taking the lead on this? Where are the other district Representatives and Senators? Why doesn't the Columbian have a checklist of what every RTC board-member thinks of a Light Rail vote? (The RTC board is mostly the same elected officials.)

Simply DEMAND that elected officials state their position!

March 14, 2011 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What’s not to love about Portland?

Was that a Light Rail feint? OMG.

We've got to stop obscuring our intentions in the editorials.

Portland is a great city. It has lots of stuff that scream "I am Portland." Light Rail is one of those things. (So are your other 9 items.) BUT, I don't want those things - I want Vancouver's things. When I want Portland - I'll go to Portland.

March 13, 2011 at 8:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What’s not to love about Portland?

I hope you're joking?

Freedom of movement is a great thing. The diversity of America is fabulous. Combining the two is even better - people who like the Portland lifestyle live in Portland, and people who like our lifestyle live in Vancouver.

Portland is a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to life there. Thank god, Vancouver isn't Portland.

March 13, 2011 at 7:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MartinHash

I hope you're joking?

Freedom of movement is a great thing. The diversity of America is fabulous. Combining the two is even better - people who like the Portland lifestyle live in Portland, and people who like our lifestyle live in Vancouver.

Portland is a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to life there. Thank god, Vancouver isn't Portland.

March 13, 2011 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cjoner

I'm sure there's going to be a story on the new property taxes assessments in the mail. Don't miss me...

Value increased 30%, taxes increased by 56% ($21,831). The previous assessment was only 10 months before. No improvements to the property in years. I suspect that a "soak the rich" solution is being implemented.

March 2, 2011 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Local ankle biters are filing their fangs

I hope I can get into that meeting tomorrow - it's going to be high drama!

But to your points, John:
(1) If other bridge options were considered, I want to see the engineering studies, AND the legal consultation reports on the "environmental" issues. For $110 million, I expect all options to have been throughly considered.

(4) If the bridge portion is only $250 million or so, are we only going to pay tolls for that? Is the other $3 billion of "improvements" really on our plate? Do other states require tolls for their public interchanges, bus stations, etc.?

(6) Saying something is "good" should not be subjective. By ALL financial estimates, from all over the country, light rail is NOT self-sufficient. Are you measuring light rail with a different yardstick than automobile traffic?

February 20, 2011 at 7:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even tax-averse Texans tolerate tolls

John, YOU should be one of the voices who asks for MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE from RTC.

Occasionally, people ask me what I would do to promote CRC... Here's what I recommend:
1) A clear, easy-to-read website filled with FACTS!
2) The goals of the new bridge - PRIORITIZED!
3) All the bridge options that were considered. (There should be dozens.)
4) Include "NO light-rail" options.
5) CONCRETE arguments against the other proposals.
6) What are the demands from each side: Portland vs. Vancouver.
7) A toll schedule.
8) An unequivocal guarantee that the 205 bridge will NOT have tolls.
9) A list of who benefits and who loses from their plan.
10) And who goes to jail or is impeached if they make a promise that is a lie?

February 8, 2011 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even tax-averse Texans tolerate tolls

hochiminh, you forgot to call anyone a "Nazi."

February 7, 2011 at 7:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Even tax-averse Texans tolerate tolls

You, of course, are referring to the anti-CRC "NoTolls" group here in Clark County. Unfortunately for them, their anger is not articulated well - I'll give it a try...

It's not the tolls! It's the fact that commuters have to pay for something they now get for free AND the money seems to be going to LIGHT RAIL, (meaning the people who HATE mass transit will get NOTHING for their money). Add this to the fact that the bridge is HUGELY expensive, meaning tolls will be HIGH. (No one believes they'll only be $4 combined.)

People WOULD support tolls on another bridge location, one they are not forced into taking. They will support tolls for something new and voluntary.

February 6, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )