Comment history

Happy medium for state tournaments


It might be that the new state tournament format was cheaper for the WIAA. But was it cheaper for the schools involved?

I'm wondering (just a thought, mind you), if the bottom line looks better for the WIAA because many of its expenses in putting on the state tournaments were passed along to the individual schools. Maybe it was more expensive for the schools to go to Richland and the other assorted bi-district, tri-sub-regional sites, etc. Which would cut WIAA's tournament expenses but add to the bill for the individual schools.

I have no idea one way or the other, but it seems a question worth investigating.

As an aside, I'm also a fan of the old 16-team double elimination bracket.

**And, finally, since we're going into baseball/softball season,** I'd like to see a true double-elimination bracket for those two sports at the state level. Maybe 8 or 16 teams where a school can actually lose a game and come back through the losers' bracket to get a shot at the title. Of course, they would have to run the table to do it after that loss and would have to beat the winners' bracket champion twice to win the title. I would conduct the final weekend of games over the Memorial Day weekend at an all-weather site (perhaps Safeco Field for baseball; not sure of a similar softball venue but was speculating as to whether the Tacoma Dome could be configured for softball, with its smaller diamond). Games could be going on all day but no individual team would need to play more than twice in a single day. And, of course, the finals would be either one or two games, depending on the outcome of the first one.

Just a pipe dream. I'm sure there are WIAA and coaching politics aplenty that would keep it from happening. Not to mention logistics and expense.

March 9, 2011 at 10:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stewart slams fellow city councilors

This whole business is typical politics -- get the public to fund an unpopular program (light rail) by tying its financing to something the public wants and needs (C-Tran bus service).

Clearly, the council's concern is that if light-rail appeared on the ballot alone, it would be overwhelmingly, embarrassingly defeated. Why? Because voters don't want it. Why do they not want it? Because they can see the mess that Portland has made of it and realize that better transit solutions already exist.

In this regard, voters demonstrate their superior intelligence compared with their elected city council and its satraps and minions in assorted planning and administrative offices.

It's amazing that Jeanne Stewart is being castigated by her fellow city councilors simply for not going along with its ill-advised, rail-obsessed Group Think.

It's also amazing (though it shouldn't be, given the frequency of this idea in other elected officials) that Larry Smith and Jack Burkman seem to suffer from the notion that getting elected to something automatically bestows upon them insight and prescience superior to people who do not sit at the important table where you get a nameplate.

The city council apparently wants to go down Stupid Road as their Portland counterparts have done by installing expensive, immoveable rail tracks instead of actually serving the public with flexible bus routes that go where people can actually be served.

This sort of thing happens when council members are continually told by a plethora of planners how "smart" light-rail is as a means of mass transit. Build it and people will ride it, the theory goes. Meanwhile, everybody involved in the project gets rich -- mostly construction companies and real estate speculators (buying land along the planned light-rail right-of-way and then greasing enough palms to ensure the train goes that direction).

Unfortunately, as we see in Portland, the light-rail lines become a money pit -- requiring large public subsidies in perpetuity because the trains prove to be not all that convenient and revenue from fares and ridership never approaches what is needed to actually make the thing work.

Light-rail also poses security issues, as Portland's experience demonstrates. People waiting for trains, especially the elderly and especially at off-peak hours, are vulnerable to criminal activity at the relatively isolated train stations. And the trains themselves are drug markets on wheels.

Vancouver city government is at a crossroads here. It can be smart and ditch the light-rail idea and pour its transit resources into more buses and better service on more routes. Or it can condemn future citizens to the light-rail myth.

One can't help but think that a council led by Messrs. Burkman and Smith will find a way to blow it. At least as far as the public is concerned.

March 9, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Try This: Let ‘Pirates’ steal the weekend

Don't leave out CYT's performance of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," at Fort Vancouver High School.

Featuring CYT's usual talented cast and lively musical numbers, "Chitty" also boasts an actual, working car that is driven onstage, one of the most amazing props you will ever see in local theater.

"Chitty" has a 3 p.m. matinee and 7 p.m. evening performance on Saturday, March 5; and a 2 p.m. matinee on Sunday, March 6. It will close with four performances next week.

Complete ticket information can be [found here][1].


March 5, 2011 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )