Couv.com has released a more truthful ad featuring numerous citizens expressing why the CRC is a bad deal for Clark County.

Proponents ad may be seen at the Couv.com link above. Take note, those speaking in the pro-ad are all speaking from the exact same script with the editing cut to switch back and forth to say their pre-written message.

Couv.com did not have a written script, we each spoke freely of our views.

Yes, it does appear that very gradually, people on both sides of the Columbia River are waking up to the Bridge to Bankruptcy and opposing it. People that were wholeheartedly supporting it are backing up, looking closer and seeing that projections are off, the design is inferior, the location is wrong and the only reason it was ever began was a vehicle to force Clark County to accept Portland’s financially beleaguered light rail, steeped deeply in unfunded liabilities as I write.

Just this week, June 12, 2012 the Oregonian editorial board gave us Will Columbia River Crossing become the Procrustean Bridge?, where they compare the known shortcoming of insufficient river traffic clearance to the “mythological figure who lopped the limbs from unfortunate visitors so they’d fit his iron bed.”

Their editorial ends with,

“the fact that $140 million has been spent on an inadequate design is a poor argument for clinging to it. It’s a small fraction of the full cost of the project, which is expected to exceed $3 billion. And in the end, both Oregonians and Washingtonians should want a bridge that does what it’s supposed to — carry surface traffic across the river — without doing what it’s not supposed to — compromise traffic on the river.”

Just days earlier they reported, River users said Columbia River Crossing too low, and planner ignored them saying,

“In a 2004 survey of Columbia River users and again in a 2006 Coast Guard public hearing, the river users said a new I-5 span needed to be 100 to125 feet tall for them to sail underneath.”

“The Columbia River Crossing planners ignored the input and opted instead for 95 feet. The fateful blunder has put the project at odds with a handful of marine shippers, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both of which need to sign off on the project.”

“The impasse may force the CRC to jettison the $3.1 billion current plan — seven years in the making — and design a higher bridge at a cost of $100 million-plus.”

This after already sucking up some $150 Million.

In March, the Columbian, the unofficial daily newsletter of the Democrat Party informed us,

“In a Senate transportation subcommittee meeting, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called the problem — which could cost as much as $150 million to fix — a “little hiccup” that will not stop the $3.5 billion project.”

Yes, a major shortcoming is but a “little hiccup.”

Meanwhile, they were quick to run cover by telling us, CRC officials defend bridge height.

The “hiccup” caught the attention of Crosscut.com in Seattle as the posted For Columbia River Crossing, Coast Guard objections are just the beginning

June 13, 2012 the Oregonian, in a premonition of what our own C-Tran can expect told us, TriMet board kills Portland’s Free Rail Zone, raises fares, cuts bus service as Oregon fights to fill deep budget gaps and meet unfunded liabilities negotiated for the unions involved with Tri-Met after they rejected a proposed rollback of their overly generous benefits.

C-Tran employees would likely expect the same as their Oregon counterparts that would also likely put our Transportation in similar financial straits. Meanwhile, a conglomeration of self-appointed civic leaders draft a letter to lawmakers saying “find the money” to build it, ignoring the Great Recession we taxpayers know we are still in.

Marvin Case of the Reflector told us back in February 2012, C-TRAN strategy is bad government telling us the fancy footwork schemes that were being tried to impose a tax on Clark County residents while avoiding a vote if possible was gravely flawed.

He wrote,

“So for the last six years, thousands of county residents have paid C-TRAN taxes when they shop but have no voice in establishing the tax or the tax rate.”
“That was the case again last November when urban voters approved another .02 percent sales tax for C-TRAN, while those who don’t live in cities or the Vancouver UGA weren’t allowed to vote. It is the classic and onerous ‘taxation without representation’ that was opposed when this nation was born.”

Portland’s Willamette Week woke up long ago, running several in depth articles showing just how inept the CRC project has been as they ran articles from A Bridge Too False in June 2011 to The $2.5 Billion Bribe in February 2012 where we received confirmation for the first time of what many of us suspected all along, the sole reason for the bridge project from Portland’s Metro was to manipulate Clark County into accepting their light rail that we have rejected every time it has been brought to a vote in the past.

One that has not bought into the hype we have been fed concerning this project is successful businessman and now candidate for County Commissioner, David Madore, who launched Couv.com featuring several revelations. Mr. Madore hired an Independent Forensic Accountant to pour over CRC finances and who reported several disturbing findings, quickly marginalized by state officials.

On a cold January 2012 morning, a group of concerned citizens, and elected officials, many from Oregon who had formed the Smarter Bridge Committee, gathered on the north bank of the Columbia River in a press conference as speaker after speaker laid out their well informed reasons they have come to oppose the current project as designed as others offered viable and cheaper alternatives.

After the revelation of the design being insufficient to clear known river traffic and unable to meet the requirements of the both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers, several long time supporters, many of whom contacted me personally to say they could no longer support the project and now see our point and have joined us in opposition.

David Madore gave a simple suggestion in his March 2012 post, The unraveling of the Columbia River Crossing on opening people’s eyes. He said,

“There is an appropriate time to push the pause button. We will continue to inform our community of the situation and encourage citizens to help others learn about this unfolding story. What do we do? We start by spreading the word and speaking up. We work to elect new leadership and elect those that will protect the public treasury and insist on transparency, accountability and good sense.”

More and more people are opening their eyes to the CRC and their Bridge to Bankruptcy.

Now they only need open their eyes to current elected officials who continue to push this boondoggle, tax sucking, and ill-designed project off on us, all to force us to accept what we have rejected more than once.

Sometimes the name is complimentary, such as “The Bridge of the Gods” up by Cascade Locks and sometimes the name expresses disgust at a high cost that isn’t justifiable, such as Alaska’s Gravina Island Bridge nicknamed “A Bridge To Nowhere” since it was projected to cost $398 million to connect Ketchikan with Gravina Island, a small community of about 50 people and a small single runway airport, accessed by ferry in about 7 minutes.

Locally, we have the Columbia River Crossing seeking to replace the aging but serviceable spans of the I-5 Bridge across the Columbia River connecting Washington and Oregon that with the forced inclusion of extending Portland’s financially troubled Max Line light rail a short distance into Vancouver is projected to cost about $4 Billion, before figuring in interest on bonds and the to be expected cost overruns. Once those are added, it is estimated to cost upwards of $10 Billion or more.

Saying the project is contentious is an understatement as it has been brought up in every political campaign for a number of years now. Current Vancouver mayor, Tim Leavitt campaigned heavily on not tolling residents for the bridge project, only to totally reverse his stand almost as soon as he was announced the winner. Our nickname for him now is “Tim ‘the liar’ Leave-it,” indicating how Vancouver citizens are disgusted with him and want him to leave office.

“Studying and planning” for the replacement since 1999, over $140 Million has been sunk into the insatiable abyss of the CRC with a recent approval of an additional $28 Million.

An independent audit of the finances of CRC raised several questions with no answers forthcoming from elected officials. Some, like Democrat 49th legislative district representative Jim Moeller choose to ignore questionable finances as he stated, “In a project of such huge scale and complexity, at least some errant billing and bookkeeping is inevitable.”

Such a dismissive attitude from an elected official over poorly kept books on over $140 Million of our taxes is completely unacceptable.

Since the release of Tiffany Couch’s independent forensic audit of CRC finances, our local paper of record, the Columbian has treated us to a series of articles and columns very favorable to the CRC. They have been favorable all along to the project, but the damning audit seems to have brought out a few more articles in rapid succession than previously seen.

We see CRC Ponders Slimmer Plan, an effort to convince taxpayers the project is being slimmed down to become more affordable. Portland, Oregon’s newspaper of record, also favorable to the project tried floating the same canard days earlier with Columbia River Crossing officials suggest significant downsizing to trim $650 million from the controversial project.

Portland, Oregon’s Willamette Week puts that erroneous notion to rest with their article, Still Big, Still Costly.

The Columbian also treated us to an op-ed by the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Paula Hammond, 4 key reasons why CRC needs to move ahead to follow the Oregonian’s It’s time to invest in a bridge.

We also saw Economic groups urge lawmakers to find dollars for CRC informing us of three self identified “community leader” groups, the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, Columbia River Economic Development Council and Identity Clark County penning a letter to the Washington legislature urging them to “just find the money” to build this monstrosity.

Bear in mind, this at a time Clark County is entering the 4th year of double digit unemployment, schools around the state failing, the state facing a $1.5 Billion budget gap, the city of Vancouver having to beg for federal grant to reopen and man a fire station and Vancouver losing the fifth most jobs as a percentage in the nation!

All along supporters of plunging more of our dwindling tax dollars down the dark bottomless hole of the CRC rely on scare tactics, claiming how “unsafe” the bridges are should an earthquake hit our region. At time they sound as if the bridges face eminent collapse just from normal daily use, which is far from true.

As seen in Interstate Bridges good for 60 more years, says Oregon website, Oregon Department of Transportation official stated back in 2005, after an electrical upgrade and inspection of the bridge, “With ongoing preservation the bridges can serve the public for another 60 years.”

It should be pointed out that the two spans of the Interstate Bridge, the northbound opened in 1917 and the southbound span opened in 1958, and seeing an estimated 130,000 crossings daily (2006) are not the oldest bridges in the country.

New York’s Brooklyn Bridge opened in 1883 and sees an estimated 124,000 crossings daily.

The main problem with the Interstate Bridge is that it is a drawbridge to accommodate river traffic, which causes delays to Interstate 5 travel when it is opened. Daily morning and evening back-ups, although blamed on the bridges, is actually due to poor freeway design through Portland, Oregon, something they remain reluctant to upgrade.

Only recently have some elected officials even questioned the financial effects businesses downtown will incur during the expected 10 years of construction. CRC only replies, “we’ll handle it,” with no indication of how. Increased congestion during construction is also not being addressed.

Indicative of how the project has been managed in the over 10 years it has been wasting our tax dollars, it was only recently revealed that some businesses may be razed to accommodate constructing 3 parking garages where those driving into downtown to catch the light rail component would park their cars “for free” at taxpayer expense, who will also be footing the cost to operate and maintain the light rail as well as construction of it.

That voters declined the expansion of light rail from Portland into our community 3 times now, once directly and twice indirectly, had no affect on elected official who simply ignored the voters’ voices and approved it on their own.

The Alaska Bridge to Nowhere came under congressional fire and the federal earmarks to pay the bulk of it were cancelled in 2005. It was used as political tool to bludgeon 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin over the head with.

Other than half-hearted tries to bring the light rail component to a vote, most likely within a gerrymandered sub-district instead of the whole county, it remains primarily citizens and taxpayers screaming over financial hardships this project will place on the backs of everyday citizens in Clark County.

How else can we really describe this project except as a “Bridge to Bankruptcy?”