Last week’s city council hearing on the Columbia River Crossing was painful.
For starters, 79—yes, 79!—people testified in detail about a new bridge on I-5, with the majority of people urging the council to reject the proposal in front of them. That proposal—which calls for up to 12 lanes of traffic, plus light rail and bike/pedestrian facilities (read more about it in the story “A Better Bridge”)—was bashed for a few solid hours.
“I don’t believe you have a viable option in front of you,” said folks like Bill Scott of Zipcar, who pointed out problems like the big bridge’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and the $4.2 billion price tag when the region has other needs.
Meanwhile, the mayor’s office received over 1,100 emails from people who wanted to weigh in on the crossing. According to the mayor’s public advocate, 95 percent of those who chimed in urged the council to vote against the current proposal.
In the end, the council made a unanimous decision—they voted in favor of the bridge proposal.
Huh? Wait a sec—aren’t these guys supposed to represent us?
One thing was crystal clear at the July 9 hearing: The council members take the first part of their “elected representative” title far more seriously than the second part, and made what they felt was the politically astute decision. The elected leaders’ logic? Approving the flawed proposal and attaching a long list of stipulations—plus having faith that the Oregon Department of Transportation will let Portland have a continued say in the project—was a smarter move than putting the city’s foot down, and forcing the project back to square one. As Commissioner Sam Adams explained, the “raw material exists” to craft a great project… eventually.
I sure hope he’s right.
Before the Columbia Crossing hearing, the council dealt with another contentious and tedious issue: whether to impose a tighter deadline on council paperwork. Right now, the council members can file an ordinance by the end of the day on a Thursday, for the next Wednesday’s meeting. But Auditor Gary Blackmer came to the council to request an extra day, so his staff has time to post documents online.
The council, led by Commissioner Randy Leonard, balked, complaining that Blackmer’s presentation to the council that day was “the first time I’ve heard” about the problem. “I think there’s a better way to approach this than just you developing a solution and coming in here,” Leonard said.
But Blackmer—the sixth elected representative at city hall—told the council he tries to talk to them about issues in his office, but is rebuffed.
“I’ve been waiting three or four weeks to see the mayor, three weeks with Commissioner Adams. Other things come up that are higher priority. That’s what I face with you: ‘Get in line.‘ My items tend to be low priority,” Blackmer said. Making matters worse, he’s been uninvited from the weekly “execs” meeting, where the council members’ chiefs of staff gather to hash out upcoming issues.
Ultimately, the council opted to hold Blackmer’s proposal for a few weeks—which should be plenty of time for the whole gang to kiss and make up.
Who is Rex Burkholder?
He is a so-called advocate for sustainability and the head of too many good-looking organizations, among his seat in Metro. But who does he really represent?
From today’s Oregonian:
“Liberty and Hosticka voiced a withering critique. The project’s unanswered questions make it a “pig in a poke,” Hosticka said. With dwindling federal and state money for transportation, it might not ever be built, Liberty said. Worse, it could sap resources from projects of more intense local concern, Liberty added.
But bridge planners included a supplemental bridge option at Liberty’s request a year ago, Councilor Rex Burkholder responded. The council bears responsibility for a traffic bottleneck that’s a national priority, he said.
“It would be great if we could say, ‘Let’s shirk it because we have some questions,'” Burkholder said. “No one really wants to believe that we have to go ask this kind of contribution from our citizens to replace something that’s this expensive … This is a hard thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do.”
What?
This is a quote from him from 4/27/07 Daily Journal of Commerce:
DJC: How is this investment strategy different from those used in the past?
Burkholder: The real shift we see going on is that, traditionally, transportation planning has been, “Where’s the traffic? OK, let’s throw some money there.” And what we’ve found is that as you get bigger highways you create more traffic. … We’ve spent trillions over the last 50 years building roads without thinking what the outcome is that we want. So what we have is a lot of roads but not necessarily well-built cities that provide those opportunities.
PLEASE expose this man, and the REST of the crooks on the PAYROLL AGAINST THE PEOPLE