At some point in Clark County’s continuing consternation over bridges, a healthy dose of reality is going to be necessary. Advisory Vote No. 1 — which would support an east county bridge — is an opportunity for voters to deliver that reality.
The Columbian recommends a “no” vote on the proposal, which we believe is unrealistic to the point of absurdity. As always, this is merely a recommendation. We suggest that voters weigh all the factors involved and determine whether the idea is a sensible use of time and money before casting their ballot.
On its face, the advisory vote is an enticing gift from the land of unicorns and stardust. It asks whether the county commissioners should support and pursue a toll-free east county bridge over the Columbia River, a bridge that has been unilaterally proposed by county Commissioner David Madore.
Another bridge? Without tolls? Who could oppose such a thing? Most citizens, we believe, would agree that more bridges across the Columbia are needed to ease traffic congestion and enhance the flow of commerce. But Madore’s proposal would do neither. The plan is for a four-lane bridge from Airport Way in Portland to 192nd Avenue in Vancouver — with neither terminus being remotely capable of handling the traffic. As the Voters’ Pamphlet statement against the proposal notes, “This is like having a bridge end in the middle of East Mill Plain. There will be traffic gridlock at both ends of the bridge.”
Madore insists the bridge would be devoid of tolls, yet no funding mechanism has been developed. And he engaged a Florida-based bridge-design company to devise a plan, yet there is no demonstrated interest from the state of Washington, the state of Oregon, the city of Vancouver, TriMet, Metro, C-Tran, or any other interested party. That, perhaps, is the most important factor — none of the stakeholders have indicated that they think this plan is workable or valuable. The lack of thought that went into the proposal is evident by the fact that Madore initially did not realize that 192nd Avenue is in Vancouver — a reality that, by itself, reduces the chances of the bridge being built to somewhere between nil and none.
All of that demonstrates the conniving brilliance of Madore’s plan. He comes up with an unworkable proposal, gets a nonbinding vote placed on the ballot, and puts himself in a can’t-lose situation. If the vote is approved, then when the plan goes nowhere he can blame other politicians and bureaucrats for subverting the will of the people. If the measure is voted down, he can drop the proposal and claim that he listens to the public — although the county commissioners somewhat ignored a previous advisory vote regarding the use of fireworks.
Advisory votes can be useful. They can help leaders take the pulse of the public and can provide direction at the behest of the people. But some modicum of reality must be required. Asking whether county commissioners should pursue this east county bridge is akin to asking whether they should try to get the Green Bay Packers to move to Vancouver; whether they should lure the Guggenheim to the area; whether Clark County should build a unicorn farm.
The advisory vote amounts to an idea that might sound good on the surface, but any in-depth examination exposes the shortcomings and the fantastical nature of the proposal. In the interest of saving time and money, it should be rejected by voters.
