Vote No on Clark County Commissioners' Advisory Vote #2!

On August 6, 2013, Clark County Commissioners approved an "advisory vote" for Bus Rapid Transit for the November 5 ballot.  This advisory vote states:   "Should the Clark County Board of Commissioners approve proposed Resolution 2013-07-19 which opposes every Bus Rapid Transit project in Clark County unless it is first supported by a majority of the voters in a county-wide advisory vote of the people?


So, let's ask ourselves a couple of questions:

1. Why single out BRT for advisory votes?  Why not vote on highway, bike lane, sidewalk, or even paving projects?

Here at BRT central we just don't get it.  We (being us supporters as well as C-TRAN staff) have created a strong business case for the Fourth Plain BRT project.  It will only be built with 80% of the funds coming from the federal government.  The local match (the remaining 20%) can be paid out of grant money and C-TRAN's existing reserve funds.  When completed, it will save C-TRAN almost $900,000 a year in operating costs on the corridor which can be reinvested in service elsewhere in C-TRAN's system.  All of this can be done with existing tax dollars; no new taxes required!

Construction work will employ over 200 local jobs, giving our local economy a boost.  Station area and other improvements are an investment of almost $40 million in infrastructure along the corridor.  BRT has been proven to attract economic development and with it, family wage jobs.  The transit improvements provide long-term (20 years or more) of transit capacity, which means we don't need to keep coming back every couple of years and adding buses, rebuilding broken shelters, etc.  And a major safety and security improvement in a corridor desperate for something to attack the crime problems occurring along the corridor.

There are many transportation projects that cost much more than the Fourth Plain BRT project:  West Vancouver Freight Access Project ($275 million), Salmon Creek Interchange Project ($133 million), SR 14 corridor improvements in Camas and Washougal ($100 million), I-205 improvements from Mill Plain to Burton Road (almost $100 million), and others.  Why don't the County Commissioners want advisory votes on these projects?  Other than the Freight Access Project, none of these other projects provide a cost savings of $900,000 a year.  The BRT return on investment is unmatched.

Here's something else to consider: the local funding needed for BRT, $6 million, is the same amount of money the County spends each year on ... pothole repair!  So, we should request an advisory vote on pothole repair, right?

The only thing we can figure is that two of the county commissioners are philosophically opposed to any mass transit project.  Fair enough.  Why not just come out and say that, instead of pretending they are listening to the people?  Why don't they just make those decisions at the C-TRAN Board meeting, like we elect (and pay) them to do?  Why are they wasting our precious tax dollars on wasteful advisory votes?  And what happens if the majority of "the people" actually do vote down Advisory Vote #2 - will Commissioners Madore and Mielke respect "the vote of the people"?

Let's find out!  
Just vote NO on Clark County Advisory Vote #2!

2. The County recently cut its popular Watershed Stewards program to save money.  Couldn't they have used the $107,000 cost of these advisory votes to pay for the Watershed Stewards?

Yes.  Even though the Watershed Stewards program was funded out of the County's Clean Water Program, the County Commissioners could have chosen to spend General Fund money, the same fund paying for these advisory votes, to cover the cost of the Watershed Stewards program.  They chose instead to fund six advisory, non-binding votes.  So instead of funding a program made up mostly of volunteers to help make our water clean, we get advisory votes.  So ask yourself - what future important and popular programs will be cut when the commissioners decide to do more non-binding advisory votes rather than do what we're already paying them to do, make decisions?

3. What is Resolution 2013-07-19 anyway?

There are two resolutions at play here.  Resolution 2013-07-20, approved by the Commissioners, put the advisory vote on the ballot with a bunch of "Because" statements.  Essentially we are spending thousands of dollars on advisory votes (money that could be going to law enforcement, keeping up parks, maintaining our roads, protecting our quality of life) because why?  Well, "Because".  Anyway, the advisory vote is whether or not the commissioners should adopt Resolution 2013-07-19, which opposes Bus Rapid Transit unless every single BRT project is approved by a majority of "the people" in a countywide advisory vote.  Nevermind if the project pays for itself, can be done without raising taxes, and isn't even in the jurisdiction of the county commissioners anyway (the Fourth Plain BRT project is fully contained within the City of Vancouver, with no portion of that project being in unincorporated Clark County).


We are providing our analysis of Resolution 2013-07-19 on a separate web page here.  Look on the set of tabs to the right side of this page and click on "Facts About 2013-07-19".

We trust that when you read through that analysis, you will agree with us that this is a ridiculous advisory vote and the resolution itself is based on mis-statements, exaggerations, and out-of-date information that certain County Commissioners are using to spread fear about, well, enhanced buses.

Please VOTE NO on Clark County Advisory Vote #2.