Democracy for Vancouver

10 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. I would hardly call myself and others associated with d4v “anarchists”. Quite the contrary, I want more government regulation and oversight. I want more regulation of the media, healthcare, campaign finance, corporate monopolization and CEO salaries to name just a few areas.

   I do think light rail is a mistake for our area. It is outdated technology. I think people are too spread out in this county to make it convenient. People will only use it if it’s significantly faster and much cheaper than driving.

   If we can get the casino people to pay for it and make it go all the way to La Center as a condition of turning La Center into Las Vegas, then I’d be all for it.

   I’ll probably never work in Portland. Why should I have to pay for this?

   [Reply]

   1. By bushtool on February 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

2. If you want to cross over to another camp to to build consensus against a common cause, you’d do well not to blast people with pejoratives from your camp (YOU liberals, YOU Anarchists, etc….
   Nothing alienates people like labels.

   Nor is it helpful to deride or speculate about other people’s motives regarding an unrelated issue (“Do not delude yourself into thinking that this project is going to be paid for with Federal Money’ , or some sort of new Peace Dividend’ that is going to be created by the United States withdrawl (sic) from Iraq”).
   Otherwise, it appears that instead of seeking allies, it’s just a means to an end.

   A better tactic would be to simply build on that common bond; that being that the way the city and our local media seem to be in collusion to ram this down our throats - all at our expense.

   I see the lightrail project as an immense handout to the downtown business community, especially Scott Campbell’s soon-to-be business park.

   I’m sure we can all agree that it’s not good for the people of Vancouver and is a poor investment.

   [Reply]

   2. By Blacky on February 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

3. “Anarchists,” how funny! Would that we were! I’m for light rail, MAX, into Vancouver. I don’t drive in Portland, so when riding the Yellow Line, I have to get out on Lombard & ride @6 into downtown Vancouver. In addition to hooking up to the EXPO center, it could hook up to PDX (no mass transit there from Van). The two ends could meet with an east-west route along 4th Plain or Mill Plain. Simple!

   [Reply]

   3. By g. kortes on February 10th, 2007 at 6:27 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

4. Wow, this “I’m not going to use it, so why should I have to pay for it?” question is from the political dark ages. The same is said about schools. “I don’t have kids in school, so why should my taxes pay for education?”

   The answer is that this is supposed to be a society where the common good counts for a lot. I don’t work in Portland, either. But I think dirtier air and traffic jams degrade our quality of life. I don’t have kids in school, but I think having an educated citizenry is pretty important.

   Many of the people who make these arguments are disingenuous because they are too cheap to pay the bill for something that costs money. Good schools are expensive; good public transport is expensive; roads, cops, parks–they all cost money. If you’re too impoverished to pay, that’s one thing; but I think the majority of naysayers are just too damn selfish and cheap.

   [Reply]

   4. By Hank on February 11th, 2007 at 8:29 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

5. Hank,

   You are right my comment may seem selfish on its face. However the “common good” varies from person to person. Also there are limits to how much “common good” we, as citizens, must be expected to bear.

   As Wikipedia points out: In ethics and political science to promote the common good means to benefit members of society. Thus, in essence, helping the common good equates with helping all people, or at least the vast majority of them. In that sense, the term could be synonymous with the general welfare.

   However there is no strict definition of the common good for each situation. The good that is common between person A and person B may not be the same as between person A and person C. Thus the common good can often change, although there are some things such as the basic requirements for staying alive: food, drinking water, shelter that are always good for all people.

   I agree that even though my children no longer use the public education system, I should not expect a credit on my property taxes. However, neither should I expect to pay a premium on my property taxes to properly educate our residents due to incompetence within the system.

   It is my opinion that light rail will only end up being a “common good” to a small number of people in Vancouver and will be a costly mistake for the rest of us.

   [Reply]

   5. By bushtool on February 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

6. Rather than the “welfare” of the people, consider the “common good” of the world in reference to the environment and global warming. We will need to MOVE more and more people. Moving more autos and busses will not cut it due to emmisions. Light rail is the answer.

   [Reply]

   6. By g. kortes on February 11th, 2007 at 10:31 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

7. Just because it uses electricity does not mean it is more environmentally sound. It is my understanding, from reading some studies on the net, that light rail uses gobs of electricity and therefore is substantially more (like several times) more expensive to run per person than buses. The environmental damage from generating the “extra” electricity may be as bad or worse than the pollution or depletion of oil from the buses. I am not an expert on this subject so I may be completely wrong in this analysis.

   Of course, if the electricity is being generated solely from non-polluting windmills, light rail would be the best choice for the environment. But that is not the case.

   [Reply]

   7. By bushtool on February 11th, 2007 at 11:09 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

8. Until we have an expert analysis on electricity vs gas/oil, I’ll assume electricity is less polluting to the environment. They create “electric cars” for less pollution, and mass production can be accomplished as in hybrid cars. How much electricity is used to operate light rail is something that an “expert” needs to tell us.

   [Reply]

   8. By g. kortes on February 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

9. I agree with Hank and Chief entirely. F*** these liberals who want to steal from us again. They are all punks and ethnics who want handouts for everything. Tough breaks in life mean you can’t buy a car . . . too bad. In vancouver we need to separate ourselves and the river does nicely. Not ony do we need to stop trains from coming thrugh, we need minuteman patrols on the north end of the Columbia, as many illegals cross this way.

   [Reply]

   9. By The rightious right on October 27th, 2007 at 10:21 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
   

10. Hey RR

    Get thee to a mental health provider. I detect a personality disorder.

    [Reply]

    10. By arturo on October 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).