That's because "tens of thousands of jobs" are at stake, at least as defined by the guys at 1Si who endorsed him, and we all must make do with less, and without raising taxes, unless of course we have to pay more for a $4 billion boondoggle than we have the resources to finance, and in that case we'd best wait until after the election to find out how taxes/tolls will be increased for the bridge ... how unspeakably, predictably dreary it is.
Note that opponent Shane Gibson's answers to the questions posed by the Tribune are at the same link. Looks like it is Gibson yard sign time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I'll address specific deficiencies later in the week, but I'm still scratching my head as to why it took Clere so long to come up with that bunch of bullshit. He managed to perpetuate several Bridges Coalition myths while not actually answering the question. It looks like Kerry Stemler's campaign contribution was well spent.
Is anyone else fascinated (or disturbed) by this juxtaposition where Republicans, the ones who always talk about giving Americans more of their money back, the ones who rail against bloated government projects that we can't afford would now be the ones saying "Hey, we can't afford this, but let's take money out of the pockets of hardworking people so that we can get our project completed".
Yes, bayernfan, that's been striking me repeatedly of late. How is it the alleged "tax and spend libruls" are the ones banging the drum for fiscal responsibility on this project while the alleged party of "small government" and "fiscal conservatives" are all for it??
Mr. Clere has a lot of nerve speaking of cheap political points. Not that he is the only one but, please, at least own up to what your own party did.
I'll say it again, if he was as nice and good a guy as some you told me two years ago, the past two years have ruined him.
Ed is still as nice and as good as a guy as he was two years ago. The only difference is his perspectives and approaches are different than others on this blog. Are they right/wrong compared to someone like Jeff's? Yes and No. I think like most issues there can be more then one right answer.
The hypocrisy runs deep here, that is what fascinates me.
There are perspectives and approaches and then there are facts. Ed often runs afoul of facts.
Here's one from today's response:
"Politicians have failed for decades to build the bridges..."
There has been neither a plan nor an expressed desire to "build the bridges" in existence for decades for politicians to support or not support.
The two bridges - Spaghetti Junction expansion - one project approach ("the bridges") is fairly recent. An additional downtown bridge was not even a part of the conversation until 1994 and the current approach wasn't adopted until July, 2002.
Given the facts, it's my perspective that Clere, like so many other ORBP cheerleaders, attempts to tie the long held and well documented desire for an East End Bridge to the current much larger and more difficult to fund proposal as an approach toward creating the illusion that we must build both bridges to get the one a majority actually want. That is not factually true, either. We have a choice.
A good guy answers questions from his constituents. A good guy most definitely does not delete those questions, trying to hide the fact that he won't answer them. Whether I like Ed or if he likes me should not matter. I've never met the man, so I can't say that I don't like him. I can say that I don't like him as my Representative if he is going to pull those kind of stunts.
Of course, wanting a Representative that actually will answer a question and act in an honorable way is my "approach". Your mileage may vary.
In the most recent State of Affairs interveiw Mayor Amberson said that even with the East End Bridge built multiple traffic models still shows the Kennedy bridge over compasity. The figures were that the Kennedy is at 70% over compasity and the East End Bridge would only alifeate 20% of that. The Kennedy would still be 50% over compasity.
I have been driving long enough to know that the traffic on 65 from 1994 to 2002 has changed drasticly.
Like Clere, Abramson isn't a reliable source of information.
In reference to 8664, for instance, Abramson said the federal government would never allow a downtown interstate to be torn down. That was several years after Oklahoma City had received a federal Record of Decision giving them permission to tear down a downtown interstate, realign a portion of it, and build a parkway in its original location to open their downtown business district up to the river.
But what does Abramson have to do with Clere's faulty claims and refusals to answer questions?
If you want me to comment directly on Abramson's claims, I'll need to know the broadcast date (if it's archived online) or which particular study he referred to.
I've crossed them every working day for over 25 years.
In the morning, just look at the number of trucks that are exiting onto 64 east from southbound 65. You think they are all getting off at Story Ave?
If this is a 50 year solution as has been stated, doesn't it make sense to first finish the EE bridge and then actually see what happens? If the EE bridge doesn't do enough, there would still be plenty of time to finish the 2nd bridge well before 50 years. IF we build both now, those extra billions for the downtown bridge are gone forever, whether we actually needed to spend them or not. Not good economic sense in any way shape or form. This smells to high heaven.
But what does Abramson have to do with Clere's faulty claims and refusals to answer questions?
You're the one that started to talk about the ORBP.
http://www.wfpl.org/2010/08/16/ask-the-mayor-7/
He makes the statement at 42:30
The percentages where made by Heiner in his interview with State of Affairs.
"Politicians have failed for decades to build the bridges..."
How is this incorrect, have the bridges been built? The original design incorporated an East End Bridge. Whose responsibility is it to have built the bridge but our representatives?
To say Ed is afoul is a little much. Is he overstating his position? What politician doesn’t?
I can't speak for Ed but neither of us are running his campaign. It is up to him to answer questions as he sees fit. I'll need to ask him before I can make a judgement on his refusal to do so. I agree with his answer to the Tribune in a way.
"How is this incorrect..."
A decade is ten years. The number of years between 2002 and 2010 is less than ten and certainly less than multiples of ten.
Come on. You are going to say Ed is afoul for saying bridges and decades?
Today's State of Affairs was a good one too. Galligan, England, and Isgrigg all interviewed about the perspective on ORBP.
"Come on. You are going to say Ed is afoul for saying bridges and decades?"
Yes. It's a strategic pattern and has been since the Bridges Coalition began.
In one of if not the first Coalition promo video, Tom Galligan said he first heard of the bridges project when he was a teenager. Michael Dalby said in a press release earlier this year that any changes to the plan would require re-starting the clock and waiting another 30 years like what ORBP has been through. Sandra Frazier just said a couple days ago that “This is a project that’s been around for 41 years". Clere says bridges and decades.
None of those statements are true nor are they random coincidence.
I see, I guess I can differiciate what they are trying to say from what is being said.
I quess we need linguistic analysis.
Jameson,
Sorry, Ed's an elected State Representative. We are his constituents. He may be a candidate running for re-election but he is still the Representative. Questions were asked on his FB page that is titled "State Representative Ed Clere". Not "Candidate Ed Clere". And not posted on his personal page. There is a difference.
Since you have Ed's ear, when you are asking him, don't forget the act of deletion.
Anxiously awaiting,
Mark
I'm not disagreeing with you about wanting a response from Ed or any elected Rep on any question.
I can't explain the reason he didn't answer on his Face Book Page. Roger seems to think it is because others are telling him what to do.
I'm glad that you are able to ask him. Really. Nobody else can seem to get an answer. Hopefully you will have success. Maybe you could arrange a sit down with him. I'll buy the beer or coffee or iced tea or soft drinks.
I can't explain the reason he didn't answer on his Face Book Page. Roger seems to think it is because others are telling him what to do.
Only in part. I believe the muzzling was prompted by several factors drawn from this list:
(1) The requirements of being an ideological sycophant of St. Daniels, whose career rise surely must tempt those with ambition to latch on for the ride.
(2) Annoyance at me for resisting presumably patient attempts to proselytize (find common ground, or something like that) as per the preceding.
(3) Nixonian paranoia, in the sense that assuming my question represented ulterior motives, when it did not.
(4) Pure calculation. It was useful in 2008 to have a few token progressives on the bandwagon, and now it is not necessary, because the populist anger that Ed cultivates for property tax amendment purposes (and decries when it comes to tolls) should be enough to win.
The ironic aspect to me is that I always warned of the ideological gulf between us, and made my own genuine efforts to compromise. How many times did I take hits for doing so?
And yet, in the end, it's all or nothing with an ideologue. I would not convert, and was made an example of as a result.
While flattering in a way, I find that regrettable, and it saddens me very much. That's the truth.
As a transplant to IN from Louisville I remember the original build the bridge talks. I was a junior at U of L (1992)when I took political science 390, which was a course where we used computer-generated data to come up with arguments for or against civil projects.
The last project we had was to decide if we need an east end or downtown bridge. We crunched the numbers made up of data from the City-County governments as well as those involved in the bridge study. We came up with the decision that only an east end bridge needed to be built. This, again, was back in 1992 - almost 20 years ago.
The last I checked, the east end has grown exponentially since then as well as the downtown has gone through a renaissance. People are open to downtown living and reinvesting in our historic neighborhoods. An east end only bridge would move heavy traffic from downtown and move it closer to where it needs to be. As one person already stated, those trucks going I64 E are not getting off at Story, unless they are full of piggies.
As far as problems with interstate congestion on the existing bridges... I sell New Albany to Louisvillians base on my lovely 15 minute commute on most days. It takes me longer to get through downtown New Albany than it does to cross the river. On the way home, I64 W is wide open. We're talking getting on the road at 7:30AM and home on the interstate at 5:45PM and I take kiddo to a daycare in Clifton and work in S Louisville. I do alot of highway travelling each day and have only had issues when there is a big accident or a jumper on the bridge; which, thankfully, don't happen every day.
My thought is along the lines as all the rest of you have stated. Tolls are an unncessary tax on users and electronic tolling is not fool-proof. They just had a notice from Munster, IN in yesterday's Courier that they are collecting back tolls on citizens using the toll road up north due to the electronic/transponder not working accurately and the license tag camera is not working with the IN license tag?? People are being hit with THOUSANDS of dollars worth of tolls, although, since the tolling authority screwed up, they are not collecting the fines. Mighty generous of them. The link to the article is below: http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=76557.
I'm old enough to remember when the East End Bridge was just a twinkle in Gene Synder's eye.
As Jeff has stated, there is no reason to discuss the downtown boondoggle, or tolls, as part of the 50 year discussion between "the people of the region" and about 10 families over when "the people of the region" would be allowed by the aristocracy to proceed with their dreary roadbuilding (in their back yards!).
I also enjoy the pretzel logic Gov Daniels spear carriers have heave to convince themselves they are against more taxes, but for more taxes too. These guys deserve whatever they get paid to do this nasty political ground work. Give Ed a break, it must be exhausting.
You mean the river fields where Sandra Frazier played with the rest of the Brown family children as a youngster?
Most people in Indiana have no idea how deep those connections run and I'm still learning.
Most people in Indiana don't know how deep the connections in Indiana run, much less Kentucky...
I think Jeff you will want to hear this.
Today on State of Affairs Democratic Candidate for Mayor Greg Fisher went afoul when he stated:
"when the project[ORBP] was originally put on the plate some 41 years ago, in an expedited fashion there was going to be a lot of federal money for the bridges"
Democratic Candidate Fisher has now gone afoul like Ed. The only difference Fisher actually has some impact on the issue, because if elected, he will be able to appoint members of the committee overseeing the project.
Listen to the conversation today at http://www.wfpl.org/2010/10/11/mayoral-candidate-greg-fischer/
Comments made at 43:00
Fischer has been caught lying so many times in his mayoral campaign it's pathetic.
Whoever gets elected to the Indiana state legislature will have an impact, too. They'll have to vote on whatever bridges finance package the bi-state authority sends them.
Mark, I'm not that close to Ed. I do know(think) if you called him he would be more then willing to talk. If it comes up the next time, I speak with him, I'll ask.
As for Republicans "supporting tolls"
I think that Republicans see the ORBP as an investment that will help facilitate business and therefore job growth thereby reducing the overall tax burden.
Are you trying to score cheap political points or just being cynical for free?
neither
That's fine if they want to facilitate business, but they should be able to support their assertion that we need $4.1 billion dollars worth of infrastructure to do that. Studies show the East End bridge provides 99% of the return on investment, and the downtown bridge provides only a further 1%. For people calling themselves "fiscal conservatives" they can't bang the drum for a 1% return on investment without hypocrisy when they'd otherwise be calling for less government spending and waste.
What about the “over capacity” point local politicians make when it comes to the Kennedy?
Is the downtown bridge a safety issue?
Which I haven't heard anyone make.
Is a downtown interstate bridge and massive Spaghetti Junction the most cost effective way to add capacity? No.
Is it the safest? No.
ORBP asks us to spend the most money on the least effective approach. Unfortunately, cheerleaders of that project continue to insist that it's the only thing we can do and refuse to consider any alternatives, while telling us horror stories about what will happen if we don't do it.
Clere questions none of that while suggesting that legitimate concern about tolls is a scare tactic. That's hypocritical, to say the least.
If Ed believes that the ORBP is needed and the alternatives aren’t good alternatives then he’s not being hypocritical.
I don’t think it’s wrong for candidates to say he/she are for or against tolls, and I don’t think Ed response is wrong either. I can, however, see Mark’s and others complaints for not receiving an answer.
If the alternatives are worthy of consideration then why aren't they being considered or forced by the public to be considered. The public has become alive with the issue of tolls, but no cry for major alternative plans.
One of Jackie Green's major components to his platform is transportation. In my opinion he has received a fair share of coverage during the election, and it can be argued more then most candidates polling at his levels, but his message doesn’t resonate with pollers(voters).
8664 has been around for some years now, and it hasn't gained the support needed from the public to make it an alternative consideration.
If Ed or anyone truly believes that both bridges and the restructuring of the junction is the only good way to go, fine. Say so. I respect a lot of people that I often don't agree with. But be ready to prove it to me and to defend the huge amount of money that it will cost(and defend being a fiscal conservative if that it is what you normally preach). Be ready to defend that tolls may have to be be placed on existing(and already paid for)bridges and roadways because of the high cost. And, if you are running for office, have the courage to do it before the election.
Don't comment on someones FB page that their facts are wrong and then never answer when asked "which facts?". Jerry Finn(Bridges board member)is the guilty party. Don't look at me with a blank face when asked about the Kentucky Transportation study when you are member of the board. Don't tell me that you will look into it and then never get back to us. Same board member. We already know what Ed did and didn't do. We know Dalby prefers to call alternative thinking "delusional" with no back up to his reasoning. Co-Chair Stemler has already stated that the public will be given a chance to speak--but it won't do any good. Not going to change the plan and tolling in some form will be a part of it. Hell, he might be the most honest one, now that I think about it.
Is it any wonder why so many think the fix is in? "They" are hiding.
Jameson,
The support is for the East End bridge to be built ASAP. Not two bridges and the huge dollars it will take. And, like you pointed out, the support isn't there either for doing away with 64 along the river. That was marketed so wrong, beginning with the name, 8664. Scared(and still scares)the heck out of people. I believe the supporters have even backed off from that portion of their plan--for now.
One of my concerns is what impact will the Eastend Bridge have on the west end of Louisville's MSA. Will the city continue to grow to the east leaving the west to decline.
There has been a lot of talk about the impact the bridges will have on Louisville's future and how they are needed for growth. I don't know if I would want that level of change certain leader envision without a clear plan.
On WFPL they are asking for the next big great idea to change Louisville. I like Louisville and don't really see the need for a great big idea to change the city. Would I like to see certain changes? Yea, but I been to worse cities and Louisville isn't on my list.
Post a Comment