Columbian criticizes "armchair critics" of bridge project
Columbian editorial page editor John Laird takes on those he calls "armchair critics" when it comes to the Columbia River Crossing project.
That being said, all government projects deserve oversight and scrutiny. (Imagine if we had that the last six years in Congress!) But criticism has to be based on the facts, as best they can be determined.
You can wish for a third bridge, you can pray for a third bridge, you can stand on your head or stamp your feet. There is nowhere to put a third bridge (which would need a new highway) without destroying things that citizens on both sides of the river deem very valuable. We're talking about homes and businesses.
So, as is too sadly often the case, it's time for conservatives to get real. The CRC project will likely go forward sooner or later, and progressives may not find the solutions ideal in all cases.
Many in Portland seem to be asking why on earth they should support a new bridge at all. Whatever solution is decided upon needs to have consensus on both sides of the river. Compromise may be needed. It's called being reasonable.
The armchair quarterbacks, myth spinners and sidewalk superintendents aren't about to go away. For many of them, screaming "No!" is like a hobby. But until they bring 60 experts, 39 local leaders, dozens of public meetings and $50 million in seed money to the debate, they really won't carry a lot of clout.Public process is messy, of course. Part of living in a democracy is that people with crazy ideas can show up and have their say, too. But good on Laird for pointing out that the various myths surrounding this project, which he carefully demolishes, are not particularly helpful in moving things forward.
That being said, all government projects deserve oversight and scrutiny. (Imagine if we had that the last six years in Congress!) But criticism has to be based on the facts, as best they can be determined.
You can wish for a third bridge, you can pray for a third bridge, you can stand on your head or stamp your feet. There is nowhere to put a third bridge (which would need a new highway) without destroying things that citizens on both sides of the river deem very valuable. We're talking about homes and businesses.
So, as is too sadly often the case, it's time for conservatives to get real. The CRC project will likely go forward sooner or later, and progressives may not find the solutions ideal in all cases.
Many in Portland seem to be asking why on earth they should support a new bridge at all. Whatever solution is decided upon needs to have consensus on both sides of the river. Compromise may be needed. It's called being reasonable.
