Hope springs eternal! It's not too late to connect the dots...
 |
| "We need a bridge because we need a bridge" |
 |
| This is what our "preparedness" looks like |
 |
| We're nowhere close to being ready in any real way |
 |
| On a carbon tax |
 |
| On Civil Unrest, War, and Climate Change |
 |
| Snowpack, skiing, and climate change |
(As for genetics, the DNA on the Third Bridge has already been to Hanford: It's more like a case of garbage-in, garbage-out!
 |
| 2006 Purpose and Need Statement |
The "Purpose and Need" statement basically already presupposes the need for a third bridge. Notice how it slides from "improve mobility and safety for people" to "improve..mobility and safety for passenger vehicles." A dispassionate "purpose and need" that properly accounted for climate change, the big earthquake, changing mobility patterns in the 21st century, and such, would yield a different public process and a very different "preferred alternative."
 |
| No Consensus |
If the there was a clear solution to the 2006 "purpose and need" the final Task Force voting in 2012 would have showed a clear preference and "no build" would not have attracted such support. Additionally, neighborhood associations who voted on it overwhelmingly endorsed "no build.")
Late add:
The SJ has seemingly joined the bandwagon on deleting comments on the Third Bridge!
 |
| There were 7 yesterday... |
There were seven other comments, largely critical of the bridge, yesterday! But they appear to have been deleted. On a private FB page that's one thing, but on a newspaper supposedly committed to debate and dissent? Not so good.
4 comments:
Not exactly sure if this is a story or not. But the column was posted originally on the 27th (that's at least the date of the first url in my browser history) and it attracted at least seven comments via the FB plug-in. They were mostly critical, it might be relevant to note.
On the 28th the column was reposted with a new url and all the social media on the first posting - comments, tweet counter, and FB connect counter - were lost.
This could be an innocent accident...or it could be more nefarious!
It's hard not to conclude, from the tone of all S-J's opinions on the "essential" third bridge, that some squelching might have occurred.
I hate their tone on this topic a lot, actually; it's condescending, a little snarky, and dismissive of perfectly legitimate questions regarding this enormously expensive and intrusive bridge.
The S-J and the local power brokers don't seem to live in the "same Salem" as everyone else. Wish they loved pedestrians and bikes even a third as much as they seem to love cars.
Hinessight is on the deletion!
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2014/12/statesman-journal-deletes-comments-critical-of-third-bridge-and-itself.html
Though since facebook and twitter referral counts, which Gannett must use as metrics, were also deleted, in addition to the comments themselves, I suspect this is less about deliberate deletion and more about carelessness, inattention, and indifference. (And a dash of cynicism.)
As for loving cars. Advertising! Aren't the car ad accounts one of the few large sources of print classifieds still? There's an institutional reason for their preference and bias.
Yeah, I think you're right about car advertising dollars. Print in peril is not going to pass or piss on that revenue stream. It will be interesting to hear what the SJ has to say once they come up with a reason - if they ever do - for the deletions/loss.
Post a Comment