Rebuttals to the bridge statements

Yesterday I posted the pro and con statements for the third bridge that will be in the voters guide – but I didn’t include the rebuttal statements. Of course there are rebuttal statements. And here they are:

Rebuttal to the statement for the bridge: “People who say this third bridge is a viable option are either delusional or deceptive, or both.”

Rebuttal to the statement against the bridge: “Son, we live in a world that has bridges. And those bridges have to be built by men with vision. Who’s gonna do it? You, Paul Dennis? You, Jack Burkman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the Columbia River Crossing and you curse Don Benton. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the CRC’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that bridge. You need me on that bridge. We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very critical infrastructure I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.”

Just kidding, and apologies to Aaron Sorkin. Here are the real rebuttal statements:

Rebuttal to ‘Statement for’:

The “Statement for” is filled with false, misleading information. It’s a sales pitch filled with generalities and ‘promises’ that can’t be honored.

There’s no “beautiful environmentally sound design” – only a few incomplete artist drawings. Any financial firm can lend money, but we pay for it – plus interest and profit.

Approving this advisory vote takes the power out of citizens’ hands and says Commissioners don’t need to give you real facts and information.

Vote NO!

Rebuttal to ‘Statement against’

These same defeatist arguments were made against our toll-free I-205.  They claim we can’t afford this, so build the much more expensive CRC.

The billions paid in annual state gas taxes for our roads can build this bridge like they did for our I-205.

The naysayers fear that this project will be too successful and carry too much traffic.  Your participation is key to our community’s success.

For full design and financial plans, see

Stephanie Rice

Stephanie Rice

I cover Vancouver city government. Reach me at or 360-735-4508.

Scroll to top