Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Jan Angel misleads on bridge tolls

Letter by Beth A. Wilson, Olalla on July 19, 2010 at 10:02 am with 5 Comments »
July 20, 2010 8:57 am

As the campaign season gets under way. 26th District state Rep. Jan Angel asserts that she has kept bridge tolls low. I cross the Tacoma Narrows Bridge every day to get to work, so this issue is very important to me.

If the issue of keeping tools low was so important to her, I wonder why Angel did not attended the Transportation Commission town hall meeting in Gig Harbor where the commission proposed an 18 percent increase. That increase would take my annual toll budget to $780, an amount that really hurts a working woman like me.

State Sen. Derek Kilmer and state Rep. Larry Seaquist sponsored legislation that would keep the tolls where they are. Although their legislation passed, Angel voted against it. Yet she has the audacity to take credit for helping keep the tolls low.

I think we have the right to expect our elected officials to tell us the truth. Angel does not meet that standard. I hope we replace her in the coming election.

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. I just say “no” to crossing the bridge.

  2. aisackson says:

    After calling Jan and asking her about the issue (maybe you should have done the same thing Beth) I would like to make some clarifications to your ridiculous attack.

    First, foremost and most importantly Jan is unequivocally against increasing the toll on the bridge (so it seems you’re the person attempting to mislead the citizens of this district by implying that she supports toll increases. For those of us familiar with Beth Wilson she has a history of writing hit pieces against Jan so it’s obvious why she didn’t ask Jan for clarification – shes a far left loon with a bone to pick not someone with legitimate grievances.)

    In addition Jan did attend a forum on these issues in Kitsap (one where Kilmer wasn’t present and Seaquist left early)

    On the issue of the bill in question (I’m trying to look up the bill right now – why didn’t you post the number of the bill in question? ) Jan recalls a bill that she believes is the one in question that she opposed for the reason that she objected to some of the other changes outlined in the bill including the photographing of license plates, and the elimination of the booths to be replaced by billing by mail etc.

    In short don’t make bogus claims that Jan supports toll increases on the basis of a vote against a bill where numerous changes are proposed.

  3. george14017 says:

    Actually, each fact stated by Beth is truthful. The Bill she refers to is ESSB 6499 and Jan Angel did vote NO, along with 41 others. Although Jan Angel did have her reasons for voting NO, her vote in this matter and many others were part of a voting block of Republicans. She can be counted on voting the party line, unlike Seaquist and Kilmer who closely vote the interests of their district rather than the party line.

  4. I think Beth is right on the mark. Not only did Jan Angel vote against ESSB 6499, but she did not even bother to examine what the Bill actually does.

    It passed, so we can see its effects. It does not and never did intend to eliminate toll booths (see: aisackson, preceding). It did not initiate photographing of license plates, as that was done from the day the bridge opened.

    What it does is to allow an eighty day grace period for people to pay their toll and an administrative fee without going through the Washington State Patrol or courts system and applies those tolls and fees to paying down DOT bridge loans.

    This is just the kind of win-win that Sen. Derek Kilmer and Rep. Larry Seaquist apply to their sponsored Bills. Not only do we get lower tolls, today, by keeping tolling and fees within bridge administration, but we get lower tolls, tomorrow, with a faster pay-down of bridge loans.

    The pity here is not just that Ms. Angel voted against this win-win Bill but also that she seems to not even understand it.

  5. Regardless of what people think,the tolls on the Narrows Bridge will never go down! The tolling structure was designed to increase tolls up to the time the bridge was paid off.If I remember right,that would be in 40 years.What makes you think tolls would end then? The Politicians would have a never ending supply of dollars for their desired projects and you never will see the end of tolls on the Narrows Bridge! There will be an EMERGENCY or some reason to keep the tolls in force until the bridge collapses and then its time to start the scenerio all over again! If the voters had not put in the clause that when the first bridge was paid for,The Tolls CEASED,otherwise,we would still be paying Bridge tolls,Both Ways!!!

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0