I've read articles from a multitude of sources, sought out trusted endorsements, discussed the issue with colleagues I respect in the environmental sector, read the voters guide, and even browsed comments on forums such as this --and yet Measure Q eludes me, as it has for the past 10 or so years (at which time it had already been going on for as long) in its various manifestations.

Any hope of an "issues based" campaign --for or against-- has consistently devolved into convoluted arguments that are so elaborately bizarre that the most logical conclusion seems to be that this massive brainfuck is being engineered. No voter education is actually happening, no ongoing discussion occurs, no new information is introduced. Instead the same four or five bullet-points are being fought over to the point that the information is rendered meaningless. The only thing voters can count on is that if one group says it, the other will contest it. And though it should go without saying, it clearly isn't being said that arguments both for and against are weak--at best.

This begs the question, why is no one talking about what the "issues" actually implicate? Does anyone else find it questionable that this entire campaign is SPECULATIVE? For instance, the against groups say that a big concern is the partnership with corporate mining that would essentially enable environmental degradation; the for groups say that commercial trains are already available and this has been a non-issue so the likelihood of it becoming an issue is negligible. But all I ever read about are these two arguments are the arguments themselves regurgitated over and over again. There's no information available from either "side" that speaks to the likelihood of this reality and why voters should or shouldn't be concerned about it.

It’s like saying “a vote for the train is a vote for gravel mining” when actually a vote for the train is a vote for…the train. (Or “a vote for the train is a vote for urban sprawl” or “a vote for the train is a vote for budget deficit”) So why isn’t anyone talking about the train?

The entire campaign is comprised of people arguing over the issues instead of about them, not to mention the complete lack of space to have a real discussion. A great microcosm is right here on the Wacco board: instead of actually discussing the pros and cons in response to the perfectly legit question of what personal reasons individuals are using to chose to support/not support Q the conversation quickly turned into an ignorant referendum on "bike nazis" and in turn who and what constitutes nazi. Disgusting? Absolutely, vomit and all. But also about as relevant to the Measure Q debate as anything available in the local media.

Personally, I am conflicted on the issue and want to understand it to make an informed decision. In order to do this, the tug-of-war over "facts" & "stats" needs to stop...this whole thing genuinely feels like a scenario out of How to Lie with Statistics...and I'm not just talking about the Wacco board. Hearing repeatedly how much money has been poured into SMART to date that could have gone into busses does nothing to help voters…vote.

So this is an invitation to those interested in discussing the issues as what they are --complex, multifaceted, logical.

The alternative transportation issue doesn’t stop at Measure Q. Let’s talk about the “big picture” –if it passes, what are essential infrastructures that need to be present? If it doesn’t pass, what are more viable alternatives?

Thanks!