Most Recent Comments

It is incumbent on us, that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically in the next decade. This is not on track to happen, and will certainly not happen if we take the way things currently are to be the way things continue to be. Reducing VMT is necessary in this fight. Unfortunately, the proposed design does little to reduce auto travel, estimating a 62% increase in study-area miles we drive over current amounts (Executive Summary, S-21). Shifting modeshare to active transportation and transit is the most effective method of reducing VMT and meeting specific state/regional carbon reduction goals. The entire Environmental Impact Statement hinges on the assumption that IBR's traffic modeling projections were accurate for the past, present and future; however, they clearly have been inflated in order to justify priors and rubber stamp a project which is stuck in a 20th century mindset. The Columbia River Crossing predicted traffic would grow from 130k trips/weekday to 180k in 2025, which clearly did not happen; in fact, traffic growth stayed flat entirely! And now IBR wants us to believe that growth will resume and hit 180k by 2045, despite the total lack of growth even since that prediction was made. We must factor the impact of induced demand into our transportation infrastructure projects, to save the climate.

The Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) study area is approximately a 5-mile section of I-5 between the SR 500/39th Street interchange in Vancouver and the Interstate Avenue/Victory Boulevard interchange in Portland. Section 3.1.2 “Existing Conditions” of the IBR Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) states that “ODOT and WSDOT define congestion as below a certain threshold” and elects to utilize the definition provided by ODOT. This definition is contrary to the criteria provided by Washington State Department of Transportation in Chapter 1410 of the High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities design manual (Design Manual M 22-01.23) regarding High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane design criteria, which state that the facility design “responds to demonstrated congestion or near-term anticipated congestion.” Congestion is further defined within the document as “average speeds less than 30 mph during peak periods over an extended distance.” The Interstate Bridge Program spans nearly five miles, with a majority occurring within Washington state. As a bi-state program, the IBR should adhere to a definition applicable within both states, not just Oregon. Calculate the congestion in the Final SEIS using the WSDOT criteria cited. Chapter 1410 further emphasizes the benefits of separation of HOV facilities, including transit, from other transportation modes. It discourages utilization of existing shoulders for transit citing elevated maintenance costs and decreased transit service reliability as well as traffic enforcement considerations. Section 705 “Roadway and Intersection Design for Transit” within the ODOT Roadway Engineering Section’s Highway Design Manual encourages that Bus Rapid Transit occur in “a dedicated pathway” and “located in the center of the roadway” as opposed to along the shoulder of freeways. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices further recommends barrier-separated HOV lanes to ensure reliable, consistent flow of traffic particularly during peak travel times. Pair active transportation facilities and the bridge multi-use path with transit and adjacent to light-rail service. The grading requirements and limitations required of light rail and active transportation can work in tandem rather than separate. Keeping transit and active transportation adjacent provides safety through regular visual connection between transit operations and people walking, biking, and rolling across the bridge with recourse options during emergency situations and should include adequate lighting to minimize lighting gap deficits. Likewise the active transportation pathway should include an extension into the heart of downtown Vancouver, Washington at Evergreen Boulevard next to the Fort Vancouver Regional Library. This would expand the travel options beyond the spiral required otherwise. Placing transit between active transportation and regular traffic lanes ensures a buffer and noise reductions for people walking, biking, and rolling that must be enhanced with barrier separation from regular travel lanes. Finally, the enormous costs associated with the project and the scale of it need to be right-sized. The second auxiliary lanes being examined are an expense that we cannot afford for the minimal benefits articulated within the Draft SEIS. Instead, the recommendations on tolling from the ODOT Equity and Mobility Advisory Committee should be followed to ensure the replacement bridge would better serve the users of the bridge while remaining financially accessible. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

This project should not extend beyond replacing the bridge and upgrading bike and walking paths to current standards that will finally make them inviting to use. Don't build tight spirals for the paths if you can avoid it! And don't put the path and light rail on opposite sides of the bridge! They need to be on the same side to be attractive for users.

1. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) purpose and need statement: a) I am not accustomed to reading high fantasy in draft supplemental impact statements. However, the antique purpose and need statement, which is old enough to purchase alcoholic beverages in Canada, insists upon a 1.5% increase in vehicles using the crossing each year. This assumption undergirds a host of flaws that percolate throughout this and other documents relating to the IBR project. Rather than continue with this delusional work of fiction, the DSEIS analyses and other models that are part of the planning for this project must – yes, must – reflect a much more realistic rate of change in the number of vehicles crossing each year at this location. Holding onto this assumption could seriously jeopardize any continuing work, as the assumption is verifiably no-where near reality, and incredibly important to how environmental impacts are modeled in the DSEIS. If a challenge is filed under a violation of NEPA, everything will have to be thrown up in the air and all this work performed again anyway. b) Safety and crash rates for motor vehicle crashes are not normalized for severity. As any road engineer might know, a feature of a road may contribute to crash rates. Not all crashes are equal. The FHWA encourages jurisdictions to evaluate risk based on severe crash rates, i.e., crashes that result in a fatality or a serious injury. Sometimes, we can add features to a roadway that can modestly increase crash rates while eliminating or significantly reducing severe crashes. For example, installing a modified two-lane roundabout at an intersection can modestly increase overall crashes while reducing congestion, but also reduce severe crashes by 80% to 100%. Both the section in the purpose and need statement and the comparison of crash experience in 2. DSEIS 2.02 – Components of the Modified Locally-Preferred Alternative: a) I have noted over time that the IBR program neatly elides evaluating any tunnel or immersed tube options for the route under the Columbia River. I feel that this is deeply problematic and needs to be evaluated as one of the options for comparison to elevated bridge options. Analysis of the tunnel/immersed tube options should be included in the DSEIS because of the significant environmental benefits that should be considered and compared to other elevated options, specifically, but not exclusively: improvements in air quality; reduction of noise pollution from the deafening and ceaseless roar from an elevated freeway; improvements to safety for migratory birds; improvements in safety for river navigation; etc. Furthermore, the IBR rejected a buried or immersed tube option based on extremely flawed and inaccurate – or dare I say downright fraudulent – assumption on cost. b) The existing LPA as presented in the DSEIS happens to include ‘shoulder-running’ bus transit facilities. However, buses are very heavy and running them on the edge of a bridge can create significant engineering problems, as we have seen in the Jeanette Williams Memorial (West Seattle) Bridge in Seattle. Creating a pavement-level running light-rail zone on the bridge, as the Tillikum Crossing was designed and currently operates, would allow buses and light rail trains separate and dedicated, heavy infrastructure. c) The insistence on including all existing interchanges with the LPA bridge options all result in massive, disastrous impacts on the local health and well-being of the area’s residents, workers, visitors, travelers, and environment. I cannot believe the tenacity with which, for reasons unknown and unfathomable, the IBR project insists on maintaining all existing interchanges with the increased height of the bridge. These interchanges *already intersect with an existing freeway.* This existing freeway can be used, without major changes, to bring travelers and freight from the extremities near the Columbia River in reverse and transfer them to the new crossing. For example, people using the crossing – whether a bridge, tunnel, or teleportation portal – in vehicles or freight on Hayden Island would connect with the existing freeway under the new bridge and proceed in a southwesterly direction to a SINGLE new interchange south of OR-120, or at OR-120, before heading back northeast into the crossing. Similarly, people using the crossing in Vancouver at WA-14 or even Mill Plain Blvd, hoping to cross to the Oregon side, would use the existing freeway to head northeast before using a single interchange to connect to the crossing and head southwest. The lack of these types of alternatives is a serious deficiency in the DSEIS and shows a sort of inflexibility that is a discredit to the IBR and the engineering and planning professions. 3. The DSEIS 3.10 – Air Quality: This section fails to reasonably anticipate increased transit service and transit service capacity in Clark County and south-western Washington State. Hundreds of millions of dollars each year in funds from the Climate Commitment Act of 2021 are transferred to transit projects and expansion of service. The assumption of 1% increase in capacity revenue hours each year for transit is a poor choice. Increasing this rate of change in transit service to 3% or more would be a better choice. Any sections of the DSEIS including assumptions about transit ridership should also include this higher rate. Combined with dedicated transit space on any crossing (bridge, tunnel, teleportation), this higher rate would lead to more significant improvements in air quality compared to the no-build alternative.

The flawed traffic forecasts used by the IBR project are based on misguided assumptions about future travel demand. By exaggerating present traffic volumes, the forecasts hide the *induced* traffic that this project will create through additional travel lanes. A "right-sized" bridge replacement would is congestion by providing alternatives to private automobile use, namely transit and bicycling connections between Oregon and washington.

I am opposed to the addition of any new capacity for cars and trucks. The replacement bridge should have the same number of lanes as the old bridge and nothing more for vehicles. This is a bridge replacement; not a freeway expansion! Don't expand freeway capacity; it only creates more traffic problems.

The IBR project is no better than the CRC project, which wasted millions from 2005 to 2013. This is the only reason the committee was formed: A revived Project, the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, was launched in 2017.[31] The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee was formed by the Washington legislature in 2017 to study a bridge replacement, but initially had no Oregon representation for a year.[32][33] The new committee was formed to prevent $140 million in federal funding allocated for the CRC from being recalled after a deadline, which was extended to 2025.[34] In April 2019, the Washington legislature approved $17.5 million to establish a project office to conduct pre-design and planning work, which was followed by a matching contribution from the Oregon Transportation Commission in August.[31][35} A new timeline for the project, with the start of environmental review in 2020 and construction by 2025, was approved by the joint committee in late 2019.[36] If you are unfamiliar with the CRC project you can read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River_Crossing They just love to waste our tax $$$ to accomplish absolutely nothing!!! Face it folks, people will NEVER stop driving, and Portland's infrastructure was not built to support the amount of people/cars it has now, and no amount of bicycling, walking, or bus riding is going to change that. We (City Council) have allowed the total destruction of what was once a livable city, and tried to turn it into some sort of futuristic city where there are a billion people and no cars. PBOT has already screwed up our city enough, and the IBR project is no different!!! CRC Project Summary July, 2011 https://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/CRCProjectSummary.pdf

For cars and trucks, the bridge project should be nothing more than a basic replacement. Do not add extra lanes or any other enhancements to increase vehicle capacity! This will only make traffic worse in other areas. Instead, use this project to make the bridge as easy to use for bikes as it is for cars. Build wide paths for bikes and pedestrians buffered from vehicles by light rail. Provide smooth and fast connections to paths and bike routes on both sides of the bridge without using disruptive spirals. Make sure there is a good connection to the Vancouver/Williams corridor! The biking experience should be comparable to that on the Tilikum bridge.

If we are going to get serious about reducing emissions and tackling climate change, we need to look more closely at projects like the interstate bridge replacement. The current proposal is excessive and will only increase traffic.

A bridge replacement such as the IBR comes along only once in a while, and this project must accommodate the future needs of Portland, Vancouver and the PNW - not just in the next 5 or 10 years, but for the next 50 or 100. The long term goals of the region involve much more investment in public transit and more efficient ways of travel, and this project has the opportunity to either embrace those goals or to squander them. It’s much cheaper to build in the capacity for mass transit like larger busses and rail today then years down the road when the Columbia river crossing is the expensive missing link in a connected PNW.

Portland shouldn’t be investing in the IBR. An immersed tunnel will be a better investment. A downtown tunnel for the max lines would be a better investment.

See attached.

Hi IBR Staff, I attended the CRC Bike/Ped committee meetings in 2008 - 2010. I made a presentation to the group about my concerns about the bridge multiuse path connection in Vancouver. The CRC's connection, like the IBR's connection, loops down to water level. A good connection should offer two options for arriving in Vancouver -- a loop (with elevator option) down to the waterfront, and also a river bridge-level route to Anderson St at Fort Vancouver (or anywhere near Evergreen Boulevard, in the 100' elevation above sea level area of Vancouver). The ideal spot would be the Anderson St., the frontage road along I-5 at the historic hospital building that is easily seen from I-5. Just south of the Evergreen Blvd overpass. The lack of a direct level connection from Fort Vancouver or Midtown Vancouver to the main river bridge is a serious oversight. People make their commute mode choice for various reasons, but the travel time and (for bicycles) travel energy are very important! You are adding, per my 2009 calculations, about 5 minutes travel time between residential areas of Vancouver and anywhere in Portland by the vertical and horizonal detours required to go from Uptown into Downtown, stop at traffic lights and stop signs, then climb the loop ramp back up to your original elevation. This puts people riding bicycles at a geographic and topographic disadvantage relative to people driving cars. Your design should not penalize people with a less direct, more energy intensive route by choosing to bicycle. I no longer have my diagrams and calculations, but they are part of the public record for the CRC Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, 2009. Which I assume you have reviewed for your current bridge project. The findings were that by delaying bicycle traffic by 5 or 10 minutes through the circuitous route between residential areas of Vancouver and the main span of the bridge (compared to, say, getting on the freeway at Mill Plain Blvd and heading south) the travel time from much of inner Vancouver was longer by bicycle than by car when going to downtown Portland at peak morning commute hours. By contrast, with an efficiently designed bike route that launched horizontally out from Anderson St. the travel time for the average bicyclist would be *faster* than driving. One major change has happened since 2009 in the bicycling world -- the advent of the E-assist bicycle as a commuting vehicle. Having a direct route from Evergreen Blvd onto the main Columbia River Bridge Span would enable many people in Vancouver to commute faster by bicycle than by car. And this is something we should encourage! If, by chance, you have *not* reviewed the CRC Bike/Ped Committee's minutes and findings, I would like to request that you review them and add them into the current decisionmaking process. Back in the Aughts there was a lot of public input on this. The CRC Staff had about a dozen serious professionals volunteer a lot of personal time to developing protocols for the bridge, etc. In particular there is one very nice document produced by this group called "World Class Bridge Design Parameters" where they looked at many large, successful bicycle and pedestrian components to bridges around the world, and identified what made facilities "world class". They measured distance across, widths, bike and pedestrian traffic, and possibly noise and air pollution. I would encourage you to ensure that whatever facilities you have in your final design for the IBR meet the 2009 committee's qualifications for a "World Class Facility". Thank you, Ted Buehler

I am strongly opposed to lane expansion in the Interstate Bridge Replacement project. It has been shown that highway expansion does not solve congestion and contributes to pollution. More lanes result in induced demand which invites more vehicles on the road. More drivers mean increased greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution. Given increased travel demand and limited space, we should instead focus on maximizing throughput. We should invest in making public transit and active transportation more attractive options than driving low-occupancy vehicles.

As a resident who primarily bikes for commuting and recreation (yet also drives/owns a car), it is imperative that any revised interstate bridge crossing and accompanying projects prioritizes and encourages multimodal, low-carbon access and ease of use. Walking,, biking, and accessing public transit are key—by ensuring seamless, accessible pathways without extra distance or difficult grades. By integrating open views, rest areas, and close transit access, the bridge can become a safe, enjoyable route for all.

I have lived in Portland, Oregon for 30 years. I am a multi-modal transportation user - I walk, ride bicycles, ride transit, and drive a car. I am also the parent of two small children and so I think about how transportation choices affect both people traveling with small children, and also how our current transportation choices affect our/their future. Vehicle emissions from transportation are one of the biggest causes of carbon emissions, and everyone who studies traffic knows that a bigger bridge will increase travel and therefore increase carbon emissions. I have traveled across the Interstate Bridge by bike and car numerous times, for work and pleasure trips to both Vancouver and points further north, so I am very familiar with the current bridge and access routes. In designing a replacement facility, I believe that the priority issues should be equity, the environment and public health, and I do not see those items prioritized in this plan. * Please prioritize accessibility and seamless integration of the active transportation and transit facilities. The multi-use path should be easy to access from all directions for all non-motorized users. As someone who recently walked across a bridge with a four-year-old, I can say with certainty that long ramps have an immediate negative impact on what pedestrian travel is possible. If the elevation makes a long approach ramp necessary for the sake if maintaining a tolerable grade, elevators are also necessary. * People walking and rolling should have easy access to transit modes. * People walking and rolling should be safe and protected from traffic at all points in their journey. * The new bridge must integrate with existing and planned infrastructure for walking and rolling. Thank you for the consideration.

The current design of the bridge, especially that of the single-level alternatives, seems to prioritize autos over active transportation, and creates unnecessary burden to marginalized communities. I have biked and walked on similar freeway bridges with a parallel multi-use path and they are in no way a pleasant experience, aside from the view. The noise is always unbearable and during the summer months there is also the issue of direct sunlight and heat. Therefore, to ensure that those crossing the bridge on foot or on saddle are well served, there needs to be some sort of noise (and debris) shielding from the roadway, and shading to prevent non-vehicular bridge users from facing heat exhaustion in the summer. Otherwise, those that might cross the bridge via active transportation could instead be inclined to drive across the bridge and thus increase VMT. For the single level alternatives, one suggestion to create a buffer for cyclists and pedestrians from road noise is to locate transit lanes between the multi-use path and the roadway. This also allows people riding popular bus routes like the C-TRAN 105 and 190 to traverse the river crossing more quickly. Adding the optional 2nd auxiliary lane on each side of the highway would go against this priority by attracting more vehicle traffic and thus creating more noise. There should also be better direct access for users of the multi-use trail to their destinations. The path's abrupt transition at the north end of the bridge down to ground level via a 100-ft spiral creates out-of-direction travel for many, which could actually be negated by extending the path paralleling the LRT tracks all the way to Evergreen. The multi-use trail also abruptly ends at Marine Dr at the south end, making it difficult for those on active transportation to travel further south. The trail should really extended at least to southern extents of the project, if not further across the Columbia Slough to North Portland. Conversely, vehicular traffic gets direct access from North Portland to downtown Portland, without any out of direction travel. Finally, many marginally communities are affected by this project, directly and in-directly. Rising housing costs have made it so that many that are not well-off are forced to live far away and commute far distances. The proposed toll would create additional burden for these especially low-income commuters. As such, a low-income toll discount is necessary from day one of the tolls starting. Building more lanes than necessary (ie the optional 2nd auxiliary lane pair) induces vehicular traffic over the bridge and drives greater congestion and health impacts to the marginalized communities that often exist next to high traffic arterials down the line from the highway project, not to mention introducing additional chemical runoff to our delicate water systems.

I do not support the IBR project. I believe it’s a waste of tax dollars that will increase traffic, waste funds that could be used for transit, and remove homes displacing hundreds of people. With climate change getting worse, projects like the IBR will increase emissions and increase costs to the environment and those near by. An tunnel/light rail would be a better investment over the IBR bridge.

Multi-use path size is too small for modern day use. With the addition of e-bikes, e-scooters, and cargo bikes, a 14-foot path is very narrow to share with multiple speeds of transportation. In it's current design, there's no reason a wider multi-use path can not be considered. Or combined with the LRT route to eliminate additional constructed structures. By combining these routes it will allow easier access and eliminate confusion for folks that are utilizing both methods of transportation.

Our organization is wondering why the IBRP did not fully consider the "Immersed Tunnel" option (see attached), when it was first presented it. The Immersed Tunnel option was selected British Columbia, Canada for a river crossing very similar to our Columbia River crossing. Such an option would take less than 5 years to build at 1/3rd the cost of the bridge designs the IBRP is currently considering, and there would be no need for tolls. There would also be far less impact on the environment and to our Island, while providing far easier access to I-5 for island residents, businesses, & visitors. We know that the Hayden Island Neighborhood Network (HI-NooN) asked the same question of the IRBP when it first learned that those at the IRBP that evaluated the tunnel option appeared to have ties to a bridge building company. If true, then that would be reason enough for the IRBP to reconsider the Immersed Tunnel option by setting up an independent engineering commission that would be tasked to reexamine that option. On behalf of our organization, I strongly urge you to do just that, so as to avoid potential claims of impropriety by the IBRP in making its original decision to discount the Immersed Tunnel option. It would also be wise to have community representatives included on that commission. .

At a time when our climate future is in peril, and we must do everything we can to reduce our emissions before doing permanent harm to our world, we should not be committing to a future of increased car dependency while neglecting better multi modal and transit options. I do not own a car and I primarily travel by bike and transit. At the very least, the pedestrian and bike path should be adjacent to the Max rail to allow people to get on and off the train and to create a buffer between the path and car traffic. In addition, the multi use path should extent farther into Vancouver to avoid such a steep incline. My sincere hope is that the bridge could be replaced without so much highway expansion, saving funding that could be used to reach our climate goals while future-proofing our transit system, e.g. by widening the transit way to support upgrades to heavier rail, to include dedicated bus rapid transit, or to build a tunnel under downtown Portland to increase Max capacity – options that will carry people across the river more safely than cars, with much less impact to the environment and climate, and much less time and money wasted to traffic. Beyond the environmental implications of the current plans, we should take note of the many cities that are tearing down old highways that once defaced and tarnished the natural beauty of their waterfronts, and we should not now repeat the mistakes of the past. The current IBR plan will cast a shadow over Vancouver’s increasingly bustling waterfront and create a eye and ear sore. We aught to build a smaller bridge or tunnel, avoiding induced demand, displacing fewer homes and subjecting fewer people to vehicle pollution.

The traffic projections for the current IBR plan have been shown to be inaccurate. The tremendous expense and negative impact of a massively overbuilt highway will harm Oregon and Washington residents for generations. Every effort should be made to build the minimum required infrastructure that is justified is by a rigorous assessment of the regions needs. Failure to align the project with the best data is a failure of ODOT, WSDOT, Metro, and the Oregon and Washington legislature. In particular, the sitting members of the transportation committees and the governors. This massive allocation of state resources and harm to the region should not be taken lightly.

Expanding the highway by adding lanes will not reduce traffic. It will only increase pollution and noise. We should be focused on supporting alternative modes of transportation. The public transit and active transportation lanes on the bridge should be next to each other to maximize their convenience and safety.

The main credo of adopting an active transportation mentality is allowing folks that decide (or have no choice) to commute utilizing non-vehicular methods of transport. By having the multi-use path completely separate from the LRT line (separated by lanes of traffic mind you), again, alienates folks that would otherwise rely on these modes to get to and from either work or social gatherings. By adding barriers like this it will ultimately deter folks from utilizing this new infrastructure. Many users of one are users of the other. Consider adding connection points to allow easy access for both thus reducing physical barriers.

The Shape of Things to Come I bought my dream house on Friday January 5th. I was able to scrimp and save enough to pay cash for my house. I don’t have a lot of money, in fact, I qualify as low income. However, I was able to manage what little I had, and with a little sacrifice (avocado toast) managed to pull it off. It was one of the more stressful things I've ever done but I miraculously made it happen. I also did it without any money from my parents or family or any sort of inheritance. I had earned every penny. I’m the first person in my family to own a house, to actually OWN a house. I am beholden to no bank. Perhaps we shouldn’t call it a house, really I bought a view with the added benefit of a house attached to it. It’s the kind of boot strap/american dream politicians drool and dream over but rarely see in reality. Three days later, that classic American dream turned into a nightmare. My honeymoon period came to an abrupt halt when, seemingly overnight, a colossal barge showed up, completely obscuring anything other than its ugly rusty steel topsides. Making contact with my house was a Tug boat from Mark Marine based in Camas, Washington belching its toxins into my house, setting off the carbon monoxide alarms. I was absolutely mortified and immediately rushed to our moorage office to hopefully receive some clarity if not answers. They had received no notice. It took weeks of them making phone calls to get to the bottom of it. Meanwhile, my new house remained completely untenable.I was losing my mind. I bought a gun. I hate guns. I couldn’t afford an attorney, I had put every single dime into the purchase of my house and suddenly I was presented with this terrible reality. I finally got to the bottom of it. I was on my way to the island when I saw their tender motoring to the dock at jantzen bay. I managed to kindly ask them what they were doing. They were geologists under the employ of the IBR. Later that day, the moorage office arrived at the same conclusion having been on the phone for days trying to get to the bottom of it. Every phone call was met with hostility and the ole nuremberg defense. Already, for a project barely off the ground, accountability was hardly a consideration. One would think in a situation which isn't covered by your typical social protocols, that common sense and the golden rule would easily prevail. In January, we’ll get cold dry spells, typically from the east which is a departure from the prevailing wet sou’westerlies. And every once in a great while that cold front will bring ice and snow. If you use your tugboats diesel engines as your powerplant, and you know your river, it might be to your better judgment not to point it into someone's home to your leeward. You could very easily kill someone. Finally those easterlies did bring ice and snow and because I wasn’t there, because I could not actually live in my house, that ice storm created ice dams, flooding the bedroom, destroying the floor. I spent months and thousands of dollars fixing it. They were there for 20 days. I was unfortunately under such incredible duress during those hellish 20 days I couldn't defend myself against what is clearly a litany of offenses, rights violations, and illegal acts. I did not know my rights at the time, but I sure as hell do now. So, for all the IBR’s talk of community involvement, this is the reality. A callous indifference to the communities it purports to benefit. Be warned my neighbors, because next time it might be you.