She declared her support for the bridge after she was against it, or do you forget, from YOUR OWN PAPER, this statement:

"What’s your take on the CRC? Do you support the current proposal for a new freeway bridge?

This project will not go forward in its current form."

Can you please do a better job of calling out this sort of pandering?

I think it's more accurate to say that she's declared her support for building "a" bridge, rather than "the" bridge that's been proposed.

From her statement:

We need to build a new bridge because the one we have now is not safe. We need to build a new bridge to put thousands of our skilled workers back on the job. We need to build a new bridge before the costs of materials jump again, to keep freight moving, and because great cities figure out ways to do the hard things.

But we also need to build the right bridge.

It’s not a secret that the revenue projections being used to justify this current bridge and highway expansion plan are overly optimistic.

http://www.eileenformayor.com/2011/09/28/crc-needs-real-leadership-now/

(Full disclosure: My firm built Eileen Brady's campaign website. I speak only for myself.)

Corey, the costly, risky CRC highway mega-project is not a bridge project. The bridge is less than a quarter of the project's cost. Most of the mega-project's cost is a five-mile highway expansion with six highway interchanges (though some of that may now be up in the air, the FEIS incldues all those elements).

And of course, there's no money for the mega-project, unless you take hundreds of millions away from highway maintenance (which create more jobs than construction). Brady's support of the polluting mega-project is simply irresponsible for taxpayers, for labor, and for the city.

Didn't she also propose on Think Out Loud to pay for the CRC by somehow instituing tolling for Portland's highways going south into the City?  And it works because they're doing it in London and Stockholm?

Are you kidding me, IBEW?