Chief
08-29-2007, 08:51 AM
JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer
March 6, 2003; Page c1
A citizens' group seeking a public vote on Vancouver's plans for a $68 million downtown hotel-conference center has been shot down in court for a second time.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Johnson released a 12-page decision Wednesday that sides with the city on every issue. Larry Patella, who led the initiative effort and served as his own attorney during Feb. 7 oral arguments, said he will appeal Wednesday's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Patella said the city appears ready to do "whatever it takes" to finance and build a Marriott hotel with 225 rooms and 30,000 square feet of meeting space south of Esther Short Park.
"We're still going to oppose it until the last brick is in place," he said. "We think the people should have the right to vote."
Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney who helped argue Vancouver's case in court, said the judge correctly considered previous court decisions.
"She is bound by case law and judicial precedent," he said. "The judicial precedent basically has not agreed with Mr. Patella's view of the law."
Patella and other opponents tried in 2001 to force a public vote on an earlier version of the downtown project, but Superior Court Judge Robert Harris ruled their petitions weren't valid because they had not been notarized.
Last year, opponents again collected more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. They proposed a law intended to prevent Vancouver from using tax revenue to subsidize, guarantee or otherwise support an events center or similar project without a 60 percent "supermajority" vote.
But City Attorney Ted Gathe concluded the proposed law was ambiguous, confusing, inconsistent and poorly written.
Johnson agreed, ruling the initiative violates the Vancouver City Charter's requirement for "clear and unambiguous language."
"These requirements are important," Johnson wrote. "If the initiative were placed on the ballot, voters would need to be clear as to what they were voting for or against."
Johnson also agreed with the city's contention that a convention center is not a proper subject for a local initiative.
City attorneys have argued the Legislature granted cities the power to build convention centers and other projects and that this authority cannot be restricted by local initiatives.
Patella's arguments
Patella argued that under the Washington Constitution, the right to place an initiative before voters cannot be abridged.
But Johnson said there have been numerous cases where pre-election challenges kept proposed initiatives off the ballot.
"That's (a) state Supreme Court (ruling)," Boger said. "And you can't get a Superior Court judge to overrule the state Supreme Court."
Patella also argued the charter gives the city council three options when it receives an initiative with enough signatures: adopt the ordinance as written; adopt a modified ordinance; or refer the original ordinance to voters.
"There is no provision in there for the city to go outside of that," he said. "We raised that issue, and there's no mention to that at all."
Johnson's ruling, however, said petitioners needed to respond to the city's request for a ruling in its favor and they "have not established a basis for counterclaims."
March 6, 2003; Page c1
A citizens' group seeking a public vote on Vancouver's plans for a $68 million downtown hotel-conference center has been shot down in court for a second time.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Johnson released a 12-page decision Wednesday that sides with the city on every issue. Larry Patella, who led the initiative effort and served as his own attorney during Feb. 7 oral arguments, said he will appeal Wednesday's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Patella said the city appears ready to do "whatever it takes" to finance and build a Marriott hotel with 225 rooms and 30,000 square feet of meeting space south of Esther Short Park.
"We're still going to oppose it until the last brick is in place," he said. "We think the people should have the right to vote."
Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney who helped argue Vancouver's case in court, said the judge correctly considered previous court decisions.
"She is bound by case law and judicial precedent," he said. "The judicial precedent basically has not agreed with Mr. Patella's view of the law."
Patella and other opponents tried in 2001 to force a public vote on an earlier version of the downtown project, but Superior Court Judge Robert Harris ruled their petitions weren't valid because they had not been notarized.
Last year, opponents again collected more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. They proposed a law intended to prevent Vancouver from using tax revenue to subsidize, guarantee or otherwise support an events center or similar project without a 60 percent "supermajority" vote.
But City Attorney Ted Gathe concluded the proposed law was ambiguous, confusing, inconsistent and poorly written.
Johnson agreed, ruling the initiative violates the Vancouver City Charter's requirement for "clear and unambiguous language."
"These requirements are important," Johnson wrote. "If the initiative were placed on the ballot, voters would need to be clear as to what they were voting for or against."
Johnson also agreed with the city's contention that a convention center is not a proper subject for a local initiative.
City attorneys have argued the Legislature granted cities the power to build convention centers and other projects and that this authority cannot be restricted by local initiatives.
Patella's arguments
Patella argued that under the Washington Constitution, the right to place an initiative before voters cannot be abridged.
But Johnson said there have been numerous cases where pre-election challenges kept proposed initiatives off the ballot.
"That's (a) state Supreme Court (ruling)," Boger said. "And you can't get a Superior Court judge to overrule the state Supreme Court."
Patella also argued the charter gives the city council three options when it receives an initiative with enough signatures: adopt the ordinance as written; adopt a modified ordinance; or refer the original ordinance to voters.
"There is no provision in there for the city to go outside of that," he said. "We raised that issue, and there's no mention to that at all."
Johnson's ruling, however, said petitioners needed to respond to the city's request for a ruling in its favor and they "have not established a basis for counterclaims."