Chief
08-29-2007, 08:55 AM
JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer
January 24, 2003; Page c1
Vancouver residents who don't believe the city should build a convention center without voter approval will get their day in court next month.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Johnson will hear oral arguments at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 7 on whether a petition drive to force a public vote should be discarded. Larry Patella, a leading critic of the city's plans for a convention center, said Vancouver has illegally thwarted residents trying to use the democratic process.
"It's still our position what the city is doing is unconstitutional, that the people have the right to vote," he said.
Opponents twice have collected more than enough signatures to force a public vote, but the city council both times has thrown out their petitions.
In 2001, they collected signatures to put a referendum on the ballot, but the council invalidated their petitions because they weren't notarized. Superior Court Judge Robert Harris upheld the council's decision.
An appeal is pending in the Washington Court of Appeals.
A year later, opponents sought a public vote on a proposed law intended to prevent Vancouver from using tax revenue from any source to subsidize, guarantee or otherwise support an events center or similar project without a 60 percent "supermajority" vote.
Last September, the council voted 5-2, with Councilwomen Jeanne Lipton and Jeanne Stewart dissenting, to take the issue to court instead of placing it before voters. The council's decision came after City Attorney Ted Gathe concluded the proposed initiative is ambiguous, inconsistent, poorly written and could have consequences extending beyond the convention center-hotel project.
Gathe, along with Assistant City Attorney Brent Boger, will argue the case before Judge Johnson.
City's three arguments
Gathe said he will make three primary arguments, including that an initiative cannot be proposed on the convention center.
"It's beyond the power of local initiatives," he said. "There are a series of state laws regarding public financing that in our opinion cannot be superseded by local ordinance."
Gathe said he also will argue the convention center is not a "proper subject" for an initiative.
"We believe this is an administrative rather than a legislative act," he said. "In this case, the city has had a project on the drawing boards for a long time. It has zoned the area, planned for the project, and right now what is involved is a simple implementation."
Representing themselves
But the city's strongest argument might be that the proposed initiative is poorly written and would violate the Vancouver City Charter.
"The initiative does not comply with the requirements set forth in the charter itself in terms of clear, unambiguous language," Gathe said.
Patella will argue the case before Johnson without the assistance of legal counsel.
Joining him at the table will be Tom Jacobs, an east Vancouver neighborhood leader, and another one of the six petitioners, and Larry Martin, who has followed the issue.
Forgoing legal counsel is a questionable strategy.
Gathe received a law degree from the University of Idaho in 1974 and has almost 30 years of legal experience. He has been Vancouver's top attorney since June 1994 and has spent the previous five years as chief assistant city attorney.
In contrast, Patella is a high-school dropout who finished his education after joining the Navy and ultimately rose to the rank of commander.
Can't afford attorney
Petitioners have joked about the famous line attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
"We actually can't afford one," Patella said about an attorney. "We haven't finished paying off the money from the last time the city took us to court."
For the first case, Patella and other petitioners hired attorney Mark A. Erikson and reportedly racked up $60,000 in legal bills.
"We were able to reduce it down," Patella said about the bill. "I won't give you a figure."
Patella said he believes the city's lawsuit is frivolous. "They are doing whatever they can in an attempt to keep us silent," he said.
In the past, Patella and others have hinted that Vancouver's legal challenge could be construed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, better known as SLAPP.
"In my brief, I have asked the court to take a good hard look at that," Patella said.
Gathe said such charges have no legal foundation.
"We aren't seeking damages against Mr. Patella or any member of his group," he said. "We are just asking the court if this matter can go on the ballot."
January 24, 2003; Page c1
Vancouver residents who don't believe the city should build a convention center without voter approval will get their day in court next month.
Superior Court Judge Barbara Johnson will hear oral arguments at 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 7 on whether a petition drive to force a public vote should be discarded. Larry Patella, a leading critic of the city's plans for a convention center, said Vancouver has illegally thwarted residents trying to use the democratic process.
"It's still our position what the city is doing is unconstitutional, that the people have the right to vote," he said.
Opponents twice have collected more than enough signatures to force a public vote, but the city council both times has thrown out their petitions.
In 2001, they collected signatures to put a referendum on the ballot, but the council invalidated their petitions because they weren't notarized. Superior Court Judge Robert Harris upheld the council's decision.
An appeal is pending in the Washington Court of Appeals.
A year later, opponents sought a public vote on a proposed law intended to prevent Vancouver from using tax revenue from any source to subsidize, guarantee or otherwise support an events center or similar project without a 60 percent "supermajority" vote.
Last September, the council voted 5-2, with Councilwomen Jeanne Lipton and Jeanne Stewart dissenting, to take the issue to court instead of placing it before voters. The council's decision came after City Attorney Ted Gathe concluded the proposed initiative is ambiguous, inconsistent, poorly written and could have consequences extending beyond the convention center-hotel project.
Gathe, along with Assistant City Attorney Brent Boger, will argue the case before Judge Johnson.
City's three arguments
Gathe said he will make three primary arguments, including that an initiative cannot be proposed on the convention center.
"It's beyond the power of local initiatives," he said. "There are a series of state laws regarding public financing that in our opinion cannot be superseded by local ordinance."
Gathe said he also will argue the convention center is not a "proper subject" for an initiative.
"We believe this is an administrative rather than a legislative act," he said. "In this case, the city has had a project on the drawing boards for a long time. It has zoned the area, planned for the project, and right now what is involved is a simple implementation."
Representing themselves
But the city's strongest argument might be that the proposed initiative is poorly written and would violate the Vancouver City Charter.
"The initiative does not comply with the requirements set forth in the charter itself in terms of clear, unambiguous language," Gathe said.
Patella will argue the case before Johnson without the assistance of legal counsel.
Joining him at the table will be Tom Jacobs, an east Vancouver neighborhood leader, and another one of the six petitioners, and Larry Martin, who has followed the issue.
Forgoing legal counsel is a questionable strategy.
Gathe received a law degree from the University of Idaho in 1974 and has almost 30 years of legal experience. He has been Vancouver's top attorney since June 1994 and has spent the previous five years as chief assistant city attorney.
In contrast, Patella is a high-school dropout who finished his education after joining the Navy and ultimately rose to the rank of commander.
Can't afford attorney
Petitioners have joked about the famous line attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
"We actually can't afford one," Patella said about an attorney. "We haven't finished paying off the money from the last time the city took us to court."
For the first case, Patella and other petitioners hired attorney Mark A. Erikson and reportedly racked up $60,000 in legal bills.
"We were able to reduce it down," Patella said about the bill. "I won't give you a figure."
Patella said he believes the city's lawsuit is frivolous. "They are doing whatever they can in an attempt to keep us silent," he said.
In the past, Patella and others have hinted that Vancouver's legal challenge could be construed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, better known as SLAPP.
"In my brief, I have asked the court to take a good hard look at that," Patella said.
Gathe said such charges have no legal foundation.
"We aren't seeking damages against Mr. Patella or any member of his group," he said. "We are just asking the court if this matter can go on the ballot."