Chief
08-29-2007, 09:07 AM
JEFFREY MIZE, columbian staff writer
November 2, 2001; Page c3
It took Superior Court Judge Robert Harris just a few hours to reject the latest legal challenge to Vancouver's proposed special events center. Harris heard oral arguments Thursday morning and ruled in the afternoon, slapping down both procedural arguments attorney Mark A. Erikson raised in court.
Larry Patella, a leader in the so-far unsuccessful effort to force a public vote on the $62.7 million project, said he wasn't surprised.
"What happens next is we appeal," Patella said. "I left the courtroom with the impression the judge made up his mind before the thing even started because there's no way he could have digested all that information and make a decision so quickly."
City Attorney Ted Gathe said he was confident the city had complied with all procedural requirements and will be ready to defend the city's position should Patella take the case to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Harris two months ago ruled in the city's favor on one fundamental issue: Patella and other residents who tried to force a vote by gathering signatures on referendum petitions did not follow requirements spelled out in the city charter.
Thursday's decision involved a charter amendment to the Vancouver Public Facilities District, a separate layer of city government created to finance, build and own the events center-convention center complex south of Esther Short Park.
Erikson argued the district's charter specifies the city council cannot undertake any charter amendment unless it is first approved by the district's board of directors.
The council used a two-part process for amending the charter. First, the council agreed March 19 to hold a public hearing, also known as "first reading," followed by a March 26 hearing and final decision.
Because the district's board of directors voted March 21 for the charter amendment, Erikson argued the city violated its own rules by beginning the process before that vote.
But Harris ruled that first reading was "stimulated" by a resolution the district's board passed in February.
The first reading indicated the council's interest in proceeding "and nothing more than that," Harris wrote. Moreover, opponents had a chance to testify during the council's March 26 hearing, he wrote.
Erikson called that decision "disappointing."
"It avoids the argument we made that strict compliance is required," he said. "In other words, this judge found there was no equal protection violation because we were able to appear at the hearing."
Erikson also argued the district's board of directors was not properly constituted when it approved the charter amendment because one member, Dave Letinich, served as both secretary and treasurer.
Harris didn't buy that position, either.
"I find nothing in the district (charter) that prohibits the combining of duties of secretary and treasurer," he said.
Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney and the public facilities district's legal counsel, said Erikson's two arguments were "specious."
Brian Wolfe, an attorney representing Identity Clark County in the case, went one step further.
"Brian Wolfe actually called them bogus and asked for sanctions," Boger said.
Well, not exactly.
"I did call them bogus," Wolfe said after Thursday's hearing. "I said, 'If I were sitting in Mr. Gathe's chair, I would ask for sanctions.'
"I just thought there needed to be something in the record that these were pretty reaching."
Erikson, for the most part, declined to respond.
"I don't intend to lower myself to that level and attack the person instead of what he said," he said.
Erikson said it's important to remember that his clients only want to vote on the project.
"We have a feasibility study saying this will fail if not supported by the community," he said. "We have a political body that is afraid to ask its community for input by the way of a vote."
November 2, 2001; Page c3
It took Superior Court Judge Robert Harris just a few hours to reject the latest legal challenge to Vancouver's proposed special events center. Harris heard oral arguments Thursday morning and ruled in the afternoon, slapping down both procedural arguments attorney Mark A. Erikson raised in court.
Larry Patella, a leader in the so-far unsuccessful effort to force a public vote on the $62.7 million project, said he wasn't surprised.
"What happens next is we appeal," Patella said. "I left the courtroom with the impression the judge made up his mind before the thing even started because there's no way he could have digested all that information and make a decision so quickly."
City Attorney Ted Gathe said he was confident the city had complied with all procedural requirements and will be ready to defend the city's position should Patella take the case to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Harris two months ago ruled in the city's favor on one fundamental issue: Patella and other residents who tried to force a vote by gathering signatures on referendum petitions did not follow requirements spelled out in the city charter.
Thursday's decision involved a charter amendment to the Vancouver Public Facilities District, a separate layer of city government created to finance, build and own the events center-convention center complex south of Esther Short Park.
Erikson argued the district's charter specifies the city council cannot undertake any charter amendment unless it is first approved by the district's board of directors.
The council used a two-part process for amending the charter. First, the council agreed March 19 to hold a public hearing, also known as "first reading," followed by a March 26 hearing and final decision.
Because the district's board of directors voted March 21 for the charter amendment, Erikson argued the city violated its own rules by beginning the process before that vote.
But Harris ruled that first reading was "stimulated" by a resolution the district's board passed in February.
The first reading indicated the council's interest in proceeding "and nothing more than that," Harris wrote. Moreover, opponents had a chance to testify during the council's March 26 hearing, he wrote.
Erikson called that decision "disappointing."
"It avoids the argument we made that strict compliance is required," he said. "In other words, this judge found there was no equal protection violation because we were able to appear at the hearing."
Erikson also argued the district's board of directors was not properly constituted when it approved the charter amendment because one member, Dave Letinich, served as both secretary and treasurer.
Harris didn't buy that position, either.
"I find nothing in the district (charter) that prohibits the combining of duties of secretary and treasurer," he said.
Brent Boger, an assistant city attorney and the public facilities district's legal counsel, said Erikson's two arguments were "specious."
Brian Wolfe, an attorney representing Identity Clark County in the case, went one step further.
"Brian Wolfe actually called them bogus and asked for sanctions," Boger said.
Well, not exactly.
"I did call them bogus," Wolfe said after Thursday's hearing. "I said, 'If I were sitting in Mr. Gathe's chair, I would ask for sanctions.'
"I just thought there needed to be something in the record that these were pretty reaching."
Erikson, for the most part, declined to respond.
"I don't intend to lower myself to that level and attack the person instead of what he said," he said.
Erikson said it's important to remember that his clients only want to vote on the project.
"We have a feasibility study saying this will fail if not supported by the community," he said. "We have a political body that is afraid to ask its community for input by the way of a vote."