Chief
08-29-2007, 09:15 AM
JEFFREY MIZE, columbian staff writer
September 6, 2001; Page a1
Superior Court Judge Robert Harris ruled in Vancouver's favor Wednesday in a lawsuit filed over the special events center, eliminating any chance there will be a public vote on the $60 million-plus project in November. Harris, in an eight-page decision, ruled that Vancouver residents who tried to force a public vote by gathering signatures did not follow requirements spelled out in the city charter.
Harris said City Attorney Ted Gathe's office advised petitioners to seek legal advice before mounting their referendum campaign.
"Unfortunately they did not," he wrote.
Petitioners collected more than enough signatures and included a signed statement by the circulator on each sheet. But the city rejected the petitions because a notarized affidavit was not attached to each petition, a decision that Harris affirmed Wednesday.
"I think that's wrong," said Mark A. Erikson, attorney for the petitioners. "I think we substantially complied because the city code doesn't have a notarization requirement. It has only an affidavit requirement."
Larry Patella, one of the Vancouver residents who coordinated the referendum campaign, said no decision has been made about appealing Wednesday's decision.
"My wallet tells me maybe no, but my gut feeling is that we have gone this far we probably ought to appeal," Patella said. "We still feel the city's actions are unconstitutional, and we definitely felt all along they have not been truthful with the public."
One small victory
Harris did hand petitioners one small victory.
When the city council formed the Vancouver Public Facilities District in October 1999, it faced charges that the decision to build the events center-convention center-hotel complex was a "done deal."
So it inserted language into the district's charter limiting its role to exploring and studying the possibility of building the complex.
During an Aug. 20 hearing before Harris, city attorneys argued those limitations had no power whatsoever and actually did not limit the district's legal authority to build the project.
In his ruling, Harris labeled that argument as "somewhat misleading."
"It is clear from the direction of the city council as well as statements made to the general public that the creation of the district was not intended to do anything more than to investigate and explore (the) feasibility of the project," Harris wrote.
Patella and other petitioners have argued that either attorneys deceived the council or the council deceived the public.
"I have a real problem with the truthfulness of this council," Patella said. "They told us for two years that it was not yet a done deal, and then their attorneys go into court and say it's always been a done deal."
After the Aug. 20 hearing, two council members, Jack Burkman and Dan Tonkovich, said they believed the council was keeping a tight grip on the public facilities district and that the limitations did have binding power.
Naming rights remain
Wednesday's decision knocks down one potential hurdle, but a larger one remains before the Vancouver Public Facilities District can sell bonds to pay for construction.
Jerry Jenkins, the city's private partner, still needs to find a buyer willing to pay $7.1 million for the naming rights to the 6,500-seat events center.
For the past 16 months, Jenkins has shopped the naming rights, but he hasn't found any takers.
Mayor Royce Pollard said he believes Wednesday's decision will encourage potential investors to purchase naming rights.
"It's time for them to step forward," Pollard said. "Because without the naming rights, the project will not go forward."
The city's bond counsel, William Doyle of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in Seattle, has previously said a positive court ruling would be sufficient to move ahead with the bond sale, even though Harris' decision could be appealed.
Before that happens, the council must agree to establish a debt fund for the project. Such a fund could be used to pay off bondholders if earmarked tax sources and center revenues fall short.
'Remember in November'
Wednesday's decision also is a victory for Identity Clark County, a pro-business group and a big booster for the long-discussed project.
"Onward and upward," said Ginger Metcalf, the group's executive director. "Our feeling is it's time to focus on the positive rather that the negatives the petitioners seem to revel in."
But Patella said petitioners would continue their fight at the ballot box in November.
"We are going to vote the rascals out," he said. "We are going to wage a very vigorous campaign to get the incumbents out.
"We will remember in November."
September 6, 2001; Page a1
Superior Court Judge Robert Harris ruled in Vancouver's favor Wednesday in a lawsuit filed over the special events center, eliminating any chance there will be a public vote on the $60 million-plus project in November. Harris, in an eight-page decision, ruled that Vancouver residents who tried to force a public vote by gathering signatures did not follow requirements spelled out in the city charter.
Harris said City Attorney Ted Gathe's office advised petitioners to seek legal advice before mounting their referendum campaign.
"Unfortunately they did not," he wrote.
Petitioners collected more than enough signatures and included a signed statement by the circulator on each sheet. But the city rejected the petitions because a notarized affidavit was not attached to each petition, a decision that Harris affirmed Wednesday.
"I think that's wrong," said Mark A. Erikson, attorney for the petitioners. "I think we substantially complied because the city code doesn't have a notarization requirement. It has only an affidavit requirement."
Larry Patella, one of the Vancouver residents who coordinated the referendum campaign, said no decision has been made about appealing Wednesday's decision.
"My wallet tells me maybe no, but my gut feeling is that we have gone this far we probably ought to appeal," Patella said. "We still feel the city's actions are unconstitutional, and we definitely felt all along they have not been truthful with the public."
One small victory
Harris did hand petitioners one small victory.
When the city council formed the Vancouver Public Facilities District in October 1999, it faced charges that the decision to build the events center-convention center-hotel complex was a "done deal."
So it inserted language into the district's charter limiting its role to exploring and studying the possibility of building the complex.
During an Aug. 20 hearing before Harris, city attorneys argued those limitations had no power whatsoever and actually did not limit the district's legal authority to build the project.
In his ruling, Harris labeled that argument as "somewhat misleading."
"It is clear from the direction of the city council as well as statements made to the general public that the creation of the district was not intended to do anything more than to investigate and explore (the) feasibility of the project," Harris wrote.
Patella and other petitioners have argued that either attorneys deceived the council or the council deceived the public.
"I have a real problem with the truthfulness of this council," Patella said. "They told us for two years that it was not yet a done deal, and then their attorneys go into court and say it's always been a done deal."
After the Aug. 20 hearing, two council members, Jack Burkman and Dan Tonkovich, said they believed the council was keeping a tight grip on the public facilities district and that the limitations did have binding power.
Naming rights remain
Wednesday's decision knocks down one potential hurdle, but a larger one remains before the Vancouver Public Facilities District can sell bonds to pay for construction.
Jerry Jenkins, the city's private partner, still needs to find a buyer willing to pay $7.1 million for the naming rights to the 6,500-seat events center.
For the past 16 months, Jenkins has shopped the naming rights, but he hasn't found any takers.
Mayor Royce Pollard said he believes Wednesday's decision will encourage potential investors to purchase naming rights.
"It's time for them to step forward," Pollard said. "Because without the naming rights, the project will not go forward."
The city's bond counsel, William Doyle of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in Seattle, has previously said a positive court ruling would be sufficient to move ahead with the bond sale, even though Harris' decision could be appealed.
Before that happens, the council must agree to establish a debt fund for the project. Such a fund could be used to pay off bondholders if earmarked tax sources and center revenues fall short.
'Remember in November'
Wednesday's decision also is a victory for Identity Clark County, a pro-business group and a big booster for the long-discussed project.
"Onward and upward," said Ginger Metcalf, the group's executive director. "Our feeling is it's time to focus on the positive rather that the negatives the petitioners seem to revel in."
But Patella said petitioners would continue their fight at the ballot box in November.
"We are going to vote the rascals out," he said. "We are going to wage a very vigorous campaign to get the incumbents out.
"We will remember in November."