Chief
08-30-2007, 07:15 AM
JEFFREY MIZE, columbian staff writer
July 1, 2001; Page c1
Vancouver has spelled out in court papers a multitude of reasons why there cannot be a public vote on the special events center. Friday was the deadline for the city to file its briefs. Six Vancouver residents who want to force a vote on the project, defendants in the city-initiated litigation, have until July 20 to file their brief.
Superior Court Judge Robert Harris is scheduled to hear oral arguments at 9 a.m. Aug. 21.
City Attorney Ted Gathe filed a 35-page brief on behalf of the city. Assistant City Attorney Brent Boger filed a separate, 12-page brief on behalf of the Vancouver Public Facilities District.
"The defendants want a vote on the SEC (special events center)," Boger wrote. "They cannot point to anything in local or state law that gives them a right to vote."
The city council created the public facilities district to build and own the 6,500-seat events center and an adjoining convention center with 28,000 square feet of exhibition space, two buildings valued at $59.1 million.
The project, to be built on four blocks south of Esther Short Park, also includes a privately financed 174-room hotel valued at about $20 million.
The six residents, Glen Baldwin, Larry Patella, Ralph Peabody, Frances Rutherford, Robert Scott and Bobbie Tharp, have tried to challenge the council's March 26 decision to remove restraints from the public facilities district.
Petitioners collected more than enough signatures to comply with referendum provisions outlined in the Vancouver City Charter. But the city rejected the petitions because they did not precisely conform with charter requirements requiring a sworn affidavit to be attached to each petition.
Each petition included a signed statement at the bottom of the page saying the signatures were genuine and made in the presence of the circulator.
City officials say that does not comply with charter provisions and the city had no choice but to declare petitions "entirely invalid."
The two briefs filed Friday offer a laundry list of reasons why the court should rule that petitioners cannot force a vote, including:
* The March 26 revisions were minor wording changes that had little effect on the public facilities district's powers. They also constitute an administrative action not subject to referendum provisions.
* Authority to build the events center lies with the district and is not subject to referendum.
* The city's role is limited to creating the district and appointing its board members, a decision that is not subject to referendum.
* There can be no vote because the Legislature gave cities the authority to create public facilities districts, an authority that cannot be pre-empted by local referendum provisions.
* Petitioners did not follow referendum requirements outlined in the charter.
* The statements circulators made on petitions do not constitute affidavits, and invalid petitions cannot be made valid at a later date by filing required affidavits.
"In summary, the defendants are using an unavailable referendum procedure on the wrong ordinance and even failed to comply with the unavailable procedure," Gathe wrote.
Gathe's brief asks the court to declare that the city council lacks legal authority to place the referendum issue on the ballot.
Mark A. Erikson, a Vancouver attorney representing the six defendants, said he has not had a chance to review the court filings.
Erikson said his clients tried to get the city to return petitions so they could add notarized affidavits, but the city refused.
Petitioners then took copies of the petitions, attached sworn affidavits and submitted them, only to have the city return them, he said.
"It seems to me that it's hard for the city to demand exact compliance when they have frustrated every effort my clients have made to comply," he said.
Boger, however, said the charter allows an extra 20 days to gather additional signatures, not to correct mistakes in the affidavits.
July 1, 2001; Page c1
Vancouver has spelled out in court papers a multitude of reasons why there cannot be a public vote on the special events center. Friday was the deadline for the city to file its briefs. Six Vancouver residents who want to force a vote on the project, defendants in the city-initiated litigation, have until July 20 to file their brief.
Superior Court Judge Robert Harris is scheduled to hear oral arguments at 9 a.m. Aug. 21.
City Attorney Ted Gathe filed a 35-page brief on behalf of the city. Assistant City Attorney Brent Boger filed a separate, 12-page brief on behalf of the Vancouver Public Facilities District.
"The defendants want a vote on the SEC (special events center)," Boger wrote. "They cannot point to anything in local or state law that gives them a right to vote."
The city council created the public facilities district to build and own the 6,500-seat events center and an adjoining convention center with 28,000 square feet of exhibition space, two buildings valued at $59.1 million.
The project, to be built on four blocks south of Esther Short Park, also includes a privately financed 174-room hotel valued at about $20 million.
The six residents, Glen Baldwin, Larry Patella, Ralph Peabody, Frances Rutherford, Robert Scott and Bobbie Tharp, have tried to challenge the council's March 26 decision to remove restraints from the public facilities district.
Petitioners collected more than enough signatures to comply with referendum provisions outlined in the Vancouver City Charter. But the city rejected the petitions because they did not precisely conform with charter requirements requiring a sworn affidavit to be attached to each petition.
Each petition included a signed statement at the bottom of the page saying the signatures were genuine and made in the presence of the circulator.
City officials say that does not comply with charter provisions and the city had no choice but to declare petitions "entirely invalid."
The two briefs filed Friday offer a laundry list of reasons why the court should rule that petitioners cannot force a vote, including:
* The March 26 revisions were minor wording changes that had little effect on the public facilities district's powers. They also constitute an administrative action not subject to referendum provisions.
* Authority to build the events center lies with the district and is not subject to referendum.
* The city's role is limited to creating the district and appointing its board members, a decision that is not subject to referendum.
* There can be no vote because the Legislature gave cities the authority to create public facilities districts, an authority that cannot be pre-empted by local referendum provisions.
* Petitioners did not follow referendum requirements outlined in the charter.
* The statements circulators made on petitions do not constitute affidavits, and invalid petitions cannot be made valid at a later date by filing required affidavits.
"In summary, the defendants are using an unavailable referendum procedure on the wrong ordinance and even failed to comply with the unavailable procedure," Gathe wrote.
Gathe's brief asks the court to declare that the city council lacks legal authority to place the referendum issue on the ballot.
Mark A. Erikson, a Vancouver attorney representing the six defendants, said he has not had a chance to review the court filings.
Erikson said his clients tried to get the city to return petitions so they could add notarized affidavits, but the city refused.
Petitioners then took copies of the petitions, attached sworn affidavits and submitted them, only to have the city return them, he said.
"It seems to me that it's hard for the city to demand exact compliance when they have frustrated every effort my clients have made to comply," he said.
Boger, however, said the charter allows an extra 20 days to gather additional signatures, not to correct mistakes in the affidavits.