The discussion on the Columbia River Crossing may have ended, but Vancouver's debate over light rail has not.





An aerial view of the I-5 bridge connecting Vancouver and Portland.

A group of residents who sponsored an anti-light rail initiative filed a lawsuit against the city of Vancouver on May 23 after the city declined to put the initiative on the ballot.

The initiative would create an ordinance that would ban light rail from being constructed, funded or allowed in the city of Vancouver. No jurisdiction at the moment is proposing light rail for the city now that a proposed bridge project over the Columbia River appears defunct.

City of Vancouver attorneys advised the council against placing the initiative on the ballot, arguing it falls outside the scope of the city's initiative powers.

But Stephen Pidgeon, the Everett attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the city's refusal violates the city charter because the proper filing process was followed and the petition collected enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for a vote.

Larry Patella, Debbie Peterson, Ralph Peabody, Charlie Stemper, Steve Herman and Don Yingling, represented by Everett attorney Stephen Pidgeon, are pursuing a lawsuit to get a mandate for the initiative to be put on the Nov. 5 general election ballot.

Their case will be heard by Superior Court Judge John Nichols at 1:30 p.m. July 30 at the Clark County Courthouse, 1200 Franklin St. If the petitioners prevail, they won't have much time to act. The deadline for submitting items to be on the November ballot is August 6.

Pidgeon said the petitioners believe citizens deserve a say on light rail.

"In this country the government is hired by the body to do the public will and as a public service, but sometimes political leadership forgets that," he said. "The issue here is whether or not the people in Vancouver will have an opportunity to vote on this project."

According to the city though, this issue does not fall under the power of initiative specified by the city charter, which says a local initiative cannot dictate how the city spends its money. By Washington state law, the city budget is the sole responsibility of the city.

"The initiative attempts to tell the county how to spend its money," City Attorney Linda Marousek said. "It has held over and over again in courts that appropriating funds is not allowed as a subject of local initiative. "

The initiative also requests that the city return all money already spent on light rail planning connected with the bridge project. According to Marousek, though, this would be considered a violation of the Constitution because it would result in an impairment of contract and the "deprivation of another's property without due process of law."

But Pidgeon believes that since taxpayer money would be used on a light rail project, the people should be allowed to have a voice in how that money is spent.

"The cost to the taxpayers is millions of dollars," Pidgeon said. "Maybe they're not prepared to pick up this expense at this time. They should be able to vote in this project and have a say in the public process."

Marousek said the initiative also violates the charter because it intends to regulate the administrative activity of the city, which is contrary to Washington's general laws.

"Citizens are not our boss," she said. "Our boss is executively appointed by the city council."

But Pidgeon insists the city does not have exclusive say on the issue. Instead, he views it as an opportunity for the people of Vancouver to "express their voice in the government."

"I think city council is opposed because they just want to make the decision without the people," he said. "I personally believe this unconstitutional, but the court doesn't necessarily agree with me."

However, Marousek points out that a light rail project would not be the city of Vancouver's. The last proposed light rail project was part of the Columbia River Crossing, which is a project of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration as well as the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Transportation.

She cited similar hearings on the

and the King Dome in Seattle in which it was ruled that if local jurisdiction doesn't have authority over a project, then it doesn't hold the power of initiative over it.

Though the Columbia River Crossing has been scrapped, Pidgeon says plaintiffs are still pursuing the case.

"The Columbia River Crossing is technically not affecting this because our lawsuit is about the initiative," he said. "A great deal of this is just pursuing the local initiative process. This is an unconstitutional content restriction by the courts, and the people want a great voice in the management of the government."