Save Vancouver Streets is considering its option to appeal, but for now the group is “frustrated” and feels the deck is stacked against citizens trying to communicate with Vancouver City Council

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

Save Vancouver Streets is going to need to appeal, then win that appeal, in order to continue its mission to save Vancouver streets.

One of the leaders of the grassroots movement is not sure what will happen next in this process.

“The decision to appeal doesn’t cost a lot. But then we’d have to raise close to $40,000 to prepare the case and hear it,” said Justin Wood of SVS. “We’re going to talk. ‘Do we want to keep throwing money at it?’ I don’t know. With any ruling, it gets harder.”

Clark County Superior Court Judge Derek J. Vanderwood ruled against Save Vancouver Streets in its efforts against the City of Vancouver as well as Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey.

Save Vancouver Streets had gathered more than 6,500 signatures as part of the initiative process to have its issue sent to the ballot box. Save Vancouver Streets wanted citizens of Vancouver to vote on having the city ask voters for permission to remove lanes of traffic on current roads and thoroughfares. 

In recent years, the city has removed lanes of vehicle traffic on many roads as part of its Complete Streets projects. More lane reductions are in the planning phases. Save Vancouver Streets wanted the people to have a say in those future projects.

The city opted to take no action on the initiative, leading to lawsuits from Save Vancouver Streets. Wood has said throughout the process that Save Vancouver Streets went through the proper procedures, and then the city just dismissed the effort. Save Vancouver Streets wanted the city to place the issue on the ballot and also asked the court to force Kimsey to put it on the ballot.

Vanderwood issued ruling for three related cases before him:

“… the Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief and the Vancouver City Council acted within its authority under City Charter by declining to put a legally invalid proposed initiative on the ballot,” Vanderwood wrote in his Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgement.

In the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgement, Vanderwood noted the proposed initiative is invalid because it “1) seeks to usurp the City of Vancouver’s authority under the Growth Management Act, 2) is administrative, and 3) embraces multiple subjects, thereby rendering it invalid under Section 10.01 of the Vancouver City Charter.”

He added: “Defendant City of Vancouver’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Vanderwood also gave his decision to an Order Granting Greg Kimsey’s Motion to Dismiss.

“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because the requested relief, asking this Court to require Clark County Auditor to place a matter on the ballot, is contrary to law and cannot be granted.”

He added: “Greg Kimsey’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Plaintiff’s claims against Greg Kimsel are dismissed with prejudice.”

Wood said the rulings are “frustrating.” 

For one, it took almost two months for the rulings. Then the rulings lacked, in Wood’s opinion, explanation.

“Do we appeal? What do we appeal on? That’s really frustrating,” Wood said. “He took two months to not tell us anything.”

In a social media to other members of Save Vancouver Streets, Wood noted: 

“Our group remains confident that we followed the city’s charter and presented a legally formatted initiative that was certified by the Clark County Auditor. We collected over 6,500 signatures from Vancouver residents who wanted to have a voice about changes in our City’s street system. Despite case law supportive of our cause, the judge did not agree. Unfortunately his ruling gives the City the right to act as legal authority on initiatives that it does not agree with, which sets a bad precedent for future initiatives.  It also impacts the ability of anyone to run city-wide initiatives in the future.”

Save Vancouver Streets argued that there was already a ruling in the state that favored its mission, with a similar case in Federal Way. That case went to the side of the citizens working through the initiative process. Wood said if Save Vancouver Streets does appeal, it could lead to two contradictory rulings in the state, with a higher court needing to make a decision.

More than just the changes to major streets in Vancouver, Wood said this grassroots operation was also about getting the city council to listen to the people, to maybe come up with compromises. He said it appears the city has no intention of listening to the people.

“It’s hard to follow the city’s process and find out because they didn’t like it, they shoot it down,” Wood said. “That is frustrating. I’ve been very engaged in government stuff in Portland for years as part of my business. It pains me to say, Portland has a much more engaged city council and a much more engaging process than the City of Vancouver.”

This battle for Save Vancouver Streets has gone on for more than 18 months. Wood said that trying to have a voice with the city council is an uphill battle. There are too many behind-the-scenes meetings that determine so much, and not enough opportunity for the public.

“It almost feels like you have the deck stacked against you,” Wood said.

Bart Hansen, city councilor, understands that frustration. 

“I understand the ruling by the judge,” Hansen said. “I think the bigger issue is the message that Save Vancouver Streets is trying to send us. At least on my part: message received.”