Save Vancouver Streets hoping a judge will order the city to put its initiative on the ballot for the next general election
Save Vancouver Streets vowed to keep fighting, and on Thursday, Save Vancouver Streets proved that by filing a suit in an effort to get its initiative on the ballot for the next general election.
The city of Vancouver declared an initiative petition “invalid” on Jan. 6 and refused to send it to the next general election. Save Vancouver Streets announced Thursday that it had filed suit to move its petition forward.
“This measure has received strong support from registered voters here in our city,” said Justin Wood, committee member of SVS. “They have a fundamental right to have their voices heard at the ballot box. Regardless of whether they agree with the policy, city officials should follow the process laid out in their charter.”
SVS officials say by their understanding of the charter, the city must adopt the petition or reject it, and then send it to the next general election.
“If they refuse, the only remedies left is for the court to order the city to follow its charter and for the county auditor to place it on the ballot,” Wood said.
Jackson Maynard, attorney for SVS, said the lawsuit seeks to have the court order the city council to consider the measure as required under the city charter or have the Clark County auditor put it on the ballot.
The initiative requires a vote on whether the city can eliminate driving lanes on city streets. More than 6,500 Vancouver residents signed the initiative.
In 2017, the city council passed a “Complete Streets” program with the goal of increasing safe mobility for all users.
Save Vancouver Streets described that goal as “vague” and seven years later, Vancouver residents along Southeast 34th Street, McGillivray Boulevard, 112th Avenue, Mill Plain, Andresen and others are finding out that the vague goal is resulting in vehicle lane removal without the opportunity to say no.
On Jan. 6, the city council held a public hearing on the initiative. Instead of either passing the measure or rejecting it, the council took no action, and the city clerk refused to send the initiative to the next general election.
“I must advise you not to proceed with action on the petition,” said City Manager Lon Pluckhahn during the Jan. 6 city council meeting and public hearing on the initiative. “If I advised otherwise, it would be asking City Council to proceed with an action that the best information tells me is illegal. … To move forward with the initiative as it was presented is a significant risk to the city.”
Save Vancouver Streets disagrees.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment and petition for mandamus (which is a suit ordering the city to follow the law) finding that the city failed to follow the process laid out in its charter. The suit asks the court to either have the city follow its process or consider the city council’s failure to act on the measure to be a rejection, which would permit the initiative to proceed to the ballot.
For more information on Save Vancouver Streets, go to: https://www.savevancouverstreets.com/
Also read:
- Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution. - Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program. - C-TRAN offering free service on Transit Equity Day, Feb. 4
C-TRAN will offer free service across its entire system on February 4 in observance of Transit Equity Day, honoring the legacy of Rosa Parks. - City of Battle Ground prepares for 75th Anniversary Celebration
The City of Battle Ground is marking the 75th anniversary of its incorporation with a year-long series of community activities and celebrations planned throughout 2026. - Opinion: Nationwide strike in support of illegals and opposing the rule of law?
Lars Larson argues that a reported nationwide strike reflects opposition to immigration enforcement and the rule of law, criticizing political leaders and media coverage. - POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - Ninth Circuit revives claims against prosecutor who personally swore to warrant affidavit containing alleged false statements
The Ninth Circuit ruled that prosecutorial immunity does not apply when a prosecutor personally swears to alleged false statements used to obtain an arrest warrant.
In 2013, citizens filed a petition that proposed an ordinance to prohibit Vancouver city resources from being used to help extend TriMet’s MAX line from Portland to Vancouver as part of the Columbia River Crossing project. (The project has been renamed the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR)
Initially, petitioners sued Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey for failing to count valid signatures, striking 606 signatures, short by 32 signatures. If citizens signed more than once by mistake, both the original signature, and the duplicate were cancelled. There were a number of other un-related petitions circulated at the time. In a victory for the people, a judge in Cowlitz County ruled that the original signature was to be counted, and only the duplicate could be struck down, hence sufficient signatures were counted.
However, city attorneys gave their opinions that the initiative was not legally defensible, and advised the council not put the initiative on a ballot. By a vote of 5-2. Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt, and City Councilors Jack Burkman, Bart Hansen, Jeanne Harris and Larry Smith voted not to put the measure on a ballot. Councilors Bill Turlay and Jeanne Stewart favored putting the question to the voters.
I’d like to think that we’re going to see some new faces on the Vancouver city clowncil come next election. I’m hopeful… but, knowing the lack of critical-thinking skills of many voters, incumbents always have the upper hand simply due to name recognition.
The seeming mismanagement and misrepresentation that the city clowncil has been seen doing in the very recent past (IBR decisions, Save Streets decision) should be enough to vote the clowns out, and get some fresh blood on board. I’ve had enough of overpaid bureaucrats who have their own special agendas telling me what’s right for me, when I’m not hearing any of my circle of friends agreeing with their decisions. What happened to representative government?
I agree completely Susan. Four of the current Council Critters including the Mayor are up for reelection this year. Its time to make them run a real campaign for once, and answer for the many things they need to account for. It is not too soon to start running for election…
Its a shame things have come to this, but here we are. I am encouraged to see that enough people are putting their money toward this. We’re not Advocates, Activists, Agitators or Anything else. We live here. We own homes here. We have paid taxes for decades, and this is not what anyone who signed those petitions wanted.
The other aspect of things that is getting no attention is how many of these “programs” are about to have their funding evaporate. Money for these projects come from many sources, but those Government sources at all levels are out of other people’s money. A lot of those “non profits” out there are funded by a lot of private money, but much of that wealth went toward a failed $1 Billion campaign, and much of the rest is going up in smoke as we speak.
Things have changed, and only after some serious churn time will it be apparent how much. A lot of the changes in progress right now may well help overturn a lot of this nonsense. We shall see.