Grassroots organization Save Vancouver Streets suffered a defeat in the courts against the City of Vancouver this summer, but it is raising funds to pay for an appeal in its fight to stop the city from making any more major changes to streets without the vote of the people
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
Justin Wood and colleagues were unsure what to do when a judge ruled against Save Vancouver Streets back in July.
Appeal or no appeal?
At first, they were leaning toward accepting defeat.
Nope. There were just too many supporters of Save Vancouver Streets who wanted to continue the fight.
“We were asked by so many from the community to please appeal,” Wood said. “We’re happy to see there are enough people who care about this.”
Still, an appeal costs money. Save Vancouver Streets had another fundraiser, with an email to all who signed the petition a long time ago, hoping to get their initiative on the ballot. The grassroots movement is still shy of its goal to raise $20,000 for the appeal and has about a month before attorneys will require the payment.
Wood is optimistic that supporters will respond.
If you recall, the goal for Save Vancouver Streets is to get its proposal to the voters: They want the citizens of Vancouver to decide if the city needs to ask its citizens to vote on eliminating any current lanes of vehicle traffic on Vancouver streets.
This is in response to the city’s Complete Streets campaign, which has eliminated lanes of traffic in several areas throughout Vancouver, and with future plans to strip major thoroughfares of more lanes of traffic.
If Save Vancouver Streets gets its initiative on a future ballot, and if it passes, the city would not be able to eliminate current lanes of traffic without asking for a vote of the people.
Wood and other Save Vancouver Streets officials said their concerns were dismissed by city officials, so Save Vancouver Streets went to the initiative process. During that process, more than 6,500 signatures were collected — more than enough, Wood thought, to make it to the ballot.
The City of Vancouver, however, took no action on the initiative and said that premise of the initiative was unlawful.
Save Vancouver Streets sued the city. Almost two months after arguments were heard, Clark County Superior Court Judge Derek J. Vanderwood ruled in favor of the city.
“We were all pretty disappointed in the judge’s ruling. He really didn’t give us anything,” Wood said, in terms of a reason. “He just found for the defendant and no explanation.”
Because of that, Wood theorizes, it makes the appeal more interesting. Wood said it is possible the appeals court will look back at the original argument brought by Save Vancouver Streets. That gives Save Vancouver Streets some hope.
Wood recently went to his bank to deposit donations into Save Vancouver Streets. He said one of the employees just asked about Save Vancouver Streets. Soon, three other employees joined in on the conversation. Wood said all of them agreed that the city was wrong to make all the changes on SE 34th Street.
“They said, ‘Oh my gosh, what they are doing to these streets is stupid,’” Wood recalled. “Four random people: ‘Why is the city doing this?’”
That has been Wood’s experience throughout this process.
“It’s like an issue nobody really knows about, but if you talk to people, the overwhelming majority don’t like it,” he said of the city’s position.
There is still time to act, Wood said. The appeal has been filed, and arguments are due in November. To pay for attorney costs, though, Save Vancouver Streets needs to reach its goal by the end of October.
For more information on Save Vancouver Streets and/or to donate, go to: Save Vancouver Streets
The city has already made significant changes to Columbia Street, McLoughlin Boulevard, SE 34th Street, and more.
The city also has plans for Andresen Road, SE Chkalov Drive and 112th Ave, and Mill Plain Boulevard, and many more, Wood said.
“This is the biggest secret nobody knows,” Wood said. “Nobody knows or cares.”
Clearly, at least 6,500 people know and care, but his point is there are a lot of Vancouver residents who are not happy with the new Complete Streets and would be frustrated to learn that more changes are coming to a neighborhood near them.
Also read:
- Life and legacy of outdoors reporter Allen Thomas recognized by Clark County Council
Clark County Council issued a proclamation honoring the life and career of longtime outdoors reporter Allen “Woodsy” Thomas, recognizing his decades of journalism in Southwest Washington. - Upcoming presentation on Battle Ground replacement levy
Battle Ground voters can attend a Jan. 14 presentation to learn more about the school district’s replacement levy ahead of the Feb. 10 election. - Residents encouraged to apply for traffic calming measures on Vancouver streets
Vancouver residents can apply by Feb. 28 for neighborhood traffic calming projects that will compete for funding through the city’s 2026 program. - Opinion: Majority party policies still making life more expensive for Washingtonians
Rep. John Ley outlines his opposition to new taxes, raises concerns about state spending, and details legislation he plans to pursue during the 2026 Washington legislative session. - Fluoride fights bubble up around Washington
City councils across Washington are debating whether to remove fluoride from drinking water as dental and health experts cite long-standing evidence of its safety and benefits. - Opinion: What happens when you build a state budget on the most volatile tax sources?
Ryan Frost argues that relying on volatile tax sources like income and capital gains taxes risks destabilizing Washington’s budget and undermining long-term fiscal planning. - Battle Ground City Council welcomes new and re-elected members
The Battle Ground City Council seated new and returning members and selected Eric Overholser as mayor and Aimee Vaile as deputy mayor during its first meeting of 2026.
The assertions made here that the judge “really didn’t give us anything,” and “He just found for the defendant and no explanation.” are false. Read the July 8, 2025 Clark County Today article that can be found at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/court-rules-against-save-vancouver-streets/
That article says …
(Judge) 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.”
So Jack, are you saying it’s a “done deal” and that nothing more can be done? Or just what are you saying?
As for me, I’ll make a donation to the appeal fund. But maybe more important, prior to any future election in which a Vancouver Council position is being voted upon, I’ll be sending a simple email message to the candidate. It will ask “Are you for, or against, the removal of traffic lanes as has been done under the Complete Streets campaign?”
If the candidate answers “no” then I’ll vote for them.
If the candidate answers “yes” then I will not vote for them. Period.
Hint: you don’t have to ask mayor annie ogle. She is all for it. So I’ll save you the trouble and remind you that she is NOT good for Vancouver residents.
This reduction of traffic lanes is the single most asnine action Vancouver City has done in my 29 yrs. living here. It is truly felt that those responsible for this craziness should lose their job over it.
“But the Council didn’t do it,” you might say. That may be so, but the Council is the guiding body for the City and, if they know their Council position hinges on their reversing this asnine action, maybe they’ll start listening to their constituents instead of the ivory-office planners of which the City seems to have plenty.
There is a major brew-hah underway about the proposed IBR not increasing transit times due to the lack of additional traffic lanes. A $10-billion project may grind to a
halt over the lack of traffic lanes. And here Vancouver City is taking away traffic lanes, and gas-lighting us by saying it’s for our own good.
Are the “inmates in charge” of this planning and decision making?