In entrance of a room full of greater than 100 individuals Monday night time, Vancouver officers declared an initiative that will require voter approval to take away site visitors lanes from metropolis streets to be legally invalid and ineligible for placement on a future poll.
“Allowing an ordinance that we believe to be illegal to proceed to public vote not only sets a precedent for potential future initiatives in Vancouver, but for other cities in Washington,” Metropolis Supervisor Lon Pluckhahn stated.
Consequently, the Vancouver Metropolis Council took no motion on the initiative after a prolonged public listening to.
“I’m unsurprised but disappointed,” stated Justin Wooden, a member of Save Vancouver Streets, the grassroots group that spearheaded the initiative.
Save Vancouver Streets (generally known as Save Our Streets or Save Our Vancouver Streets) plans to problem the choice in court docket.
Jackson Maynard, an lawyer representing Save Vancouver Streets, informed the council town doesn’t have the ability to forestall an initiative from going to the poll.
“In fact, under state law … the power to determine whether an initiative is valid is reserved to the courts, not to the city council and not to the city attorney,” Maynard stated.
Site visitors vs. security
Save Vancouver Streets took up the initiative, which acquired about 6,500 signatures, in response to public outcry over main adjustments proposed for metropolis streets, together with eradicating lanes alongside Southeast McGillivray Boulevard, Southeast thirty fourth Avenue, Northeast 112th Avenue and different thoroughfares.
The initiatives fall underneath town’s full streets program, which was adopted in 2017 and goals to create a transportation community that’s obtainable to anybody no matter how they commute.
Residents have stated they felt ignored of the planning course of and didn’t have a say on whether or not town eliminated car lanes. Metropolis officers say they’ve hosted open homes, performed on-line surveys, and engaged with companies and residents close to the initiatives.
Some residents who dwell alongside Southeast McGillivray Boulevard and Southeast thirty fourth Avenue say the lane reconfigurations have resulted in additional congestion.
Residents towards lane removals, metropolis employees and cyclists have had tense exchanges. Final week, metropolis officers stated the initiative would have pricey results, permit roads to fall additional into disrepair and maintain town again from attaining its local weather targets.
At Monday’s metropolis council assembly, individuals sardined themselves within the council chambers till metropolis employees stated the room was at capability, and nobody else might are available. Individuals held indicators saying, “Build cities for people, not cars” and “Support transportation freedom.”
“It’s, by far, the most attended meeting,” Councilor Erik Paulsen stated.
Greater than 50 individuals spoke in the course of the metropolis council’s required public listening to for the initiative, principally towards the initiative.
Many stated they really feel unsafe biking or strolling on the streets the place town plans so as to add bike lanes and speed-slowing measures. One Vancouver resident stated she’s towards the initiative as a result of her husband was in a motorbike accident that resulted in a traumatic mind damage.
“Now, the only rolling together that we do is when I push him in a wheelchair,” Jan Verrinder stated. “Tonight’s outcome means a lot to me. I don’t support making public safety optional.”
Some stated they have been involved that sending each mission that features lane removals to the poll would end in purple tape and expensive delays. Others stated common residents don’t perceive safe-street design just like the specialists working for town do.
“To intelligently vote on matters like these would mean that every voter in the city needs to understand the rationale for whatever the project is, its constraints, its costs, its benefits. That is daunting,” Vancouver resident Ken Williams stated.
Though some neighbors who dwell close to streets with lane removals stated town’s site visitors calming options have improved their lives, others stated the other.
“I think the fair and proper thing to do is to let the citizens of Vancouver make decisions about their community,” stated Dave Monroe, who stated he lives close to Southeast thirty fourth Avenue the place town eliminated a lane.
“We are not against bike or mobility safety,” Save Vancouver Streets member Laurie Arndt stated. “We just want a voice.”
Is it authorized?
After reviewing the proposed initiative in April, Metropolis Lawyer Jonathan Younger informed Save Vancouver Streets the initiative violates state legislation by overstepping town council’s authority and interfering with town’s administrative perform.
Regardless of Younger’s opinion, Save Vancouver Streets continued gathering signatures after receiving an outdoor authorized opinion that the initiative, as written, is authorized, Wooden stated.
Some on the council assembly criticized the group for shifting ahead with the initiative realizing town must spend taxpayer {dollars} on a lawsuit. A lawsuit would probably resolve by summer time, Younger stated, but it surely might final over a yr if taken to the state Supreme Court docket.
Wooden stated town by no means gave initiative supporters a suggestion for altering the language to fulfill town’s issues. Younger stated he didn’t present alternate language for Save Vancouver Streets as a result of he isn’t required to take action.
Council response
Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle stated metropolis employees are monitoring reconfigured roads and can right issues that come up. The town has cameras on Southeast thirty fourth Avenue. The identical will occur for Southeast McGillivray Boulevard.
“We’ve screwed up before … that’s part of the decision that the transportation department has already worked into this plan,” McEnerny-Ogle stated.
Most of the councilors sympathized with Save Vancouver Streets and stated they hope each side can come collectively to discover a compromise.
“I’m a little heartbroken for those that have put a lot of energy into this work and not have, in the opinion of our attorneys, a measure that council is being asked to support move forward,” Councilor Sarah Fox stated.