Just about everywhere citizens in Clark County Washington turn, we see our efforts being thwarted by governmental agencies, staff, appointed commissions and what have you. Most notably this seems to come in regards to the Columbia River Crossing project, designed to force us to accept Portland, Oregon’s financially failing light rail, even though it was voted down directly in 1995.
The latest push against citizens by local government comes from City Attorney Ted Gathe, married to 49th Legislative District Representative, Democrat Sharon Wylie, a strong supporter of the CRC, in a legal opinion presented to the Vancouver City Council pertaining to a petition initiative put forth by citizens to prevent any city funds of efforts be extended to promote or accept light rail.
Gathe issued a 7-page analysis along with his legal opinion recommending council “decline placing the ordinance on the ballot because it falls outside the scope of the city’s initiative powers and would not be legally defensible,” according to the Columbian, the local newspaper of record that is also a strong supporter of the project.
The petition was first denied due to questionable invalidation of many signatures that is the subject of a lawsuit in neighboring Cowlitz County that is awaiting a judge’s decision.
Many see the opinion given as a means to offset an expected decision favorable to plaintiffs that would require some action by the city.
Since extending Portland’ folly into Clark County was so soundly trounced in 1995, former mayor Royce Pollard brought it back up with the comment, “The community dialogue on light rail should begin now for our future.”
While a nice comment to make, efforts began to exclude “the community” and continue to this day as commissions, agencies and other groups formed primarily of those favorable to light rail were convened and charged with working out the details to push light rail, regardless of what “the community” felt.
In 2008, a small group of selected officials chose the “Locally Preferred Alternative,” thumbing their noses at “the community” who may have been allowed to attend public meetings, but were either not allowed to voice their opinions or whose opinions were promptly ignored.
No less that 3 ballot measures were since defeated when voters perceived they supported light rail, but that did not dissuade advocates in their push to thwart citizen opposition to light rail.
Mentioning citizen opposition and the one direct vote tally being 2 to 1 against light rail back in 1995 elicits responses like that of Vancouver City Council Member Larry Smith who said, “in 1995 my daughter wasn’t old enough to vote, she’s now old enough to vote.”
But yet she too is denied to voice her opinion, for or against due to her father’s support of denying citizens a vote on this project.
He continued expressing how time’s change and move on, but offers nothing to support any notion that a majority of citizens approve of extending light rail across the river into our community.
At the City Council meeting the final vote was 5 to 2 in favor of not letting citizens have their voices heard with only Council Members Jeanne E. Stewart and Bill Turlay siding with citizens.
The other 5, Jeanne Harris, Jack Burkman, Bart Hansen, Larry Smith and including Mayor Tim Leavitt I would like to remind of a little section of the Revised Code of Washington State, RCW 42.30.010.
Legislative declaration.
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
[1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]
While ostensibly dealing with open meetings and matters not being settled in secret, I am drawn to the sentence “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.”
Our state constitution seems to agree with this in at least two places,
ARTICLE 1 SECTION 1 All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
ARTICLE II SECTION 1 but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.
Yet, we have now seen for several years this small body of local government do as they please in thwarting efforts by the people just to be heard on a project slated to be the most expensive ever for this region and that many see as unsupported by the population, forcing the rest to undergo potentially decades of restrictive taxes, tolls and fees to pay off bonds for construction of the project.
To me that is not a representative form of government but does amount to a small body of elected officials stealing the people’s sovereignty. It is this same small body ignoring the will of the people and taking it upon themselves to decide what is best for all.
And, is it really an open meeting if citizens are ignored or denied their right to address elected officials on such an important matter?
Those who stole our sovereignty will not just return me, bank on that. It is up to us, the people it was stolen from to take it back and we do that by electing people who are willing to listen and take the people into consideration and not just summarily decide what the people are entitled to have or will be required to pay, after shutting them.
CRC is a very badly designed project that will place decades of problems on taxpayers’ backs and not solve the problems it is expected to. It will cost jobs, not provide them. There are not enough people willing to use light rail to justify building it, but it does place a portion of Portland’s $1.6 Billion in unfunded liabilities squarely on our shoulders.
We must be willing to regain our sovereignty and we do that by voting out those who stole it.
As we enter another election season, pay little attention to hollow promises or lofty claims. Instead, look closely at their records and if they are among those who stole the people’s sovereignty, they must be voted out.
