A recent decision by Clark County Superior Court has declared an initiative aimed at requiring voter approval for city traffic lane removals in Vancouver legally invalid. This ruling comes as a blow to Save Vancouver Streets, a grassroots organization that has been pushing for more public involvement in local infrastructure decisions.
The initiative, which was backed by around 6,500 signatures from Vancouver residents, sought to mandate that any removal of vehicle travel lanes would need a majority vote from city residents. The movement arose in response to public outcry over proposed changes to well-traveled streets such as Southeast McGillivray Boulevard and Southeast 34th Street.
The city has directed efforts towards a complete streets program initiated in 2017, designed to accommodate various modes of transportation. However, many residents opposed to the lane reductions claimed they were not adequately consulted during the planning process. In contrast, city officials have maintained they conducted numerous open houses and surveys, engaged local businesses, and sought feedback from residents during their planning phases.
City staff also warned of potential negative consequences if the initiative were to pass, including the risk of parking space overhauls that could burden already congested roads and hinder the city from reaching its environmental objectives.
In January, former city attorney Jonathan Young argued that the initiative contravened state law by overstepping the authority of the city council while interfering with the administrative functions of city governance. The Save Vancouver Streets group quickly filed a lawsuit challenging this position, claiming the city was bypassing its own official process for handling initiatives as outlined in the city charter.
The organization’s attorney, Jackson Maynard, contended that the charter does not allow the city to determine the validity of an initiative, asserting that the council only has the option to pass the initiative, approve an alternative measure, or reject it while still allowing it to proceed to a ballot.
However, Judge Derek Vanderwood found that the Vancouver City Council acted within its rights by not placing the initiative on the ballot. In his ruling, Vanderwood stated that the initiative sought to interfere with the city’s comprehensive plan established under the Growth Management Act and raised concerns about affecting pre-existing plans instead of establishing new policies. Moreover, he noted that the proposed initiative encompassed multiple subjects, further rendering it invalid according to the Vancouver City Charter.
Laura Shepard, a spokeswoman for Vancouver, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, which reinforced the city council’s authority in the situation. “We always welcome dialogue and the ideas, opinions, and hopes of residents as we work on the issues that shape Vancouver’s future,” she said in a statement.
Following the court’s decision, Wood communicated to Save Vancouver Streets members about the unfavorable ruling. In his message, he expressed concern that the ruling gives the city too much power in determining the legality of initiatives they oppose, which could set a troubling precedent for future grassroots efforts.
While the group is contemplating an appeal, Wood admitted it could be a financially taxing decision. Nevertheless, members of Save Vancouver Streets and their attorney hold firm in their belief that their initiative is legally sound.
Their cause previously received funding from the Building Industry Association of Clark County and the Clark County Association of Realtors, alongside contributions from community members. If they decide to move forward with an appeal, Wood mentioned they may reach out to the thousands of individuals who signed the original ballot initiative for support.
image source from：columbian
