In front of a room packed with more than 100 people Monday night, Vancouver officials declared an initiative that would require voter approval to remove traffic lanes from city streets to be legally invalid and ineligible for placement on a future ballot.
“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,” City Manager Lon Pluckhahn said.
As a result, the Vancouver City Council took no action on the initiative after a lengthy public hearing.
“I’m unsurprised but disappointed,” said Justin Wood, a member of Save Vancouver Streets, the grassroots group that spearheaded the initiative.
Save Vancouver Streets (sometimes referred to as Save Our Streets or Save Our Vancouver Streets) plans to challenge the decision in court.
Jackson Maynard, an attorney representing Save Vancouver Streets, told the council the city does not have the power to prevent an initiative from going to the ballot.
“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 said.
Traffic vs. safety
Save Vancouver Streets took up the initiative, which received about 6,500 signatures, in response to public outcry over major changes proposed for city streets, including removing lanes along Southeast McGillivray Boulevard, Southeast 34th Street, Northeast 112th Avenue and other thoroughfares.
The projects fall under the city’s complete streets program, which was adopted in 2017 and aims to create a transportation network that is available to anyone regardless of how they commute.
Residents have said they felt left out of the planning process and didn’t have a say on whether the city removed automobile lanes. City officials say they have hosted open houses, conducted online surveys, and engaged with businesses and residents near the projects.
Some residents who live along Southeast McGillivray Boulevard and Southeast 34th Street say the lane reconfigurations have resulted in more congestion.
Residents against lane removals, city staff and cyclists have had tense exchanges. Last week, city officials said the initiative would have costly effects, allow roads to fall further into disrepair and hold the city back from achieving its climate goals.
At Monday’s city council meeting, people sardined themselves in the council chambers until city staff said the room was at capacity, and no one else could come in. People held signs saying, “Build cities for people, not cars” and “Support transportation freedom.”
“It’s, by far, the most attended meeting,” Councilor Erik Paulsen said.
More than 50 people spoke during the city council’s required public hearing for the initiative, mostly against the initiative.
Many said they feel unsafe cycling or walking on the streets where the city plans to add bike lanes and speed-slowing measures. One Vancouver resident said she’s against the initiative because her husband was in a bike accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
“Now, the only rolling together that we do is when I push him in a wheelchair,” Jan Verrinder said. “Tonight’s outcome means a lot to me. I don’t support making public safety optional.”
Some said they were concerned that sending every project that includes lane removals to the ballot would result in red tape and costly delays. Others said average residents don’t understand safe-street design like the experts working for the city 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 said.
Although some neighbors who live near streets with lane removals said the city’s traffic calming features have improved their lives, others said the opposite.
“I think the fair and proper thing to do is to let the citizens of Vancouver make decisions about their community,” said Dave Monroe, who said he lives near Southeast 34th Street where the city removed a lane.
“We are not against bike or mobility safety,” Save Vancouver Streets member Laurie Arndt said. “We just want a voice.”
Is it legal?
After reviewing the proposed initiative in April, City Attorney Jonathan Young told Save Vancouver Streets the initiative violates state law by overstepping the city council’s authority and interfering with the city’s administrative function.
Despite Young’s opinion, Save Vancouver Streets continued collecting signatures after receiving an outside legal opinion that the initiative, as written, is legal, Wood said.
Some at the council meeting criticized the group for moving forward with the initiative knowing the city would have to spend taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit. A lawsuit would likely resolve by summer, Young said, but it could last over a year if taken to the state Supreme Court.
Wood said the city never gave initiative supporters a suggestion for altering the language to satisfy the city’s concerns. Young said he did not provide alternate language for Save Vancouver Streets because he is not required to do so.
Council reaction
Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said city staff are monitoring reconfigured roads and will correct problems that arise. The city has cameras on Southeast 34th Street. The same will happen 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 said.
Many of the councilors sympathized with Save Vancouver Streets and said they hope both sides can come together to find 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 said.
