Scaling back of light rail was legal, state Supreme Court rules
The state Supreme Court yesterday lifted one of the last significant legal clouds hanging over Sound Transit's Seattle light-rail line, ruling the agency didn't violate state law when it scaled back the project in response to cost overruns.
Sane Transit, an opposition coalition, filed a lawsuit two years ago to block the line, arguing it was illegal because it wasn't the same project that voters approved in 1996. Foes wanted the project halted until another vote could be held.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling that voters had given Sound Transit discretion to scale back the project in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
The "Sound Move" regional transit plan that King, Snohomish and Pierce county voters approved in 1996 called for a 21-mile light-rail line from Seattle's University District to SeaTac by 2006. By late 2000, however, the project was $1 billion over budget and three years behind schedule.
So, in November 2001, the Sound Transit board downsized the project to a 14-mile line from downtown Seattle to Tukwila, to be finished in 2009.
Construction finally began last fall.
The Sane Transit lawsuit boiled down to different interpretations of exactly what voters approved in 1996.
Sane Transit argued that an eight-page Sound Transit brochure and official voters pamphlets mailed to voters before the election promised the full 21-mile line would be built within 10 years, and made no mention of possible delays or downsizing.
But Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, writing for the court majority, said those materials were "extrinsic documents" that were not legally binding. Voters in fact had approved by reference a more detailed board resolution that did allow for changes if money ran short, he wrote, even though they hadn't been provided that resolution.
"An inquiry into the voter's subjective understanding of what he or she thought he or she was enacting is a task we will not undertake," Alexander added.
Justices Richard Sanders, Charles Johnson and Tom Chambers dissented. Chambers called the majority ruling a blow to the people's power to legislate directly.
It gives proponents of a measure "almost unfettered discretion to (do) whatever they want regardless of what the resolution submitted to the people promises to the people," he wrote.
Light-rail foes said the majority opinion could further erode public trust in government.
"Sadly, it appears that the state requires more disclosure and provides more protection to a person buying a used car than to taxpayers footing the bill for a multibillion-dollar project," the Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives (CETA) said in a prepared statement.
CETA co-chair Maggie Fimia said the decision could increase voter skepticism about claims governments make in future ballot measures, such as a three-county roads and transit package tentatively scheduled for the November ballot.
"Opponents of that will use this (ruling) to kill it," she predicted.
Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, who also is Sound Transit's board chairman, labeled that "a silly argument. ... Any agency has to have some latitude on how things might turn out."
If Sane Transit had prevailed, Ladenburg said, Sound Transit probably would have sought relief from the Legislature. That probably would have delayed construction one or two years and driven up costs, he said.
Ladenburg said the ruling "gets the last legal hurdle out of the way for Sound Transit. ... People are going to see light rail finally come to Seattle."
But at least three unresolved lawsuits still could affect the project:
• Another anti-rail group, Citizens for Mobility, has filed a federal suit contending Sound Transit and the Federal Transit Administration erred in not requiring an environmental-impact statement on the scaled-back project. The group lost in U.S. District Court last year, but has appealed.
• State courts still haven't decided whether Sound Transit can continue to collect a motor-vehicle excise tax that provides 20 percent of its revenue in light of another state Supreme Court ruling last year. That ruling upheld voter-approved Initiative 776, which attempted to repeal the tax.
Sound Transit has assured the federal government it will complete the light-rail line even if it loses the money. But Fimia said that's not a sure thing.
• Will Knedlik of Kirkland filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Sound Transit in December seeking, among other things, refunds to voters of motor-vehicle excise taxes paid since Initiative 776 passed, as well as a partial rollback of Sound Transit taxes starting in 2007.
Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231 or epryne@seattletimes.com