News & Politics, This Washington

Anti-Local Control Transportation Bill Moves Forward in Olympia

By Erica C. Barnett, Monday, February 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM
View Comments

A bill that would severely limit cities’ control over large transportation projects like the Alaskan Way tunnel and the SR-520 bridge passed unanimously out of the Senate transportation committee today, paving the way for the legislation to move forward to the rules committee and onto the senate floor.

In its original version, the bill would have exempted the state transportation department (WSDOT) from the requirement to get local permits for major (above $1 billion) state highway projects. Additionally, it would have sent all appeals of local land-use permits directly to superior court, instead of allowing appeals to local hearing examiners “or through any other local appeal process.”

The substitute bill adopted today amends that slightly, allowing appeals to local agencies unless WSDOT objects; in that case, appeals would have to go through superior court. Essentially, the new bill gives WSDOT the ability to scuttle local appeals whenever it wishes. Finally, the bill would allow the state to keep building a project while that project is being appealed—effectively allowing projects to move forward even if their permits are eventually overturned.

Andrew Austin, the lobbyist for the Transportation Choices Coalition, says the new version of the bill “does not address the underlying issues of robbing local control and gutting environmental protections.”

The transportation committee includes 11 Democrats and five Republicans; only one member, bill cosponsor Ken Jacobsen (D-46) missed today’s vote.

  • Chinook2004
    All-
    I am really impressed at how well informed and intellegent the commentors are here at Publicola. For what it's worth, I work for the State (not WSDOT) and am intimately involved in permitting these types of projects. In truth, Chris Stefan is correct; do not undrestimate the power of SEPA/ Shorelines or the strength of the local voices in other elements of permitting big projects. While I don't like this bill much on principle, the problem it is trying to correct is a real one. Projects are not always slowed or obstructed locally due to environmental or land use concerns. Sometimes local officials really are beholden to special interests (like developers or contractors) and can have less than pure motives. Removing the strictly local presence at the final arbitor of a projects "goodness", and moving into Superior Ct, with a presumably state-wide intrest could very well reach a better conclusion. Don't forget that people in Bellingham and Yakima are also paying for these projects, and deserve to have their interests protected as well.
  • Morgan
    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
  • Stephen
    Finally, somebody is addressing all the local entities that hold hostage transportation projects for local gain. Just a reminder, the cost over runs associated with light rail can be traced to Tukwila, SeaTac and Seattle. Public bribes to satisfy local municipalities needs to stop. Having a city threaten any progress unless they get new fire trucks, new police cars and other inane demands is crazy. This is for the greater good, it is not a golden goose for municipalities.
  • Japhet
    Actually, if you amend this bill to remove the ability of cities and other municipal corporations to approve/deny transportation projects, and give it to a regional planning authority or MPO, then you could actually get something done around here. And rather than being the whim of WSDOT capacity junkies or the whim of a city council beholden to developers, it would be the considered, balanced approach from a body that is charged with coordinating regional transportation/mobility.

    IMO this could be a huuuuuuge leap forward. Who will sponsor the amendment? Chopp? Klein? Anyone?
  • wrong targets
    there is no way a group of actual environmentalists and social justice advocates want to get rid of Rep Simpson or Rep Upthegrove. both are strong advocates of the two issues (particularly environment) and of the broader progressive agenda more generally.

    i'm not sure what your agenda is, what specific issue do you have with either of them?
  • George
    What is the rationale for working to defeat Geoff Simpson? I know he's been a big supporter of transit, for example.

    Also, if you think you're going to be able to exchange Rep. Simpson for a more "progressive" candidate you really demonstrate a lack of understanding of the 47th District. (SE King County) If anything, you'll just end up ensuring that the seat goes to a far-right Republican.
  • Mingistu
    I agree with you Mr/ Miss Progressive. Those three guys are also supporting the unpopular 1775. We can help you to defeat Dave Upthegove, and Goeff Simpson. We have a good number of fellowers in both47th and 33rd. But not sure how much i can help you to defeat the fat one--21.
  • johnmocha
    Progressive do you know what he did in terms of supporting/thwarting eminent domain? Its of particular interest given my impression that he supported the 1490/TOD bill last year.

    It appears he might be selling out those he listens to the those who fill his campaign offers
  • People
    There are three legislators besides Judy that needs to be removed from Office. Those are

    Marko Liias from 21st
    Geoff Simson 47th
    Dave Upthegrove of the 33rd.

    There was meeting two nights ago attended by group of influential environmentalis, and social justice folks. The discussion was not if the different groups agreed to removed the three guys but who best fit to challanged them.
    Now i think we have credible replacement of those three guys along with the chair of the transportation committee ( Miss Sahra Palin of Washington State).
  • Progressive
    Adam kline is progressive with long record of progressive activism. He is from my District 37, and one of the few who listen to the people.
  • wes kirkman
    I don't suppose we can expect awesome regional transit to be crammed down our throats under this legislation...can we?
  • Eric Koszyk
    Wow. What a horrible piece of legislation.

    Instead of building a transportation system for 2050 we will be building a transportation system for 1950.

    Does this also mean that the state can now create an Interstate 605?
  • johnmocha
    Speaking of legislative voting -it would be interesting to see who is promoting/preventing bills from moving forward. In particular it would interesting to see whether Adam Kline D-37th is helping or thwarting eminent domain.
  • Van
    The problem is the Columbia River Crossing and the problem is Vancouver Mayor Leavitt acting totally outside his authority to make back room deals with Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart and Oregon local officials Sam Adams (PDX mayor) and Dave Bragdon (Metro) to kill the Vancouver City Council's locally preferred alternative (LPA). .

    We have a council/manager form of government down here and Leavitt was not given authority to represent council to the Oregon and Washington governors in torpedoing the CRC project which all but a small albeit very loud and vocal group of naysayers wish to kill. This project affects commerce throughout the region and is vital to replace an aging lift span interrupted and seismically vulnerable 5 mile portion of I-5.

    Thankfully, out local Senator Don Benton has finally seen the light on the extreme need to get this project underway and out of the hands of a Vancouver official with a big hat, but no real cattle.
  • Chris Stefan
    Even if this bill passes there are ways for local governments to stop WSDOT. Most highway projects are subject to SEPA, any near water resources have to follow the state shoreline act, most also have factors that require following NEPA as well. In addition many projects require permits from the USACE and US Coast Guard among other federal agencies. Local governments have an opportunity to voice their objections during the processes involved. If WSDOT blows them off (which they tend to do with most comments during the environmental process) the local governments have a damn good case for a lawsuit, often in federal court.

    A local government is in a much better position to tie things up in court with an environmental process lawsuit than environmental or citizens groups are. Now it is a bit of a nuclear option, but it is a way to stop bad projects.
  • from the state website
    Transportation
    311 J.A. Cherberg Building - P.O. Box - Olympia, WA 98504-0466
    Telephone: 360-786-7300 / Legislative Hotline: 1-800-562-6000

    Committee Members

    Senator Room Phone
    Haugen, Mary Margaret (D) Chair JAC 305 (360) 786-7618
    Marr, Chris (D) Vice Chair LEG 417 (360) 786-7610
    Swecker, Dan (R) * INB 103 (360) 786-7638
    Becker, Randi (R) INB 115B (360) 786-7602
    Benton, Don (R) INB 109B (360) 786-7632
    Berkey, Jean (D) JAC 241 (360) 786-7674
    Delvin, Jerome (R) INB 201 (360) 786-7614
    Eide, Tracey (D) LEG 305 (360) 786-7658
    Hatfield, Brian (D) JAC 239 (360) 786-7636
    Jacobsen, Ken (D) JAC 237 (360) 786-7690
    Kastama, Jim (D) JAC 235 (360) 786-7648
    Kauffman, Claudia (D) LEG 414 (360) 786-7692
    Kilmer, Derek (D) JAC 226 (360) 786-7650
    King, Curtis (R) INB 205 (360) 786-7626
    Ranker, Kevin (D) LEG 402 (360) 786-7678
    Sheldon, Tim (D) LEG 412 (360) 786-7668
    *Ranking Minority Member
  • Progressive
    One thing i would like to request from Publicola is to publish who is voting what in Olympia. Those legislators are out of touch with the people who sent them to olympia. We have a mayor and city council, and Seattlities-- we are capable of running our own affairs. We don't want Made in Olympia solution. List of different bills and who voted Yes or No is what we want from Publicola.
  • OlyWatch
    Where is the sharp reporting on other bills that trump local control? SB 6350 was ghost written by the Governor's Office and is being pushed by state agencies to "allocate the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas" through a "marine spatial plan". Once the "agencies in the Governor's natural resource cabinet" decide on the plan, "each local government must make decisions in a manner that ensures conformance with the applicable provisions of the plan". Isn't the seawall in a marine area? What about the 520 bridge or even the proposed tunnel?
  • Mr. Mike
    This should be an opportunity for the Mayor & the City Council to work together on something. I'll be curious to see how they do...
  • whatever's clever.
    since when has any local authority used the denial of permitting to stop a project?

    unless someone tells me this is a real thing, all I see is a PR jab at Seattlites who want a reasonable project with mass transit.
  • I know, it is shocking to see something planned and executed.
    It is a direct and equally opposite reaction.

    Energy is neither created, or destroyed.

    In this, it is reflected in reaction.

    Form a coalition, a task force, then a blue ribbon commission, have some meetings, and 5 years from know wonder why the state is trying so hard to build its roads. Then, propose a different solution than the one already being deployed.
  • gloomy gus
    johnmocha, if this passes there'll be more hay for local politicos to make in reaction, more tempests, more teapots, more hair-tearing, more Seattle Firsters, more making fun of yokels who have the temerity to raise their voice to us - that is, more to cover.

    There's always going to be some more newsworthy nonsense just around the corner, no worries.
  • johnmocha
    wow, how much of your reporting will become irrelevant if this passes?
  • misha
    Some quotes from that link about the Vancouver/Portland letters to the governors. It's eerily similar to our 520 and tunnel situations.

    --

    Four local elected officials, two from Oregon and two from Washington, today warned the governors of Oregon and Washington that the current Columbia River Crossing project "as currently proposed still imposes unacceptable impacts on our communities."

    The letter reiterated all four local leaders' support for construction of an improved Interstate 5 crossing of the Columbia River but also demanded "a stronger voice for our local governments in decisions about the project."
  • misha
    This isn't just about 520 and the waterfront tunnel. It's also about the I-5 Columbia River Crossing in Vancouver/Portland.

    Over there, the super-conservative Vancouver mayor wants a six-lane bridge with no tolls. The urban-liberal Portland mayor wants a six-lane bridge with tolls. Every local politicians wants light rail, bicycle, and pedestrian crossings, and more local environmental care.

    The WSDOT and Oregon DOT only want a twelve-lane mega-highway with tolls. The Vancouver and Portland mayors, along with other local politicans, signed letters to the WA and Oregon governors demanding that the WSDOT and ODOT stop their asinine behavior and listen to what the local people want - very similar to the letter our mayor and city council (sans crazy Nick Licata) sent to our governor.

    It seems like they're just picking on us, but they're not. The WSDOT (along with their counterpart in Oregon, who it seems is just along for the ride) clearly does not have local people's best interests at heart. They just want to build bigger, fatter, car-only highways - no matter who it hurts.

    More info on the Vancouver/Portland letter here:

    http://news.oregonmetro.gov/1/archives.cfm/cate...
  • Alex Broner
    You vill build ze highvay and you vill like it!
  • Yikes!
    This is extraordinarily good policy. The thinly veiled effort of McGinn to frustrate the AWV replacement through a bond levy justifies the legislature in taking action to prevent him from undermining the project through local permitting authority. The city of Seattle is a subsidiary government to the state of Washington. If the legislature wants to limit local authority over regulatory matters where the local government is abusing or likely to abuse its authority, that is the legislature's prerogative. There is no hint whatsoever that this legislation limits environmental review or environmental protections. It simply prevents McGinn from reneging on his position just before the election that it would not oppose the AWV replacement.
  • Mary Margaret's Nightmare
    This was a solution to a nonexistent problem.

    Transportation projects are "essential public facilities" under the GMA. As such, they are guaranteed a timely and predictable permitting process.

    Cities MAY condition the siting and permitting of EPF's. However, they cannot frustrate or render impracticable said siting and permitting.

    As with most things that come out of the Senate Transportation Committee - it's 1950's thinking at it's best. But what can one expect from a committee lorded over by a hairdresser with no experience whatsoever with transportation or land use planning.
  • gloomy gus
    Why would any group of legislators make a move like this when all Seattle ever is to them is super respectful? I mean, super. respectful.
  • Dorli Rainey
    This is a power grab by the Department of Transportation the likes of which we have not seen before. Environmental Impact Statements have not really been useful to citizens as we saw with the third runway, both tunnel versions, the Maury Island Gravel Pit, and the 520 Interchange. I hope that citizens will get active and stop this new version of shoving projects down our throats, This one is especially onerous because it favors the design desired by the Eastside groups led by Wallace and Kemper Freeman over the objections of their residents and overrules the people most affected by the A+ version.
  • I find this an astonishingly bad piece of public policy. Almost unimaginably bad. Cartoonishly bad.

    Is there any point at all to pretending that this isn't a political attack on Seattle? This is explicitly a "build highways through Seattle (and other cities) whether they want them or not" bill. None of the plans that will get rammed down our throats with this bill will make sense in either an urban or a regional context.

    They'll waste taxpayer money on old-school road-building, further destroy Puget Sound and our local environment, make life less pleasant in Seattle, make it harder and more dangerous to bike, walk or take transit, increase our greenhouse gas emissions, and (just to make it bitterly ironic) do nothing over time to beat traffic, due to the induced demand open road and growing populations create. You can't build your way out of a traffic jam. All we'll end up with are very expensive congested roads for suburban commuters, paid for by the people of Seattle.

    Outrageous. Unacceptable. Short-sighted. Stupid.

    Time to throw the bums out!
  • arf arf
    well aren't you going to name the democrats who voted for this?

    I guess Ken was at a bar with his dog...
  • Bendover
    The tanks of the Fascist State known as Wash_in_Ton roll over the townships and villages of the Puget Sound.

    Want a vote? Show me your billion dollars first!
blog comments powered by Disqus