As Seattle Transit Blog reports, a Who’s Who list of sore losers and usual suspects have filed suit against the state, seeking to prevent it from allowing Sound Transit to use the I-90 bridge center lanes for light rail.
Their argument is simple: They claim that if the I-90 express lanes were paid for with gas tax money, they can’t be used for transit.
Really? Is that their argument? That once gas tax money is used to build a piece of infrastructure, Article II, Section 40 prohibits it from being converted to transit in perpetuity? What a load of crap. If there is an Article II, Section 40 violation here it was when the state used highway funds to help build center lanes it understood and agreed would be permanently committed to transit.
Just another delaying tactic from hypocrites like Michael Dunmire, who fervently defend the will of the people only when the people agree with them.
That’s one of the weirdest and stupidest arguments I’ve ever read. And that’s saying a lot.
“If there is an Article II, Section 40 violation here it was when the state used highway funds to help build center lanes it understood and agreed would be permanently committed to transit.”
Are you suggesting that if there is a constitutional violation, then (a) it doesn’t matter, if the State understood and agreed otherwise?
Or, (b) if a long time has gone by ?
those are crappy right wing arguments that leave a gaping rip in our constitution — at ear any right wing despot could drive a truck through.
The better argument is there’s no violation at all, because gas tax money can go to a road and the road can be set aside in part for transit (as on Aurora Avenue exclusive bus lanes).
There are quite interesting questions being raised here, but EVEN IF THERE IS a constitutuional problem (and I am not saying there is, but NO, Goldy, constitutional issues do not have a expiration date), it looks relatively easy and cheap to fix. Check out the report done by Steve DiJulio and Alan Merkel for the JTC (which I think Seattle Transit Blog has a link to) … it’s really well done, IMHO, and pretty much lays it out. I won’t guess the disposition of the suit, but it’s not inconceivable for it to be dismissed on a pre-trial motion.
The lawsuit is simply a last gasp from the anti-rail crowd that has been driving up costs and wasting our money for decades.
Now that everyone has been reminded that the additional lanes on I-90 would not have been built without agreement by everybody that the center lanes were for the exclusive use of transit, things are put in an appropriate perspective.
The people who filed this lawsuit should be held up to a public shaming for wasting a whole bunch of our tax dollars at precisely the wrong time. Ever wonder why things cost so much: just read this irresponsible lawsuit.
Thor —
The proper argument is there’s no constitutional violation in the first place.
Saying there was an agreement years ago so it’s okay — that’s a failure as a law argument, don’t you realize it?
Me and the government might agree you don’t have constitutional rights, and you should be jailed without trial, so if ten years later we do it, can we say everyone agreed to it? how’d you like them apples, mm?
Wow. The comment thread at Seattle Transit Blog is still humming along…