Hello Mayor and Councilmembers
Would you support an advisory vote to settle once and for all if the voters of Seward support the Washington St. location for the MLS? It would be non-binding legally, and as such, could be held on a separate ballot with one yes or no question on it. This would be similar to the site council votes we have seen in our city elections many times. The only scenario that is acceptable would be to have this ballot voted on in the booth at the same time as the council election. A separate box for the ballots as well as the ballots themselves can be provided, and all those interested can witness the count.
You may be told that it is too late for this. I wonder why this would be. This vote would pack no legal weight. Although it would have been better all the way around to have had an advisory vote at the beginning of the process, this is almost certainly the last chance. I would be completely satisfied with the result either way. I'm not sure if you have heard about the Borough Plat Committee meeting that took place over in Soldotna the same night as the last council meeting, but the committee members were very sympathetic to our testimony that we need a chance to vote. The plat approval was denied until an advisory vote could be held. This will be overruled in due time, as the plat committee does not have the authority to require a vote to be held. But the sentiment was on our side overwhelmingly.
It has been extremely frustrating for me in my involvement with Washington's Army since our effort to get this vote began last January. Having Rick Blythe label us to be some kind of second class citizens for asking for a vote had to be the low point. I wonder if he looked at the list of names requesting a vote that was published in the Phoenix Log last March. Three current councilmembers were on that list, as well as past councilmembers, mayors, our oldest living residents, local business people, and many other good citizens. One reason that we are concerned is that we all love this town. I think the MLC is a good addition to our downtown area, but not if we have to sacrifice our historical grid. That is one thing this town has that is unique on the Kenai Peninsula, and is one of our greatest attractions; much more so than the MLC will ever be. But I will shut up and get behind the street location immediately if we have an advisory vote and that is what the majority wants.
I asked Willard last week to see about putting this on the agenda for the next meeting. I've been out of town for the last few days and may have missed his call back. Today is the deadline to get this on the agenda, but whether it gets on there for this meeting or not, I ask for your support. It needs to be introduced at council with a discussion to follow. Please emphasize that this is non-binding and will have no legal ramifications. It only settles the issue of where the public stands. I don't support the MLC project in its current location without a vote. I know there are others who feel the same. We need to get the public united behind the project to help it succeed. There will be a movement to stop the funding should we lose this last chance at a vote. The Borough Plat Committee was sympathetic to the need for a vote, maybe those with the purse strings will be too. We have been told many times that the majority is for the street vacation. I certainly respect the opinions of all citizens on this issue. With this vote out of the way, its full speed ahead with no looking back. Let's do it.
Please let me know what you think.
Bob Linville
****
Dear Bob,
I have two words for you, "yes, definately."
Dorene
****
I’m in the process of formulating a response about advisory votes that I will email to you and to others. Hopefully this will answer some of the questions you have been receiving. Give me another day. --Jean A. Lewis, CMC
****
This may be one of those “shoot the messenger” type of emails, but I must attempt to try and answer the whirlwind of questions surrounding advisory votes, and answer why the council cannot do this at this time. Here’s what research has shown:
Ballots are put before voters in a limited number of ways:
--Valid Recall
--Valid Referendum
--Valid Initiative
--Council Resolution or Ordinance
So you ask; can the city council at this juncture, vote on a resolution to hold an advisory vote related to vacating a portion of Washington Street?
1) It’s not a valid recall, referendum or initiative.
2) Council cannot put forward a resolution to have an advisory vote because, regardless of the result, they do not have the authority to act upon such advice. They cannot convey property they no longer own.
Some other reasons would be:
1) An earlier referendum attempt on this issue was found to be unconstitutional by the court. There is no right to vote on the matter.
2) The City of Seward is still in litigation in the Supreme Court on this matter because the plaintiffs have appealed. An advisory vote would be inconsistent with the City’s litigation position in rejecting an attempt to vote. At this time, the law stands that there is no right to vote on this matter.
3) The land has already been conveyed. The city no longer owns it. Although the Alaska Supreme Court has not ruled on the extent of advisory votes, courts in other jurisdictions have held that advisory votes are impermissible if the governing body seeking to place a question on a ballot would not have the authority to take such action. The land is owned by the National Park Service, and the City does not have the authority to veto the Kenai Peninsula Borough’s 2005 decision that resulted in vacating the right-of-way and conveying the land to the National Park Service.
4) Even if a vote were not prohibited by the Constitution, the courts, borough ordinance, and State law; any vote to overturn the borough’s decision would need to be borough-wide because this is an areawide platting function of the borough.
5) The deadline has passed for ballot review for the October 2006 election. A special election, even if permissible, would be expensive and meaningless.
6) Council members have numerous ways to confer with the public on issues, such as hearings, work sessions, meetings, polling, and visiting with their constituents. The individuals seeking a vote have participated in a myriad of public meetings on this issue, which is the proper avenue for the public to provide input.
As a side note, further research has shown advisory votes are generally a bad idea. They can set precedent that can be used against a city in years to come, they are biased, and hardly ever give a true picture. Ask a community if they wish to have a nice enhancement? The answer would most surely be yes. This example of an advisory vote would be unfair to their voters without knowing the cost of the project, where the money would come from, and how much it would cost the taxpayers (An example I found).
I appreciate and can be sympathetic to the cause of the plaintiffs, but thought it time to research a good explanation for you. It’s not that the council is not listening--law and other reasons dictate that they cannot hold an advisory vote on this issue at this time.
*****
I have been told I should have ended my email on the advisory vote with 2 words----its illegal.
That’s what I get for trying to explain things!!!! It’s illegal does sum it up. --Jean
****
Hello Mayor and Councilmembers
Jean Lewis has put considerable research into our request for an advisory vote and should be commended for doing so. I think in a few instances, however, there may be some misunderstandings. Also, a thought came to me last night which is a good illustration of the power of a vote when used to help projects of this sort move ahead.
The new Denai'ina Center, a convention center now under construction in Anchorage, is our closest example of a successful recent project. Because a bed tax increase was involved, there was no choice of whether or not a vote was required. Just the same, let’s look at what happened. The proposal suffered a defeat at the polls on its first go around in 2003. Its costs were lowered, and the project revised somewhat, and the April 2005 vote gave it the go ahead. Ground was broken this spring, and it’s well underway. Questions such as, "How much is this going to cost?" and, "Who will pay for the ongoing operating expenses?" and, "Where will this project be located?" were thoroughly hashed out in the campaign leading up to the positive vote.
The only one of those three questions has been answered as far as I know in Seward's project campaign is the location issue. And this one has generated considerable resistance. There may be a calculation out there concerning the City's component of the ongoing operating expenses, but I have not seen it. Whatever it is, long term commitments of future taxpayers money should be fleshed out in much more detail than this one has. Who will pay for these expenses? Seward’s tax base is much smaller than that of Anchorage. I ask this as a long term Seward real property and sales tax payer, and in the interest of seeing projects of this sort succeed over the long term. This is a big deal for Seward; at least as big as the one up in Anchorage. We should follow their example for the best chance of seeing our project come to pass.
Most of Jean’s response to the idea of an advisory vote is based on the legality of a vote at this time. To clarify things; this is not a referendum, initiative, or a recall. Jean does include in her list of proper votes that of a “Council Resolution or Ordinance”. What we are asking for is a council resolution supporting an advisory vote on the location of the MLC center. Do we have to vote on the resolution to have a vote? In reality, an advisory vote does not have any legal validity to do any of the things that Jean mentions further on in her response. It can not reclaim the property. That can only be done with the agreement of all the partners in the MLC project to do so, as has been broached as a possibility should a deal satisfactory to Brad Snowden be reached.
So, what does an advisory vote do? The first thing it would accomplish is to eliminate the need for the legal case in front of the Supreme Court on the referendum issue. The City has spent over twenty thousand taxpayer dollars on city attorney’s fees in their defense of this case already. It is very difficult for those of us paying for the other side out of our own pockets to keep up with those expenses, but we have so far, and have a carrot at the end that keeps us motivated. A right of way vacation has never before in the history of Alaska law been called an appropriation. There are several good arguments against this idea that we believe will prevail. Should this case be decided in favor of Washington’s Army, all of their legal fees will be recoverable from the City. As court approved public interest litigants, no legal fees can ever be recovered from them by the City in the event that they lose. Is it worth another twenty grand in taxpayer legal fees, even if the City wins, to keep fighting this when the whole voting issue can be settled essentially for free at our October city election?.
I am happy with a vote of any kind on the Washington Street location. To be legitimate, it has to occur in the same booth as the regular vote takes place, but it would not be on the same ballot. I propose the simplest possible question, “Do you support locating the Mary Lowell Center in the middle of Washington Street?” Yes or No. In this way, the people of Seward could have their say in the privacy of the voting booth. It would be on a separate ballot, and collected in a separate box that has no connection to either the council ballot or its Aug. 15th deadline. I will pay for it myself if need be. All those interested can witness the whole process including the count. There is no financial expense to be considered.
The second thing accomplished by the advisory vote would be to get Seward together as a solid front to realize funding for the project. All of our other efforts to achieve a vote have been blown off. The legal attempt at an injunction to hold off the project failed, and the Supreme Court won’t hear the case until next year. The only other option open to those of us who oppose the MLC in its current location is to stop the funding. There is a five million dollar earmark for this project in motion right now in Congress. Unless we can foresee this advisory vote coming to pass, a mass mailing needs to go out to all Seward PO boxes with a copy of this letter and all others pertinent to our attempt to get a vote, along with the format for resistance to the funding. Washington DC news media and blogs, as well as senators and representatives concerned about runaway earmarks and voting rights will be included, beginning with our own delegation. How can this help our project succeed? The argument against us is based on an unwillingness to let a vote of any kind come to pass. It seems that old ways are changing. That may not be the best foot to put forward in the light of recent history of congressional funding for Alaskan projects.
Now is the time to eliminate the controversy surrounding the whole Washington St. issue. Advisory votes are not illegal. They have no weight in law at all. Please support a resolution to have this advisory vote at this time.
Bob Linville
224-3252
linville@ak.net
****
I have been told I should have ended my email on the advisory vote with 2 words----its illegal.
That’s what I get for trying to explain things!!!! It’s illegal does sum it up. --Jean
No comments:
Post a Comment