We received an email from Ken & Barbara Miller today with a message which outlines their views on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1 (ST2) to expand light rail. They have sent this message far & wide, to citizens and elected officials.

The Millers are the couple that had their Tacoma property condemned by Sound Transit.

The Millers’ case is the one that prompted the state legislature to draft a new law to (at the very least) notify property owners by registered letter of an agency’s decision to acquire their property.

Sound Transit had buried the decision on their website.

John Ladenburg was Chair of Sound Transit at the time, and has defended Sound Transit’s actions even after the legislature took action to protect Washington property owners by creating a new law. Agencies must now at least send folks a registered letter outlining their decision.

The content of the Millers’ message raises a lot of questions about the use of eminent domain and the behavior of public agencies, and is worth considering, if you are a taxpayer or property owner in Washington State.

Click here for the Weekly Volcano’s article: “Ken and Barbara Miller have been forced to take a bad ride from Sound Transit”.

And HERE –Washington Policy Center’s “A False Sense of Security: The Potential for Eminent Domain Abuse in Washington”.

From Ken & Barbara Miller:

“We urge your no vote on the Sound Transit proposition on the 2008 ballot in the Puget Sound region.

The system is not a practical use of limited transportation funds in this area.  The agency has simply wasted many billions of dollars during the years of the agencies existence in the Puget Sound region!

We are very familiar with the organization known as Sound Transit and have had years of personal experience with those who are promoting the Sound Transit Scheme and all that goes with it.

Our personal experience has stemmed from the treatment received by us related to a long owned family business ownership in South Tacoma.  That property was taken from us needlessly since the agency had many choices for the siting of a parking lot which by the way won’t even be needed for passenger train service for many years to come.

Sound Transit took our property and the compensation finally provided, as we had worried, barely covered the almost 1/2 million dollar legal cost incurred.  Those cost for us were for the nearly 4 years of legal maneuvering by the agency that rose to astronomical levels from the date of initial action filed by Sound Transit against us in July of 2004 ultimately taking our ownership.

Sound Transit is by far the most devious agency in the entire State of Washington.

Sound Transit has little meaningful oversight of their operation whatsoever.  Current members of Sound Transit’s unelected board are hand selected as they have always been for the board positions held and are influenced very little by views of the voters.

It’d be easy to expound for a very long time about our Sound Transit experience now having gone on for many years and taking $100s of thousands of dollars of personal funds we no longer will have.

Agency officials took our land from us and we essentially received no compensation for our ownership .We will therefore not ever have any way to replace our 30 year ownership with another property anywhere let alone a location like we had.   Citizens need to be grateful for what they might have today - it could be taken away tomorrow.

In reality there is no protection whatsoever for those who are subjected to the eminent domain process.  The words “just compensation” are absolutely meaningless. Payment for properties taken are largely whatever the whim of the agency might be.   There is little that can be done in such circumstances.  Judges at all levels do little to protect citizens’ supposed constitutional guarantees.

In our case - at the trial for compensation added to the mix - is the fact that the jury process was severely flawed - the attorney representing us was grossly inadequate at trial - the pro-tem judge presided questionably - the 2 alternate jurors who shouldn’t even have been in final deliberation were left on the jury - one of the alternates jurors was a brother of a seasoned ranking Sound Transit official - that juror somehow became the jury foreman (there is more to the jury foreman tale) - Sound Transit simply overwhelmed the entire  proceeding.

Trial costs to Sound Transit were of no concern - Sound Transit had staff attorneys & legal staff present along with the attorneys & legal assistants from Graham & Dunn. Various outside consultants were on hand to testify. There was biased testimony from some in government  - (the details are just unending).

Sound Transit cares not a wit what happens to citizens who are having private property taken from them.   Sound Transit makes polished public statements about acquisitions of property with various assurances & express promises to help those who fall “victim” to eminent domain actions. Agency policies and assistance are described unendingly by the agency but All of
the mentioned assistance tends to be forgotten and ignored when takings actually take place.

Sound Transit is the most corrupt operation to ever exist in the State of Washington!

The agency appears unstoppable with legal firms, engineers, consultants and many others reaping huge rewards in the Sound Transit scheme.  Those who are recipients of the fabulous riches bestowed upon them by Sound Transit in turn donate large sums to elect officials & re-elect them retaining positions.   Those officials continue supporting ongoing Sound Transit efforts, which continue to plunder taxpayers, property owners and citizens in general.  It is a never-ending, continuous cycle that seems like its unstoppable.

Something must be done to change the un-American conduct exemplified by what takes place in Sound Transit activities in the region.  Little seems to be taking place to promote any sort of change in these ongoing activities that remain rampant in the State of Washington and elsewhere throughout the country.

Thanks,

Ken & Barbara Miller”

Here are our other posts related to this subject:

HERE –Washington Supreme Court Decsions Related to Transportation Agencies & New Candidates

HERE — Sound Transit’s Premature Demolition of 1910 “Hansen House” Precludes Historical Use

HERE – Sound Transit’s behavior in the Miller property condemnation case should give us all pause

Here are a few highlights from some compelling arguments put forth by Eastside Rail Now at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion…”In fact, the plan could even increase congestion in some areas, such as the I-90 corridor.”

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.…”The most urgent need for rail transit on the Eastside by far is in the I-405 corridor (which would also be vastly cheaper than the I-90 corridor).”

4. It would downgrade some existing bus service. For example, several bus routes between Seattle and the Eastside would likely be eliminated or cut back in attempt to induce their riders to switch to the light rail line.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge. “Rail transit has never before been attempted on a floating bridge…”

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility. Constructing a rail line on the I-90 floating bridge would reduce the freight capacity of the region’s most important east-west road freight corridor.

14.   It is enormously expensive, despite only marginal benefits.  …”Furthermore, these are only the direct monetary costs — not included are a variety of other costs, including the opportunity costs, that is, the loss to the region from not using the same funds for more effective projects, such as lower cost rail lines with better routes.”

And here’s the kicker:

16.   It would preclude the region from taking on more worthy projects for decades. The region would become legally locked into this massive and unprecedented tax increase and its poorly planned projects for many years. Tax capacity would be exhausted for decades, and all flexibility to reduce taxes or to replace the Proposition 1 projects with more effective projects, including those that might become necessary due to changing circumstances, would be lost. 

It’s the Opportunity Cost, folks… see the link here

See their website at: http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

Here is the first 10:

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion.

2.   It would provide little environmental benefit.

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.

4.   It would downgrade some existing bus service.

5.   It would result in wasteful construction of duplicative facilities.

6.   The start of rail operations would be too slow.

7.   It is mainly a transit system for Seattle.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge.

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility.

10.   So-called “bus rapid transit” may not be effective.

Read all “29 Reasons to Vote No”  at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

The Seattle Times published an interesting article August 3rd that outlined the issues that have had divided rulings in the Washington State Supreme Court recently.

Here are three from a list of ten that they compiled that have to do with transportation administration issues:

“Consider the following 10 questions, all the subject of divided rulings:

• Whether a transit agency can withhold documents by broadly asserting attorney-client privilege;

• Whether a transit agency can take private property permanently to satisfy a short-term need;

• Whether a vague notice on an Internet page is sufficient for a public meeting on the taking of private property“

1. The first example was whether or not an agency can hide behind their lawyers and deny public information that citizens should be able to access under public disclosure laws.

2. The second example is whether an agency can take your land permanently (if they need it for temporary staging purposes for a project) when they could just lease it from you and return it after the job is done (they want to profit from the sale).

3. The third example is whether a completely buried and vague reference to an agency’s interest in taking a property is enough notice to the property owners of Washington- the legislature has decided, that no, it’s not enough notice, and written a new law to AT LEAST give folks proper notice via a registered letter (The Miller case vs. Sound Transit precipitated the new law).

Think it’s not important who you vote for for Washington State Supreme Court?

Ask Ken & Barbara Miller, whose property was taken by Sound Transit. It matters.

The Bellevue City Council will seek comments from people about proposed changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and other recommendations related to developing a light rail system at a study session Monday at City Hall.

Bellevue buys land with eye to future Seattle Times, United States - 3 hours ago Sound Transit also is eyeing Northeast Sixth Street as a possible alignment for a passenger light-rail line between downtown Bellevue and the Overlake area ...

Proposed light rail project draws keen interest Eastside Business Journal, Washington - 3 hours ago A large crowd turned out for Monday's Council study session to hear Sound Transit staff update elected officials on a proposed East Link Light Rail project ...

Take a ride on this scenic route before it’s gone TheNewsTribune.com, WA - May 11, 2008 Contractors for Sound Transit will begin work late this year on track and crossing improvements so the Sounder commuter train can reach Lakewood and Amtrak ...

The News Tribune reports:

“Hanson House demolished: It was a side story to the issues surrounding the location of a Sounder rail platform in South Tacoma. While Ken and Barbara Miller battled with Sound Transit over their property south of South 56th and Hood, the little house on their property sat awaiting its fate.

At least one history buff, David Burns, had dreamed of using the house as a place to tell the story of Northern Pacific’s South Tacoma shops. He hoped to have a 1910 dining car he’s restoring kept on tracks nearby.

Sound Transit won the right to take the land and recently demolished the house. A parking lot will replace it.

Was it historic? A request to begin the process to protect it was set aside so that the preservation process wouldn’t become entangled in the condemnation litigation.

But it is likely the preservation board would have found enough in the vaguely Victorian workers cottage to protect it.

According to census documents, it was built before 1910 as a home for Northern Pacific machine shop helper Daniel Hanson, his wife, Marie, and daughters Allette, Rogna and Olga.

Having a century-old house next to a rail line within blocks of the old NP shops would have been perfect for Burns’ dining car. He’ll keep looking.”

Link: (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/columnists/callaghan/story/341320.html

Was it really necessary for Sound Transit to rush to demolish the Hansen House?

Here’s the short answer-NO.

Could Elks site be new home to kids museum? TheNewsTribune.com, WA - 1 hour ago While Ken and Barbara Miller battled with Sound Transit over their property south of South 56th and Hood, the little house on their property sat awaiting ...