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.