Download BBB’s new, comprehensive review of Sound Transit’s work on the B7 alignment at: www.betterbellevue.org
See BBB’s “Optimized B7” proposal :
“Building a Better Bellevue has also included an “Optimized B7†alignment that offers a B7 alignment with improved cost considerations.”
Tonight, the case for a potential conflict of interest was laid out re: Bellevue City Council member Grant Degginger and his law firm Lane/Powell by a Bellevue citizen during public comment. Lane/Powell apparently represents Sound Transit and Degginger admitted he has tried and won a case for them.
After Degginger’s comments re: his involvement, he called out his challenger by disparaging a group she belongs to. That led to an escalation of conflicts between Council members.
See the streamed 09/27/10 City of Bellevue Council meeting on their website at: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/bellevue_tv.htm
 Building a Better Bellevue says:
1. It has support from its Bellevue neighbors all over the city, and that
2. Large signs are going up on private property on Bellevue Way to visually demonstrate opposition to Sound Transit’s effort to utilize Bellevue Way and 112th regardless of the city’s wishes, and to
3. Point out that the City of Bellevue’s preferred alignment for the route into the city remains the B7 alignment.
See the Building a Better Bellevue site here: www.betterbellevue.org
Is there “Freedom of Speech” in Vancouver, Washington, guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America? Hmmm…
Vancouver City Council member Jeanne Harris goes absolutely postal on this YouTube post from a Vancouver City Council meeting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_8HgrM4LcE.
Here are a few quotes from a Council meeting in Vancouver where discussion re: light rail and tolls elicited overly heated comments from Council member Jeanne Harris:
To the Mayor of Vancouver re: a citizen: “Gavel Him Down! Gavel Down!”.
To the citizens: “Out!… You’ve Been Dismissed! Leave! You’re Done!“…”This is Our Meeting, and we’ll have it the way we want it, and you will not address separate Council members”.
To a fellow Vancouver Council member: “You do not talk about me when I’m not here” (after Harris left in a huff). “You do not behave that way” (after Harris returned). “You do not chastise people” that way. “Shut Up!”
Which is more concerning?:
1. Censorship of citizen public comment.
2. Exclusion of Subject Matter-One Council member’s opinion that considerations about light rail or tolls are “not appropriate subjects” for a comment by a private citizen when speaking to the Council that should be representing them about major projects in their own city.
3. Some Vancouver City Council members’ viewpoints that the Council does not have Standing, or any role to play re: determining how an important issue such as light rail or tolls impacts their own city.
4. Accusations- One Council member making unsubstantiated aspersions against another member at a Council meeting, and
5. Procedural- One member overriding the Mayor, and/or demanding that the Mayor shut down and/or limit public comment on a particular subject.
6. Passing the Buck: Certain members absolving themselves of responsiblility for their citizens or city, by saying that local governance has no role to play in a major city project led by a regional governance entity (for which their citizens are taxed- can anyone say: “Taxation Without Representation?”).
Beyond Harris’s extremely poor public behavior, there are much broader, serious questions here that have to do with:
1. Local, regional, state and federal governance,
2. Who can influence a project and for what period of time during a process, and
3. Who makes funding decisions…
These questions echo here in the Puget Sound region, with entities like:
1. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
2. Sound Transit
3. The Port of Seattle
More on this story later…
Postscript: Fellow Vancouver City Council members have requested an ethics review. Click here: http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/15/2-city-councilors-seek-ethics-probe-of-harris/
It’s like trying to get a fair hearing with the Queen of Hearts. Or the Caterpillar. Or the Cheshire Cat.
Last night Sound Transit held a public meeting at Bellevue High School that oh-so-quickly looked at some of the new segment ideas for ST2 in Bellevue. Sound Transit was quick to emphasize that they “listened” to the public, and straightened the alignment in the B section to avoid condemning (they like “acquiring”)more of the The Bellevue Club’s parking lot, which would adversely affect their business and future expansion plans. Fine.
But they completely omitted any information regarding condemnations of the homes and business properties affected by a Main Street alignment. Sound Transit’s Sue Comis just blithely passed over the section on the map showing how the north end of Surrey Downs would be cut off (condemned) by passing over it quietly with her laser pointer…HMMM…Nothing happening here, folks, move along….
Hands started going up as the public realized that Sound Transit was not going to allow questions regarding property takings that the whole group could hear. Sound Transit tried to get the questions coming in small groups around the photograph tables, so that separate neighborhoods wouldn’t know how their preferences would be affecting or impacting their neighbors.
However, they did have a nice table with a couple of guys present near the front door, ready to answer questions, with the title: “Real Estate“.
Yes, what a nice, pretty term for the guys in the department that condemns your property- I wonder how those guys sleep at night.
Welcome to Wonderland.
Once again, they just don’t get it (read our previous post from April 23rd).
Here’s what the Sound Transit Board says in an email re: the 1-2 minute per person “hearing” they received from potentially impacted taxpayers (homeowners and business owners) at the April 23rd Board Meeting:
“The Sound Transit Board on Thursday:
Heard continuing comments from residents, neighborhoods and businesses on various East Link alignment alternatives, impacts and concerns. The Sound Transit Board will consider the selection of a “Locally Preferred Alternative†route in May as part of the East Link Environmental Impact Statement process that continues into 2010.”
3 minutes has always been limiting enough for public comment, let alone LESS TIME.
In addition, Sound Transit has a rule that a citizen can usually only speak to “action items“- agenda items being decided on THAT DAY- by which time, public comment is not in time to actually influence the decision-makers’ process, or give Board members a chance to ask relevant questions of staff.
Public agencies such as Sound Transit, with a constant tax stream from taxpayers, can and should do far better to respond to and represent their constituents, by actually hearing them for more than 60 seconds, when the issue at hand has already been decided (privately) and is moot..
Obviously, the Sound Transit Board has to:
1. Conduct their business (action items) in a timely manner, and understandably,
2. The Board needs to hear staff updates re: the proposed East Link alignments (along with mitigation , costs, and environmental impacts, etc.), but to allocate 1 minute to 2 minutes per person to hear public comments regarding East Link issues is really lousy and unresponsive, by any standard of accountability to the taxpaying public.
Ever thought of lengthening the meeting so that the public (between 10- 20 regular folks showed up, that aren’t on the transportation payroll in any way(staff, consultants, city representatives) ) can communicate with the Sound Transit Board?
Ever considered public access to government decision-makers as a Sound Transit goal or value?
In an article in the Seattle Times, Reporter Emily Heffter mentions that :
“The Seattle City Council wants to discuss midyear cuts to the city general fund in a series of closed-door meetings with the mayor’s staff, budget committee chairwoman Jean Godden said. The private meetings raise a question about whether the council would be skirting the state’s Open Public Meetings Act.”
…”Alex Fryer, a spokesman for (Seattle Mayor Greg) Nickels, said the smaller meetings would allow decision-makers to “float an idea” and speak more openly than they could in public meetings, he said. “You want to do that in a more private fashion.”
Shouldn’t public officials have the backbone to ask questions and speak their minds regarding issues in a transparent, open fashion?
Shouldn’t their constitents be allowed to know what leads these folks to make decisions and know their stance so that they can vote accordingly at the next election?
What would our state, local & agency governments be like if their Boards could all meet in small groups to float ideas & form their opinions outside of the public eye?
Greg Nickels is also the Sound Transit Chair. Would the public be OK with Sound Transit, WSDOT, &/or other state or regional agencies dividing their Board members into small groups to skirt open meetings laws?
One has to wonder about the reason for their recent “Sound Transit Board retreat“, and what unnecessary amount of money that cost the taxpayers…
Bellevue citizens! Utilize your chance to communicate with the Bellevue City Council regarding Sound Transit’s proposed alignments for light rail in Bellevue.
The hearing will start at 8 p.m. in the Council chambers at City Hall, 450 110th Ave. NE.
Sound Transit released a draft environmental impact statement for East Link on Dec. 12, 2008, and set a 75-day comment period. The document is a detailed study of potential routes in Bellevue.
The deadline to comment is Feb. 25.