A.G. Ferguson Will Again Block Lower Car Tab Fees

The news in the Seattle Times Nov 8^th article about Seattle and King County seeking an injunction against I-976 is no surprise.   What should really alarm those who supported the initiative is the news the person defending it is State Attorney General Ferguson. 

A.G. Ferguson has been one of the most prominent enablers for all of Sound Transit Prop 1 light rail extensions.  For example there would be no East Link if Fergusons attorneys hadn’t “misled” a federal judge in the Freeman light rail lawsuit objecting to Sound Transit confiscation of I-90 Bridge center roadway. 

Ferguson’s lawyers claimed the center roadway could be used for light rail because their addition of a 4^th lane (Alternative R-8A) on the outer roadway would make the center roadway unneeded for vehicles.  They supported that claim by referring to several studies, one of which was documented in  "I-90 Two-Way Transit and HOY Operations FEIS [(Final Environmental Impact Statement)] and ROD [(Record of Decision)]”.   Yet the ROD concluded the center roadway was still needed for vehicles with the added lane on outer roadways.

Ferguson’s lawyers allowed Sound Transit to make a mockery of Federal Transportation environmental laws regarding the need to protect the Mercer Slough Natural Park.  Sound Transit told the FHA and FTA that light rail “would not impact noise levels in the park”.  Yet Sound Transit agreed with Bellevue city council to spend millions shielding properties hundreds of feet away and across a major roadway.

Ferguson’s office allowed Sound Transit to ignore RCW 81.104.100 regarding the need to consider “no build” or low cost options (such as increased BRT) for any HCT.  Sound Transit’s response to that failure was to claim

Your presumption that this was due to the requirement in RCW 81.104.100(2)(b) is not correct. As indicated above, this statutory requirement applies to system-wide plans, not project level reviews.

Ferguson’s office response when asked whether it concurred with Sound Transit not complying included the following:

Our office does not advise or represent regional transit authorities, nor does our office have the role of supervising or correcting the activities of such authorities.

Clearly A.G. Ferguson’s office has shown a willingness to allow Sound Transit to do whatever it chooses.  Sound Transit’s mendacity regarding what the tabs would cost, the impact of the loss on light rail extensions, or the legal justification for using the value of one’s car to determine how much they pay for light rail will have no import.  Far more important, those who funded the I-976 opposition “may” be likely to contribute to his future campaign for Attorney General or Governor. 

Thus Ferguson’s claim defending I-976 is a “responsibility my office takes very seriously” is “likely” going to end up the same as his “defense of the Eyman initiative in 2016”.  Sound Transit will  be allowed to proceed, unabated, implementing Prop 1 light rail extensions that will inevitably be regarding as one of the biggest boondoggles in history.