Ann Donnelly, a Vancouver businesswoman, is a former chair of the Clark County Republican Party. Photo The city of Vancouver violated its charter when the city attorney declared invalid the Save Vancouver Streets petition initiative requiring a public vote on future planned conversions of lanes of thoroughfares to pedestrian, bicycle or transit use. So argues a Jan. 23 legal filing by Save Vancouver Streets’ attorney Jackson Maynard. Assuming the filing’s interpretation of city charter language is accurate, then by issuing this declaration during a Jan. 6 public meeting, the city attorney misled the overflow crowd of initiative supporters and opponents by telling them the initiative was ineligible for public vote. Save Vancouver Streets, an organization of citizens, followed processes for petitions spelled out in the city charter when, in 2024, it collected some 6,500 signatures — 50 percent more than required — for a measure it contended should be placed on the next general election ballot. The measure would require approval of a majority of city voters for the city to convert “lanes or lanes of vehicle travel on any existing principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, industrial or access street to pedestrian, bicycling, mobility, or transit use.”

The concept of cities enforcing a “road diet” is widespread in the U.S. as part of the green urban movement envisioning an ideal city. In Playa del Rey, Calif., however, furor over the removal of lanes and the resulting congestion ignited the eventual restoration of the lanes. Save Vancouver Streets’ leaders explain that prior to the petition drive, they attempted to sway the city from its chosen path of removing lanes from Southeast 34th Street, Southeast McGillivray Boulevard, Northeast 112th Avenue, Andresen and other major pathways through the city. They cite difficulty in communicating directly with city council members, and restrictions on giving testimony at council meetings. They don’t dispute that the city held outreach town halls but only that the outcome — fewer traffic lanes — appeared pre-determined, despite the fact that more than an observed 90 percent of traffic on these major streets comprises vehicles, not cyclists, pedestrians or buses. Movement leader Justin Wood responded to a Facebook questioner, “This is basically the last straw because we had no other choice. Do I really think if this passes, we will vote on every street? No, what would happen is that the city would have to put together a package or master plan and ask voters to approve it.”

Of the city attorney’s decision that the petition is illegal, the movement’s filing argues that “only a court may make a binding determination as to the legal validity” of the petition initiative. At the state level, legality of an initiative is challenged after it passes (if it does), not before. Thus, the Save Vancouver Streets filing to Superior Court seeks fair treatment from the city as outlined in its charter. Movement supporters may donate to the effort through www.savevancouverstreets.com. For full disclosure, I have donated, for pragmatic and philosophical reasons. We must save our major thoroughfares for the vastly predominant need: vehicles. Future growth must be considered. There are proven ways to support cycling and walking that retain traffic lanes. When families need to get their kids to school, or rush a family member to urgent care, or arrive at work on time, those harried road users are overwhelmingly in their vehicles. Rush-hour backups could do them serious harm. And in emergencies, multilane thoroughfares are essential for public safety. It is not the city’s role to discourage vehicle use. Vancouver’s taxpayers have paid to construct and maintain those lanes. Their investment must be respected by giving them a say in lane removal.