Opponents in the ongoing fight to construct a new youth detention facility planned for the Central District joined in verbal combat, spitting state laws instead of protest anthems, dressed not in the uniforms of resistance but those of “Office Space.”
The Washington State Court of Appeals in Tacoma heard an oral argument July 13 in a near-empty courthouse over a deceptively simple set of questions: Did King County voters know when they approved the levy for the Children and Family Justice Center in 2012 the amount and duration of the levy, or has King County been improperly overcharging its citizens since 2014?
Five years ago, a minority of King County voters went to the ballot box and voted to approve a levy to replace the Children and Family Justice Center, “which serves the justice needs of children and families.” The recursive definition skated around the substance of the project, opponents say, which is a jail for young people and some courtrooms to try their cases.
Many community members felt they had been tricked into voting for something opposed to their ideals.
The proposed youth detention facility would replace the existing building at 12th Avenue and Alder Street in Seattle’s Central District. Voters passed a property tax in 2012 to pay for the $210 million project.
The project has come under fire from opponents who point out that the facility disproportionately jails children of color and would be built in a neighborhood that is historically diverse, but rapidly gentrifying.
Previous arguments hinged on that alleged inaccuracy in the ballot language, but the group Ending the Prison Industrial Complex’s (EPIC) position in the appeals court took a technical twist: Lawyers argued that the language about property tax increases does not allow the county to collect the full amount it anticipated.
The ballot language for 2012’s Proposition 1 says that it will increase property taxes by 7 cents per $1,000 of assessed value in 2013. It goes on to say that increases over the next eight years will be determined by Washington state law, which caps increases in property taxes at 1 percent plus an increase for new construction.
The argument, put forward by Knoll Lowney, the attorney representing EPIC, is that the 7-cent increase applied only to 2013 and not future years. The levies in subsequent years should have dropped back down to levels calculated as though 2013 had been a normal year.
Instead, the county continued to charge as though the 7-cent lift had been approved for all nine years of the levy, plus the normal 1 percent and new construction increase, the county’s stated intent.
The correct language was present in the original ordinance approved by King County Council when it put the measure on the ballot in the first place, Lowney said.
“It was removed in the actual ballot title,” Lowney said.
That would mean that, by Lowney’s reasoning, the moment that King County began collecting the higher rate, rather than letting the 7-cent bump expire and have the 2014 levy return to the lower amount, it was breaking the law.
If the appeals court judges agree with this interpretation, it means that King County has been improperly charging excessive property taxes for the past three years, and could have the effect of severely reducing funds available for the construction of the youth jail.
On the defense was Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Thomas Kuffel. He offered a two-prong rebuttal to Lowney’s claims, first saying that a logical reading of the ballot language would lead a voter to conclude that the 7-cent bump was in place all nine years, and that EPIC’s time to argue ballot language had long passed.
“There are two ways to read the ballot title in this case, but only one that makes sense,” Kuffel told the three judges. “And it’s not the appellants.’ ”
The other interpretation “doesn’t make sense” because King County does not have to go to voters for the 1 percent plus new construction bump that’s already built into property taxes in the state, Kuffel said.
Why would the county put a measure on the ballot that it already had the authority to enact?
That refrain, “it doesn’t make sense,” was used a couple times before Judge Bradley Maxa interjected.
“If it doesn’t make sense, that doesn’t mean you win,” Maxa said. “You lose.” Kuffel also argued that EPIC, and the 60 organizations that signed on in support of its cause, were late to the party. A challenge to ballot language long before it gets to the ballot and certainly less than the five years since the measure passed.
“It’s convenient because it absolves them of the responsibility to monitor this process,” Kuffel said.
“My clients were mostly in high school at that time,” Lowney said in his rebuttal.
It could be months before the judges come down with a final decision on the matter.
So far the EPIC team has not had much success in court. The first lawsuit was filed at the beginning of 2016, also in Pierce County, but was ultimately dismissed.
They appealed when the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) approved a master use permit — needed for construction of the courthouses and youth detention center — but the hearing examiner dismissed it saying that the Seattle City Council had not specified the matter as something that could be appealed at all.
Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Kshama Sawant brought forward an ordinance to remedy that, which ultimately passed, but the retroactive fix didn’t impress judges in King County when epic appealed the hearing examiner’s decision.
In the meantime, the project to build new courtrooms and a youth detention facility at the existing site is already under way. SDCI approved a demolition permit for the site, and abandoned buildings on the premises are being demolished.
Ashley Archibald is a Staff Reporter covering local government, policy and equity. Have a story idea? She can be can reached at ashleya (at) realchangenews (dot) org. Twitter @AshleyA_RC
Wait there's more. Check out more articles in the full July 19 issue.
Real Change is reader supported. Just $5 a month provides work for more than 300 active vendors and keeps community journalism strong.