Ballot initiative for voter input on Houston airport rejected

In a follow up to an earlier story regarding a citizen initiative to place the issue of a Houston municipal airport on the ballot, which would give the voters an opportunity to decide on the idea, and initial decision was reached, rejecting the ballot.

“As expected, our petition application for a ballot initiative was rejected today,” wrote Lance Wilson in an email.

On February 3, the application for a Ballot Initiative, “Protecting Houston’s Future: Let Voters Decide if Houston Needs a Municipal Airport,” was submitted to the Houston City Clerk for certification. The application included the question should the city of Houston be allowed to spend public money, use city resources, or acquire land from the State of Alaska to plan, develop, or build a municipal airport without voter approval.

It also included an addition to Houston City Code that would have not permitted the city to spend or obligate money, personnel, city-owned land, or other municipal assets tow the planning or development of a municipal airport, which seems to the reason for the rejection.

According to a five-page letter from Houston’s city attorneys, Joseph N. Levesque and River E.M. Sterne, although the application appeared to meet the formal requirements as required in Alaska Statutes, the proposed code addition is “unenforceable as a matter of law.”

“The proposed code addition appears to violate the requirement that an initiative be enforceable as a matter of law,” the attorneys wrote, citing Griswold v. City of Homer, which the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that a proposed ballot initiative seeking to amend Homer’s zoning laws was not permitted because the city council-and therefore the voters-lacked the authority to bypass Homer’s Advisory Planning Commission in making zoning decisions.

“The court concluded: ‘A borough or city, having the power possessed by the City of Homer, cannot pass or amend a zoning ordinance without involving its planning commission in reviewing that ordinance.” Simply put, the attorneys said that the decision in Griswold was sufficient basis for the Houston City Clerk to reject the proposed ballot initiative, even though the measure does not propose a broadly applicable zoning amendment. “The principles the Court relied on apply with equal force in this case.”

Moreover, the attorneys write that the proposed initiative refers only to a single subject and appears to concern a legislative matter, rather than an administrative one.

“The Alaska Supreme Court has held that a ballot measure is legislative in character when it is permanent in nature rather than temporary; it declares a new policy and deals with the overall policy question rather than merely a small segment of pre-established policy; and it establishes a new law rather than executing a law already in existence. Each of these factors is met in this case.”

In a separate letter from Houston City Clerk Tani Schoneman said that her office agreed with the attorneys. Wilson and fellow petitioner Randy Oliver have 30 days to appeal the decision.

“No one has even asked Houston residents if we want an airport before having the City Council start to approve a location, and the proposed site located outside city limits…Many people believe this decision should be put in the hands of the voters before the City goes any farther,” said Wilson on February 3.

“We are in the process of seeking judicial review in accordance with AS 29.26.110.b.” said Wilson.

For more information, please visit the City of Houston Website www.houstonak.us