Court judge's ruling Tuesday that validates the agreement.
It's time to let sleeping dogs lie and to allow the agreement
outlining limits on the scope of airport development over the next
decade to be subjected to representative democracy.
The City Council approved the agreement and the voters approved
the City Council. If voters don't like the agreement, or are feeling
disenfranchised by the city's dealings with the airport, they have
the power of the ballot.
Like it or not, even a look at the intent of Measure B, as couched
in an analysis by City Atty. Dennis Barlow in 2000, makes it clear:
The measure requires a public vote when "entering into an agreement
related to a relocated or expanded airport terminal project."
That's "airport terminal" expansion, not "airport" expansion,
which lawsuit backers had argued the measure covers.
Judge Dzintra I. Janavs agreed when she ruled that the law was
Thankfully, Measure B was passed in 2000 by a majority of voters,
who hoped for some control over the future of terminal development.
That's a noble goal, just as some of the terms in the current
agreement, hashed out over six months and approved by people elected
by voters are.
The deal sets out cooperation between the city and the airport on
noise relief, and prohibits a new or expanded terminal for 10 years.
Lawsuit backers worry that a part of the agreement to not sell an
adjacent 59-acre parcel held in trust -- which had once been the
planned site for a new terminal -- sets up the potential for a new or
relocated terminal that would fall under Measure B's provision.
That would be worth voting on. When that day comes, let the voters
decide under the real intent of the law.