As members of Ending the Prison Industrial Complex (EPIC) organized and pushed to stop the construction of the Children and Family Justice Center, a complex of courts and a juvenile detention facility in the Central District, they did not hang their hopes on a legal solution to the problem.
The justice system had failed the community too many times. Asking judges to rule against new court facilities seemed a Sisyphean endeavor. Putting too much energy and trust into systems built on racial injustice and inequity meant diverting dear resources away from more fruitful efforts.
But on Sept. 26, a three-judge panel from the Washington State Court of Appeals ruled partially in favor of the organization in a decision that could strike a deep blow to the heart of the project: its funding.
Judges found that language for the 2012 ballot measure intended to fund the $210 million project was too vague, and that, as a result, King County had improperly assessed property owners at a higher rate than legally allowed since 2014.
That could mean that as much as $150 million of the $210 million the county intended to raise over the course of the nine-year levy may no longer be available for the project, said Knoll Lowney, an attorney representing EPIC. The county is still reviewing the decision, and does not have an estimate of the potential impact.
“This is the strongest possible place to win for us,” Lowney said. “Because without any money, there is no new youth jail.”
“This is the strongest possible place to win for us,” Lowney said. “Because without any money, there is no new youth jail.”
This is the first major legal victory in EPIC’s five-year struggle to stop construction of the facility. The decision was a welcome and surprising outcome, said Asha Heru, EPIC member and anti-racist organizer, in a press release.
“This decision is unexpected but from the beginning we’ve been adamant that this jail will not be built,” Heru said in the statement.
Still, the fact that the judges were moved by the most technical argument advanced by the attorneys rather than the evidence of inequity and impact on marginalized communities speaks to the very reasons that people have lost faith in the legal system, Lowney said.
“This is the most technical, least focused on justice legal issue in the case,” he said. “On all of the issues we would hope the courts would take seriously, so far they have not. On this one very technical but also very important issue, that’s where they made the right decision.”
The point on which EPIC won is far into the weeds.
Lowney argued that the language on the ballot that voters approved in 2012 was too vague in two ways. First, a reasonable voter might not realize that when they agreed to fund a justice center, that would also include a youth jail. Second, the wording of the ballot measure only allowed a levy “lid lift” in one of the nine years of the levy. The Superior Court had ruled against both points, but the Court of Appeals reversed the second, potentially depriving the project of tens of millions of dollars.
Here’s how that works.
Property taxes in the state of Washington cannot rise more than 1 percent each year due to an initiative passed in 2001 unless voters approve a “lid lift,” a temporary increase. The county intended for that increase to apply to each year of the nine-year levy, meaning that 2013 — the first year of the levy — would be the base year. Each year after would increase by the usual 1 percent plus the cost of new construction.
Lowney argued that the wording of the ballot language was imprecise and did not explicitly call for the larger, 7-cent increase to apply to each of the nine years. Instead, he told judges, the wording meant that property taxes in 2014 had to be calculated as though the higher rate charged in 2013 had never been applied.
The situation could also lead to a sticky situation for the county, which had already begun work on the Children and Family Justice Center.
A building on East Alder Street has already been demolished, and utilities in the area have been relocated, wrote Cameron Satterfield, a spokesperson for the Department of Executive Services, in an email. In addition, site work including leveling and excavation has been completed, and installation of footings and the foundation is underway.
King County has already announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Washington Supreme Court and has filed its own lawsuit against EPIC, dozens of other community organizations and the city of Seattle to reverse an ordinance that retroactively clarified language in the municipal code to make it possible to appeal the issuance of the master use permit for the site.
“King County’s ballot title is consistent with state Department of Revenue guidelines for drafting language regarding levy lid lifts,” said Anthony Wright, director of the Facilities Management Division of King County. “King County is appealing that aspect of the Appeals Court ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court.”
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 articles in the full October 4 issue.