Light Rail Trial Begins

Light rail foes testify for referendum

Temporary injunction hearing begins on 7.5-mile downtown Metro project
By MIKE GLENN
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle


Houston City Councilman Rob Todd testified Monday he would oppose the Metropolitan Transit Authority's plans for a light rail system even if residents are allowed to vote for the 7.5-mile line.

"I would likely oppose the project because it is not going to help the city's transportation needs," he said during the first day of hearings for a temporary injunction against Metro's $300 million light rail system until it holds a public vote on the matter.

The hearing came as part of Todd's 1999 lawsuit against the transit agency, which now seeks to force a public referendum on the line, which would run from downtown to Reliant Park.

Attorney John O'Quinn called the proceeding a "game" designed to keep light rail out of the city. O'Quinn, a well-known and controversial trial lawyer, was hired over the weekend for $150,000 to argue Metro's case through any upcoming trial.

O'Quinn said the light rail foes are continuing to argue that Metro should be bound by the same rules as a private company seeking a commercial franchise with the city.

He said the transit agency, however, was created by the Legislature as part of the state's transportation code.
"The transportation code says that Metro is not a private corporation, it is a public corporation. It is a subdivision of the government," O'Quinn said. "They have a right to put in mass transit. They have a right to use the public right-of-ways to do that. The only thing they have to get is written permission from the city. We met all the requirements of the statute."

The testimony, which is expected to wrap up in a couple of days, is being heard by State District Judge John Devine. The Republican jurist was assigned the case after State District Judge Tony Lindsay recused herself last week.

Lindsay handed the temporary restraining order against Metro on Jan. 18. Depending on the outcome of the injunction hearing, the restraining order could be in effect until Feb. 4.

The transit agency's lawyers asked Lindsay to step down from the case because of her marriage to State Sen. Jon Lindsay, a vocal Metro critic, and because Todd was a legal clerk for her about 10 years ago.

Todd's four hours of testimony took up most of the first day of the hearing. He told the judge that he considered it his duty to follow the city charter and try to secure a public referendum on the light rail project.

"I take the charter and the rules of council in my oath very seriously," Todd said. "I took an oath of office, and I swore to God that I was going to uphold that oath."

Citing the 1,100 voters who signed a petition seeking a public referendum on light rail, Todd's lawyer said the matter is a voting-rights case.

"We had over 1,000 voters who intervened. It's not just about Mr. Todd," said Clayton Trotter of the San Antonio-based Texas Justice Foundation, a conservative legal group that supports individual property rights. "Before we start spending millions of dollars, the voters need to vote on it."

Other attorneys who were representing rail opponents called representatives from Metro and the city's Department of Public Works and Engineering to testify -- chiefly to stress that the light rail contractors would not be considered at fault if they missed any start times because of a legal order.

Metro lawyers plan to tell their story today when they begin their case and bring their witnesses forward. Attorney Jonathan Day, who usually represents the transit agency, said the court will get a clear understanding of where the project stands and why it should be allowed to go forward.

"There are a lot of taxpayer dollars that are going to be wasted if there's any court-ordered delay," he said. "Every month's delay is going to cost us at least $2 million, and that's because we have the project organization team in place and we have the design team."

------------------
Me fail English? That's unpossible.

 

Here's the latest...

Metro argues against rail injunction

Delay would hurt projects, it says
By MIKE GLENN
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle


Metro attorneys and witnesses argued Tuesday that any injunction against the transit agency's $300 million light rail system would be both a crippling financial obstacle and would adversely impact other nonrail projects.

"We have a very compressed schedule to carry out this project," testified John M. Sedlak, Metro's vice president of planning, engineering and construction.

"Putting all the pieces of the project together is a very complex endeavor."

Sedlack's testimony came during the second day of hearings for a temporary injunction against the agency. Houston council member Rob Todd has filed a lawsuit against the transit agency and is seeking a public referendum on the 7.5-mile line.

State District Judge John Devine is expected to render his decision on whether to grant the temporary injunction late today or Thursday.

The compressed schedule, a result of wanting to finish the line in time for the 2004 Super Bowl, means a "considerable amount of management oversight" is necessary, Sedlak said.

"There's an enormous amount of coordination with other public agencies to carry out this project," he said. "The completion of light rail will be an important component of the transportation program to move people to that event (the Super Bowl)."

About 100 staffers -- about 25 Metro employees and 75 on a contract basis -- are working on the light rail project.

"We have to hold this team together," Metro attorney Jonathan Day said. "We are contending that we have to pay these folks every month."

A delay in the light rail construction because of a legal injunction could cost the agency at least $2 million per month, Metro officials have estimated.

An interference in the project will also disrupt the transit agency's separate $200 million downtown street improvement plan, Sedlack said.

"There's an integration of the light rail project with the transit street project. The utility work is totally integrated," he said. "It's hard to differentiate one from the other. The light rail is part of the reconstruction of the entire street."

The timing of the project was of particular interest to anti-light rail attorney Briscoe Swan.

"Is there any objective need to move at this breakneck speed other than the Super Bowl?" he asked. "You all think that 75,000 peoples' right to see the Super Bowl is more important" than granting a public vote on the overall project.

Swan is representing Allan Vogel, one of about 1,100 Houston residents who signed a petition seeking the light rail referendum. Vogel later joined Todd's lawsuit as a co-plaintiff.

The temporary restraining order expires at 4 p.m. Thursday.

The hearing is scheduled to continue at 9 a.m. Thursday, and Devine said he expects it to end by noon. He said he would render his decision before the order expires.

However, if he can't make a decision by the order's deadline, Devine said he would extend it one or two days.

------------------
Me fail English? That's unpossible.