Opponents fire back at SMART rail plan in court filing
Mark Prado
Article Launched: 09/03/2008 06:46:54 PM PDT

Opponents of the SMART rail tax plan submitted a response Wednesday in Marin Superior Court defending their ballot arguments and calling a legal move against them "a blatant attempt to use the legal process as a political tool."

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District filed a lawsuit last week challenging the language of a ballot argument opposing its rail project and asked a judge to force a re-write of the wording.

"Our statements were made with care and are supported by ample evidence, including SMART's own statements and data," said Joy Dahlgren, one of the signers of the opposition to Measure Q on the Nov. 4 ballot.

SMART officials declined an immediate response, saying lawyers were still looking at the filing.

Marin Supervisor Charles McGlashan, chairman of the rail board, filed the lawsuit in Marin Superior Court challenging the language.

"It is evident from the unfair and argumentative statements that Mr. McGlashan has made in the press over the past week that this case is simply a tactical misuse of the legal process for his own political causes," said Marin Audubon President Barbara Salzman, one of the signatories of the argument opposing the train.

"We are extremely disappointed that a public servant, represented by the Sonoma County counsel's office, using public funds, has decided to attack our right to free speech by suing Marin County residents who have had the courage to publicly voice their opposition to SMART," she said.

SMART is
Advertisement
putting a quarter-cent sales tax on the ballot to pay for the $1.6 billion project over 20 years. The tax will need two-thirds voter approval to pass.

The lawsuit alleges that parts of the argument against Measure Q are false and misleading, and cites issues involving damage to clapper rail habitat, gravel mining on the Eel River and the impact on Highway 101 traffic.

SMART also took issue with a claim that there would be an $80 tax subsidy needed for every round-trip taken on the train. The agency said the subsidy would be no more than $11.09 per passenger.

In their legal response, opponents said they factored in the total taxpayer subsidy for the project, including capital costs and interest on bonds, as well as operating costs, and came up with the figure of $83.14 per roundtrip per passenger.

Opponents also backed their claim that the rail line could encourage growth in Larkspur, San Rafael and Novato, noting that Bay Area land use and transportation agencies are developing policies to develop housing around transit - and that could bring political pressure to add housing development.

SMART is expected to issue a rebuttal Thursday, and a judge is due to issue a tentative ruling Friday. A court hearing and final decision is expected on Monday. Ballot arguments will be printed later that evening.

Earlier this week, SMART convinced a Sonoma County judge to change language on the Sonoma County ballot after the rail agency took issue with a sentence in a rebuttal argument from opponents regarding potential damage to the Eel River.

The SMART proposal calls for a 70-mile rail line from Cloverdale to Larkspur, with 14 stops along the way, in addition to the construction of an adjacent bike path.

In addition to 14 round-trips during commute hours during the week, SMART could have four trips on Saturdays and Sundays. There would be one trip in the morning, two in the midday and one in late afternoon. The plan also would allow freight use of northern portions of the line.

Contact Mark Prado via e-mail at mprado@marinij.com