Will Seattle Follow S.F. Attorney’s Taxpayer Advocacy?

| |

It makes sense that if you sue to stop a Bicycle Master Plan and you ultimately lose after years of delaying implementation, you should have to pay court costs.

The question re businesses who keep filing suit to block completion of the Burke-Gilman Trail is: Will the Seattle city attorney’s office follow the same path?

According to the S.F. attorney’s office, ”Aggressively pursuing the fullest possible recovery of the taxpayers’ costs in litigation is a standard practice.”

Quote from David Hiller, advocacy director for Seattle’s Cascade Bicycle Club:

I hope the city protects the interests of its taxpayers in any and every way they can.


Ferries Included, Cyclists Should Get Transportation Priority

News Cycle: They spoke the truth


3 thoughts on “Will Seattle Follow S.F. Attorney’s Taxpayer Advocacy?”

  1. Some folks can’t see change coming at them, even when it’s a huge trunk load of change. Ballard Oil is just such a business. When you realize they make money from the oil burning business, it makes perfect sense that they can’t see the bicycle revolution coming at them.

  2. I highly doubt Ballard Oil is concerned about bicycle use taking away from the home heating a marine fuel business. They are not in the auto fuel business.

    They obviously have a concern that the trail will hurt the business or open them up to potential liability. I don’t think they have proven their case so using the courts to tie up the trail is inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer resources at this point.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.