Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Environmental Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supporters ask council to defend voter-approved initiative after developer lawsuit filed

2246312 · February 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representatives of Standing for Washington told the Everett City Council a lawsuit filed by the Master Builders Association and developer interests seeks to overturn Initiative 2403, a voter-approved ordinance protecting the Snohomish River watershed, and asked the city to defend the measure.

Abby Ludwig, executive director of Standing for Washington, told the council on Feb. 5 that a lawsuit filed Jan. 28, 2025 by the Master Builders Association and other parties seeks to overturn Everett Initiative 2403, a voter-approved ordinance intended to protect the Snohomish River watershed.

Ludwig said the initiative passed with voter support—57% in an election with 74% turnout—and that the ordinance includes a preemption clause acknowledging state law would take precedence in any direct conflict. “This is a clear mandate and we hope the city shares our commitment to uphold the will of the voters,” Ludwig said. She said legal experts who worked on the Spokane initiative case reviewed the drafting for Everett’s initiative.

Ludwig noted the lawsuit argues the ordinance conflicts with state law; she said Standing for Washington carefully considered precedent and remains confident the ordinance will withstand challenge. She also said the ordinance creates a private cause of action allowing residents and the city to seek legal remedies to prevent environmental harm.

Standing for Washington said it has been in contact with the city attorney’s office and offered to intervene in the case if needed. The city attorney’s office was noted as reviewing the group's legal analysis; no formal city decision to intervene or a city-council vote on a defense strategy was recorded at this meeting.

Council members acknowledged the comment but did not take immediate action. The public-comment presentation and follow-up emails with the city attorney’s office were the only items reported on the record regarding this lawsuit at the Feb. 5 meeting.