Court Opinion

ID: 9786167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:49:28.585527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:22.251927
License: Public Domain

Young, L,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Nevada’s Constitution expressly reserves the right of the people to propose initiative petitions “as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every kind.”1 The scope of this right is broad.2 This provision was added to our constitution to enable voters to directly enact legislation when public officials are not responsive to public concerns.3
Here, nearly 15,000 Reno voters signed a petition to place an initiative measure regarding the train trench project on the ballot. The City Clerk certified that the petition met procedural requirements, and the Council forwarded the petition to the Registrar of Voters to be put on the ballot. I submit the initiative petition is valid and would allow the voices of the people to be heard.
*587However, the City seeks to prevent a public vote and challenges the constitutionality of the initiative. A reasonable inference to be drawn from this action is that the City has a concern that a public vote on the project would be adverse to the City’s plans.4 We live in a country where the right to vote is fundamental to our way of life.5 There may be no purer form of a democracy “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people”6 than when an issue is decided by a public vote.
Clearly, not every government action can be subject to a vote. The pace at which a democratic government moves is frequently slow. The practical problems arising from a direct form of democracy on every issue would be overwhelming. Some issues are undoubtedly best resolved by elected officials. We are faced with competing interests: “that of protecting government from unwarranted harassment and the equal interest in protecting benefits to be won through direct legislation.”7
It is argued that we have established an administrative-legislative test for determining when an issue falls within the traditional discretion afforded to public officials.8 As the majority notes, only decisions considered legislative in nature are subject to a direct vote by the people. The majority concludes that the City’s decision to proceed with the trench project is purely administrative; therefore, any initiative proposal is barred. We have previously stated that the administrative-legislative distinction is “often vague.’ ’9 In my view, the decision of the City to proceed with the project does not neatly fit into the administrative category.
On one hand, although the railroad has operated above ground in Reno for over 130 years, the legislature recently concluded that there are traffic problems created by the above ground railroad.10 Clearly, the City has the authority to complete various local improvement projects, including overpasses, underpasses, and street and transportation projects.11 However, the trench project constitutes more than a mere local improvement, public work, or transportation project. Rather, the trench project is a part of an *588economic policy to revitalize the downtown area that involves both a permanent change to the character of the City and the largest single financial commitment in its history. This suggests that the project is not merely administrative but policy driven and legislative in nature.
The decision to proceed with the train trench project constitutes a decision unlike any the City has ever before made. It is unique in the financial burden it will impose on the taxpayers, possibly for generations to come.12 The City estimates that the project will cost an additional $260 million. To many observers, this figure appears to be conservative. The City has acknowledged that project expenses could run much higher, as the builders have a design and build contract. It thus appears that the builders have what almost amounts to a blank check. The City concedes that it has already spent $15 million on the project, including $300,000 to reimburse unsuccessful design/build proposers. The City is now poised to spend projected tax revenue — and probably more — on what it refers to as a transportation project. We should perhaps be thankful that City visionaries of long ago did not see a need to make an expensive and long-term commitment to a transportation system designed largely for horses and wagons.
The cost of this single project is more than the City’s total 1999-2000 annual budget.13 The funds to pay for this project will be derived from various sources, including money from room and sales taxes, grants, bonds, loans, and the City’s general fond, and bonded indebtedness will be repaid over a period of forty years. The magnitude of this undertaking is more than a mere administrative decision by the City’s elected officials.
The ramifications of this project may be long-lasting. What if the project does not rise to the level of expectations for success? We should not forget the lessons of the Lincoln County ‘ ‘Million Dollar Courthouse.”14
In 1871, elected officials of then-thriving Lincoln County rushed to build a courthouse and jail for a total cost of $26,400.15 A construction contract was entered into with a reputable builder, but by the time the courthouse was completed just a year later, *589costs had nearly tripled and totaled $75,000.16 During the following years, the economic boom in Lincoln County declined, while the interest on the debt mounted.17 Not until 1938, sixty-six years later, were the people of Lincoln County able to pay bonds used to finance the project.18 By that time, the estimated cost of the project had reached over $800,000.19 The courthouse became “famous for the county’s inept financing,” resulting in a nearly seven figure debt.20 In serious need of repair, the courthouse was closed in the 1930s, just as the bonds were finally paid — “a fitting commentary on how badly the county handled the situation.”21
If the same ratio between contract price and actual cost in the Lincoln County Courthouse case occurs here, it is not totally unforeseeable that Reno’s $282 million22 project could be called the “Billion Dollar Train Trench.”23 The economic future of Northern Nevada is far from settled. Where will the City get the money to pay for this project if tax revenue decreases further? Competition from gaming on Native American reservations in nearby states poses a threat to tax income. Should we place a high-stakes bet on a project that effectively amounts to a gamble on Reno’s economic future?
The answers to these questions are uncertain and lead to troubling conclusions. During current economic uncertainty, when our state is facing a sizable budget shortfall, it is apparent that thousands of voters who signed petitions are hesitant to support the trench project.
Funds used for the project could assist in building schools and parks and employ countless teachers and police officers. In budget year 1999-2000, the City spent $45,099,788 on police and $17,273,986 on parks and recreation. These figures are a mere fraction of the cost of the train project. If the City desires to improve the economy of the downtown area, the place to start may *590be by making it both more safe and attractive. Instead, the City seeks to build a quarter of a billion dollar trench through which private trains will pass. If the project fails, the impact may have financial consequences not only for the City, but the entire region as well. It seems only fair that citizens who ultimately will bear the financial burden be allowed to vote on it.
We teach our children and constantly remind our fellow citizens that voting is a civic responsibility. Yet, when an issue such as the one at hand sparks voter interest, the City argues that voting is impermissible. This result is difficult to justify. If not here, then when and under what circumstances does our constitution allow initiative petitions?
Enormous financial commitments should not be left only to the unfettered discretion of public officials. A tenet of democracy is that people generally sense what is in their best interests, although sometimes it appears that politicians, for a variety of reasons, may believe otherwise.24 Whether the train trench project would be approved by the people, we will never know. Their voices have been silenced on the dubious premise that the $282 million decision to proceed on by far the most costly project in the history of the city (which may take nearly a half century to pay off) is merely an “administrative” matter and not appropriate for voters to consider. One thing, however, is certain: the old adage of “being railroaded” may be aptly applied to the situation confronting the residents of Washoe County today.

 Nev. Const, art. 19, § 4.

 Forman v. Eagle Thrifty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 537, 516 P.2d 1234, 1236 (1973).

 See Wilson v. Koontz, 16 Nev. 33, 36-37, 348 P.2d 231, 232 (1960) (stating that this provision was designed to empower people “to enact or reject” laws independent of the legislature); Hugh A. Bone, The Initiative and The Referendum 5 (2d ed. 1975) (“[A]s an alternative to legislative unresponsiveness, the initiative and referenda were to give the citizen the means to protest specific policy grievances, and to implement on a collective basis those programs deemed desirable by the majority.”).

 It is troubling that the City recently entered into a $170 million contract for the project while the initiative issue remained unresolved. This action seems premature and somewhat suggestive of a “be-reasonable-do-it-our-way” attitude on the part of the City.

 See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

 Abraham Lincoln, Address at Dedication of National Cemetery at Gettysburg (Nov. 19, 1863).

 Forman, 89 Nev. at 537, 516 P.2d at 1236.

 Id.

 Id.

 See 1997 Nev. Stat., ch. 506, § 23, at 2405.

 See NRS 271.265; NRS 338.010; Reno City Charter § 6.010.

 This case is distinguishable from our recent decision in Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Fuji Park, 118 Nev. 488, 495-96, 50 P.3d 546, 550-51 (2002). There, the issue involved Carson City’s use and management of real property under authority granted to it by statute and the city charter. Such land use decisions are traditionally administrative in nature and do not possess the unique policy and financial aspects present here.

 Judicial notice is taken that the actual budget of the City for 1999-2000 was $243,944,393.

 Ronald M. James, Temples of Justice: County Courthouses of Nevada 99-100 (University of Nevada Press 1994).

 Id. at 100.

 Id.

 Id.

 Id.

 Id. at 102.

 Id. at 99-100.

 Id.

 Susan Voyles, Rigdon Tells Forum. New Council Might Stop Trench, Reno Gazette-Journal, Aug. 16, 2002, at 1C.

 I am reminded of a quote attributed to former United States Senator Everett M. Dirksen from Illinois during debate on an appropriation bill: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary cf Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service 155 (Suzy Platt ed., Library of Congress 1989).

 Should the isolated voice of one council person dictate the long-term economic future of the citizens of Washoe County? Here, a nearly $300 million project proceeds based on a 4-3 vote by the Council, despite a unanimous decision by County Commissioners to allow the citizens to vote. Hearing before the Washoe County Board of Commissioners (July 9, 2002); Hearing before the Reno City Council (July 16, 2002).