Arguments, but no ruling in Metro legal action

There was a hearing yesterday on a request from a Richmond Avenue resident and business owner to order Metro officials to testify about its transit expansion plans, but there was no ruling — yet. Daphne Scarborough, an outspoken opponent of proposals to run a light rail line down Richmond, filed the motion in mid-April seeking information about the University Line alignment, Metro's substituting buses for trains on some of its proposed new transit lines, how the agency has used federal assistance and how Metro has shared its tax revenue. On Wednesday, her lawyer, Andy Taylor, said Metro has violated the 2003 transit referendum, but Metro lawyers Gene Locke and Andrew Edison argued that it hasn't. Little surprise there.

The real issue in this case, Locke and Edison said, is whether Metro officials should have to testify considering that there's not a lawsuit. If anyone who has a problem with a public agency's plans is able to call the agency's leaders to court to explain their actions, they said, there would be no time to get any real work done. But the alternative, Taylor said, would be a costly "full-block nuclear war" in court. Besides, Metro hasn't been totally candid with Scarborough and others who have sought information about its plans, Taylor said. Edison responded that much of the information Scarborough is asking for is available in public documents and on Metro's website.

As for whether Metro officials will have to testify in court, we'll have to wait to see. State District Judge Levi Benton asked whether written information from Metro wouldn't be sufficient, but Taylor insisted on oral testimony. Benton asked attorneys for both sides to submit written arguments and said he'll try to make a ruling based on those.