January 14, 2004
Vol.10, No.3

Conveyor Belt Promoter Appeal
Hearing January 15

On Thursday, January 15, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, Division One, sitting at Seattle, will hear oral argument on an appeal against the decision by the City of Des Moines not to issue a permit to Hank Hopkins for building & use of a pier and conveyor belt through Des Moines city parklands, so that barges with third-runway fill could unload at the Des Moines beach. The Court chambers are in downtown Seattle in the One Union Square building (600 University). This case and seven others are on the docket for argument on Thursday morning. Seating space is limited.

Several years ago, Mr Hopkins sought to have Des Moines change its comprehensive plan to create an opportunity for his particular conveyor belt proposal. Public opposition was intense, & after preparation of an environmental impact statement, & public hearings, the Council declined to make the change. Hopkins appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board, & in a quiet settlement, the City agreed to let Hopkins re-apply at some later date, on the basis of the environmental impact statement previously prepared.

Mr Hopkins then funneled secret campaign contributions, through then-Councilmember Don Wasson, to candidates for the Des Moines City Council who were thought to be pro-third-runway & who would, he thought, support his conveyor-belt proposal. These candidates won narrowly, with Mr Wasson assumed control of the Council, & elected Mr Wasson as Mayor.

Hopkins then decided not to make a second try for a comprehensive-plan amendment, instead simply applying for a permit to build & use. The City Council declined to issue the permit, realizing that Hopkins did not have City permission to use City land. Hopkins then appealed unsuccessfully to the City Hearing Examiner, who upheld the Council's inaction.

In the interim, the secret contributions came to light. Wasson was forced to resign as Mayor, & then, to avoid very serious legal entanglements, to resign as Councilmember. Four of Mr Hopkins' business associates were fined a total of $40,000 for illegal activities.

In Superior Court, Judge Dean Lum ruled that Hopkins' lawyers had relied on the wrong statute as the basis for their appeal. In the Court of Appeals, Hopkins' briefs claim that the third-runway project is essential & inevitable, that his conveyor belt is the best way to move fill, & that the City did not warn him about the legal requirements for his application, such as the need to have an ownership interest in the land that he proposed to use.

Points of interest: (1) Hopkins is not a bidder for future runway work from the Port, and never has been. What is the point of trying to build a conveyor belt allegedly for runway fill, if one is not a bidder? (2) It seems that the actual application to the City is not a part of the record on appeal, so the judges in the Court of Appeals have no way of knowing exactly what is in the document that has caused all this litigation. How can judges rule that an application should have been granted if they do not know its contents? (3) To date, none of the near-shore gravel mines along Puget Sound or Hood Canal have received permission to build or refurbish piers to move gravel by barge. (4) So far as is known, Hopkins does not have permission for his project from the City of SeaTac or from the Port of Seattle – the conveyor system would have to pass through SeaTac & according to the maps prepared for Hopkins, the system would terminate on Port property.