The state supreme court ruled against Bellevue developer and longtime light rail opponent Kemper Freeman today. Freeman sued Sound Transit, arguing that the center lanes on I-90 could not be used for light rail because they were constructed with motor vehicle fund money. Based on a 1976 memorandum of agreement, Freeman argued that WSDOT could not swap roads money for transit money.

Here's the decision, which shoots down Freeman's claim regarding his strict interpretation of how the money can be used:

[There isn't] any language that can be plausibly construed as creating a duty on DOT to expend the appropriated funds. Section 204(3) is merely an appropriation, the legislature's act of setting aside a sum of money for a particular purpose. Put another way, section 204(3) provides legislative authorization of the necessary funding so that DOT may engage in a valuation. ... Indeed, transportation budget provisos authorizing spending do not control the disposition of highway property ... Furthermore, the language in section 204(3) stating that the valuation "shall account for" the 1976 MOA and 2004 amendment does nothing to establish a mandatory duty to transfer the center lanes. The 1976 MOA and 2004 amendment merely set out principles regarding the future development of the I-90 corridor. These agreements simply provide guidance for decisions regarding the future development of I-90. Petitioners do not establish how, or why, these agreements create a nondiscretionary course of action that the state must follow.

The 7-2 decision concludes by saying the court does not have the jurisdiction to rule against Sound Transit and Washington Department of Transportation's statutorily authorized work, adding, "in any event, the statutory provisions authorizing transfers of highway land do not generally violate [state laws.]"