I understand why a lot of folks are upset at City Attorney Pete Holmes over the lawsuits he's filed to keep both the anti-tunnel initiative and referendum off the ballot. But in Holmes' defense, he's probably going to win judgement in both complaints. So unless your goal is simply to obstruct the process as long as possible—as opposed to actually settling our endless legal and political debate over replacing the Viaduct—wouldn't you rather the legal standing of these measures be settled before they go to the ballot rather than after?
Today's complaint against Initiative 101 is actually pretty damn strong, and the complaint against R-1 maybe only a bit less so. I could go into detail as to why, but not happily, because this legal shit is pretty damn boring. But all that's beside the point. However you handicap Holmes' chance of prevailing, the point is, he clearly has one—as would any party challenging the validity of these measures—and with so much at stake, there is zero chance these measures wouldn't ultimately be challenged.
So while I continue to oppose the tunnel as a poor use of public money, I guess I'm kinda with Holmes on this one. Better to settle these legal issues now, prior to ballot, before we waste a lot of time and money fighting over measures that might not be valid.