February 03, 2005
"Taking Secession Seriously"

Eastern King County secession has become a hot topic again (recent SP posts here and here). Now, a leading liberal Seattle publication is getting behind the idea.

The Seattle Weekly's Editor In Chief, Knute Berger, has penned "Taking Secession Seriously" in his regular column, "Mossback." If Rs are looking for something to get steamed at in this piece, they'll doubtless manage to find it. But as a Seattle resident, I can tell you this represents a sharp break with the prevailing kneejerk disdain of Seattle liberal institutions for suburban concerns. Berger - an Eastsider who calls himself a political independent - is making a valuable contribution to the public dialog on this issue.

Last week, state Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, submitted a bill designed to make it easier to create new counties in Washington. Launching a new county has long been a dream of rural secessionists, including those in King County who talk of creating their own entity called Cedar County. Nixon's proposal comes on the heels of new property-rights legislation submitted by Rep. Dan Roach, R–Bonney Lake, that would allow folks to seek compensation for any loss in property value due to government land-use laws (read: environmental protections). Nixon says if the Legislature rejects his plan, it could wind up as a statewide initiative; a property-rights initiative is also in the wind.

Both efforts are born of the seething in suburbs and exurbs, a reaction in part to the perceived insensitivity of Seattle liberals who have been too heavy-handed in imposing restrictions with King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is also fueled by a lack of confidence in the county and its executive, "King Sims." The movement has gained momentum from grassroots Republican ire over the gubernatorial election debacle.

....the revived secession movement raises a legitimate question. There is nothing magical about "39," the number of counties in Washington. Indeed, counties have come and gone over the years. Is there any reason why we shouldn't shake up the map?

King...county has long been run from Seattle, seat of government and the population center, and our view of the region has dominated....Seattle now resembles less L.A. than the San Francisco Bay area, and our determination to do our civic duty by increasing urban densities and absorbing the region's growth hasn't worked, any more than San Francisco—twice as dense as Seattle—has been able to prevent growth in the East Bay and Silicon Valley.

All this growth has brought us to a place where it's easier to imagine breaking the region into smaller, more manageable pieces, each with its own center of influence......In addition, King County government—the County Council was downsized last November by the voters, from 13 seats to nine—has a smaller domain to rule as more areas incorporate. This has left the county to provide services to a far-flung, ungrateful population, with those services funded by a diminishing tax base.

.....there is nothing inherently wrong with seeking to redraw the political map of Washington by forming a new county or streamlining government by getting rid of some old ones.....there is often much to be gained by moving government closer to the people, and if that's what people want, they'll eventually get it. If King County no longer works, the people will create something that does.

A secession initiative, a property rights initiative and an election reform initiative may all be coming before too long. It's a good bet Washington state politics are going to remain very lively, quite apart from the gubernatorial election challenge.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 03, 2005 02:18 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I like this idea.. especially if those outside of Seattle feel like their interests are not being represented adequately by their County Legislators.

Posted by: bmvaughn on February 3, 2005 02:20 PM
2. The formation of Cedar County is long overdue. Hpefully, it will become a reality soon and include some cities in the urban eastside as well.

Gary

Posted by: Gary on February 3, 2005 02:44 PM
3. The recent gerrymander of the 9 new County Council districts, in favor of Larry Phillips and in contempt of the eastsiders, did its best to make sure that the eastsiders had even less representation than they had with 13 Councilmembers. Party politics prevailed.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 3, 2005 02:46 PM
4. I like the model in Denver, which both a city and a county within the same boundaries. Let's draw the line around Seattle and let it stand alone.

Posted by: Greg Miskin on February 3, 2005 03:10 PM
5. A few years ago there was a bill to merge Western Washington with Western Oregon and Eastern Washington with Eastern Washington.

Wouldn't that make sense?

Posted by: jim on February 3, 2005 03:10 PM
6. I meant "merge Eastern Washington with Eastern Oregon."

Posted by: jim on February 3, 2005 03:11 PM
7. Quote - A few years ago there was a bill to merge Western Washington with Western Oregon and Eastern Washington with Eastern [Oregon].

Wouldn't that make sense?
Posted by jim at February 3, 2005 03:10 PM


Yes it would. I can only wish. Not sure how the demographics are of the Olympic Peninsula but they might want in too.

Posted by: dkm on February 3, 2005 03:19 PM
8. I don't want to be "merged" with King County OR with Western Oregon. I'm happy -- for the moment -- to be in unincorporated Snohomish County...but about one more stupid traffic deal by either the City of Bothell or SnoCo and I'm moving. Cedar County would be ideal...actually, Ephrata or somesuch would be ideal, but can't do that...yet.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 3, 2005 04:20 PM
9. I vote for taking the red counties in Washington and Oregon and making a new state. The blue counties in Washington and Oregon can remain Washington and Oregon. I don't believe that the new state would want the stigma that goes with those names.

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 3, 2005 05:23 PM
10. I like the proposal raised earlier to make a new county inside the Seattle city limits.

Posted by: Boonie on February 3, 2005 05:28 PM
11. Enough nonsense talk about forming new states. The last time it happened was during the civil war when the counties in western Virginia wished to remain in the Union. If you want to make new states, it can be done. But you better have a GOOD reason.

With counties it's different. I'm surprised and delighted with the Seattle Weakly editorial. But I wouldn't get too excited. This fight can't be won until we take back the legislature.

Posted by: Brendon on February 3, 2005 05:42 PM
12. I agree. Let the eastside form its own county. Then all the "Cedar County" types can bitch about being oppressed by people in Bellevue, Kirkland and Bothell instead of us ignorant liberals in Seattle.

Posted by: Steve on February 3, 2005 06:04 PM
13. Posted by Steve at February 3, 2005 06:04 PM

I agree. Let the eastside form its own county. Then all the "Cedar County" types can bitch about being oppressed by people in Bellevue, Kirkland and Bothell instead of us ignorant liberals in Seattle.

Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bothell are more oppressive than Seattle?

I hope my area's included in Ceder County.

Posted by: Jaime on February 3, 2005 06:39 PM
14. I say let Eastern WA go. Lets see how well they do without all the tax dollars from Seattle.

Posted by: Giffy on February 3, 2005 06:43 PM
15. Giffy......I would like to see how Seattle would do without all the crops that Eastern Washington produce.

They don't need all your tax dollars, they pay enough for Cities problems anyways. If the Seattlites would quit dictating how the country people are "suppose" to live and control how our goverment is elected.

I dont live in Eastern Washington, but I do know that they have a very beneficial factor in our State Economy.

I am sure there is an island somewhere for sale that you could purchase, and not feel so used by the "other" persons in this state.

Posted by: Chris on February 3, 2005 07:12 PM
16. Isn't it refreshing to see that the YES YES Crats in this state are not following the lead of the NO NO Crats in the Federal Congress and Senate. Not Hardly!

The Yes Yes Crats in this state are saying Yes to new taxes (after CG swore on her web page she never raised taxes in this state), Yes on all kind of new spending (even though CG claims they are 1.8 billion in the hole), Yes to property stealing in King County, Yes to further burdening strugling businesses in this state by requiring them to pay 5 weeks of paid medical leave for every employee, Yes to banning Cell phones in cars so they can raise a ton of new fine $$$. The Toughest emmisions regulations in the country being shoved down our throats. It just never ends on the Yes Yes Yes Taxing, Fining, Spending and Over regulating they will do!

I think I would rather have a few more federal NO NO NO NO NO Crats in this state.


Posted by: GS on February 3, 2005 07:23 PM
17. Brendon: "Enough nonsense talk about forming new states. The last time it happened was during the civil war when the counties in western Virginia wished to remain in the Union. If you want to make new states, it can be done. But you better have a GOOD reason."

This is not factually correct. There were several states added to the U.S.A. after "The War Between the States." Washington State?

Posted by: southerner on February 3, 2005 08:45 PM
18. Matt - you quote the Seattle Weekly thusly:

This has left the county to provide services to a far-flung, ungrateful population, with those services funded by a diminishing tax base.

Whether the SW means by "tax base" the amount of money KC can collect or the extent of the property that can be taxed, if Washington state is like other states, that amount includes ALL the territory inside the boundary of the county, whether incorported cities or unincorporated areas. So, the tax base is not diminishing as a result of having "more areas incorporate."

It never ceases to amaze me how little reporters and editors know about our system of taxation, budgeting, government entity jurisdictions, and other matters that should be covered in a basic Civics class. Oh, that's right. We don't have Civics classes any more.

Posted by: Mac on February 3, 2005 08:57 PM
19. OK. Someone help me here. I am trying to figure out how being unattached to Seattle would HURT me or anything or anyone else. "Cedar County" wouldn't have to be part of Metro, "Unsound" Transit, or any of the other crap. I'd MUCH rather be part of Eastern Washington, with abundant, limitless resources, than to the "benefits" of Seattle.

But if someone can convince me of how much better off "eastersiders" would be to remain attached to Seattle, let me know...

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 3, 2005 09:10 PM
20. I use to live in Eastern WA, they always poke fun at west siders saying is there something in the water that makes them arrogant liberals? They even joke about it being "Washington's Belin Wall," I'd have to agree there are even quite a few arrogant people in here.

I say let Eastern WA go. Lets see how well they do without all the tax dollars from Seattle.
Posted by Giffy at February 3, 2005 06:43 PM

Grow up, they don't need your tax dollars keep them in your stuffed shirt counties, oh and don't forget to stroke your ego while your at it.
Handford produces great income on that side of the
state as well as farmers and Orchard owners, just because they are laborers doesn't mean they are poor hicks. They feel like everyone on this side of the state takes their money (tax dollars) and disregards their needs. what do you think?...

Posted by: Adriel on February 3, 2005 09:49 PM
21. Now singing the one of best ever and maybe most famous break-up songs (a la Engelbert in the world to King County:

Please join in!

Ahem.
La la la la...

"Oh please release me let me go
I don't love you anymore
To live a lie would be a sin
Release me and let me love again"...

"Please release me let me go
You'd be the fool to cling to me
Oh to live a lie would bring us pain
Release me and let me love again."

;-)

Posted by: Cheryl on February 3, 2005 11:15 PM
22. Consider other large cities that rape outlying areas for tax revenue. Just sitting down and taking it is not the right answer. Since the east side has to foot the bill for a needy metro area from which they receive nominal benefits, I have no contempt from East King liberating themselves from the situaiton. If it is possible, believe they should make every attempt to move forward with the initiative rathar than doing nothing. Dan Roach brings forth the concept, like OR, where the Govt will be charged for activities it undertakes to devalue property through excessive land use laws. There are times govt needs to have the brakes on it. These things are good.

Posted by: steveo on February 4, 2005 07:58 AM
23. Much is being made of that 4 cents on the dollar of West Side taxes that comes to the East side. The question that I haven't heard asked, much less answered is how much better would the East side economy be without the West side rules being imposed on us? And how much of that West side money is spent complying with their rules? I bet we could save enough dumping the rules that don't fit to make up for the loss of tax revenue.

Posted by: Michael on February 28, 2005 09:11 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?