For almost a year now, I have been seeing piles of another free newspaper, the Eastside Sun, around Kirkland. I paid little attention to it, thinking it just another Stranger or Seattle Weekly, with slightly different advertisers.
When I finally picked one up to read, I found that I was mistaken. The Eastside Sun has regular attacks* on the Kirkland city government, a tech column that is often better than those in the Seattle Times, and a regular "letter from Iraq" from a soldier serving there. All in all, the Eastside Sun is providing some much needed competition for our "mainstream" newspapers.
Which leads me to wonder. Are there other small newspapers in this area with fresh ideas and independent views? Any others that are willing to snipe at local governments? Any others that you can read without being embarrassed?
(*Are the attacks justified? I have no idea. One of the things I liked about Kirkland when I moved back here, was that Kirkland handled the ordinary small city functions well enough so that I could ignore the city government — which I did. So, I really can't judge whether the attacks are justified. But in the past few years, I have noticed more and more problems, enough so that I have begun to think that I can no longer ignore Kirkland's politics, as I would prefer to do.
For completeness, I should add that Kirkland has had for many years, another newspaper, the Kirkland Courier, which I usually ignore, since I am not in the real estate business.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 18, 2007
03:11 PM | Email This
We believe Kirkland is a GREAT little community that should seek to stay both, great and little.
There's no reason we need to annex everything around us and become the 7th largest city in the state. There's no reason the Kirkland City planners should operate with no oversight and total impunity, steraling in the form of 'fines' and have neither checks nor balances. There's no reason Kirkland Police should break laws to help their friends.
Again, thanks for reading, sorry to hear about the Courier.
John Gilday
editor
The Eastside Sun
He's just as hard on the local Republicans because at least over here, they just don't "get it" when it comes to the fact they're so far out of step with the mainstream they elected an unemployed 24-year old nobody county commissioner instead of the old-guy, arch-conservative, Republican that ran the incumbent moderate Republican out of office in the primary.
Proving they don't "get it," we're now having to select a replacement Democratic commissioner because our beloved North Kitsap liberal Dem is going to work for Cantwell. If the Republicans hadn't shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of the moderate, we'd have 2 Republicans picking the Democrat instead of the 24-year old deciding this for us.
But NOOOOOO, the conservatives in Kitsap have it ALL figured out. Yeah, right.
Posted by: Kitsap Guy on May 18, 2007 09:04 PMKing County presently assesses taxes, county-wide, which end up not in regional services that benefit us all (courts, public health, etc.), but end up providing local services to unincorporated areas like those needing annexed to cities like Kirkland.
Please read the Growth Management Act and the King County County-wide Planning Policies, plus various reports on the Urban Subsidy (there are real dollars involved here) before weighing in on annexation issues.
No, it isn't easy to understand, but if you want government to be efficient and to spend dollars effectively, you have to do some real economic study.
I live in unincorporated King County in an area designated for annexation by Kirkland, so I keep my eye on the Kirkland City Council. So far, I fear for my life, liberty, and property!
Kirkland fancies itself Marin North. It's the most liberal city government on the Eastside, and it absolutely goes out of its way to tack extreme left simply because it's the chic thing to do.
Kirkland has a dubious reputation for being home to several of the top DUI bars in the area, yet Kirkland Mayor Jim Lauinger was quoted in the old King County Journal as saying places like that and the night life they offer make Kirkland a "nifty place."
Former mayor and current Kirkland City Council member Mary-Alyce Burleigh openly and enthusiastically violated existing Kirkland land use ordinances when she helped Tent City 4 set up shop in its first visit to the city. She's probably the biggest fan of TC4 operator SHARE/WHEEL among Eastside elected officials.
Another KCC member, Joan McBride, has been my sarcastic pen pal for a long time. Yet when I asked her this past February to be my Valentine and have a cup of coffee together, she rebuffed this citizen's overtures intended only to petition the government for redress of grievances. Hurt my feelings, to be sure!
Kirkland is home to 45th District Senator Eric Oemig, D-al Quida, who introduced into the legislature a skanky bit of treacle calling for an investigation into whether grounds existed to impeach the president and vice-president. All this after he promised us poor dumb saps that he was a problem-solving, bipartisan statesman of sorts.
The Kirkland Courier has been an enthusiastic supporter of all this crap, BTW. It makes the P-I look like William Loeb's Manchester, NH Union-Leader by comparison.
Rumor on the street is that Kirkland is considered too liberal for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, former Gov. Mike Lowrey, and the channeled ghost of Karl Marx.
Kirkland goes out of its way to support the building of mega-mansions that serve to drive up the price of housing such that only the uber-wealthy can afford to live there. Like I said, Marin North.
Kirkland has about the most draconian tree canopy ordinance in the Western Hemisphere. I better cut now or forever hold my piece.
About the only thing Kirkland has going for it is a ban on gambling establishments, which would, should annexation actually happen, effectively quash a blight in my neighborhood, The Caribbean Casino.
There is no truth to the rumor, however, that behind closed doors, Kirkland city officials require municipal employees to address them as "Comrade." At least there isn't much truth to the rumor.
Kirkland is a proletariat people's paradise.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott St. Clair on May 19, 2007 09:48 AMIn response to Deb Eddy...Whatever virtue there is in getting annexed to Kirkland versus remaining unincorporated is akin to the blessings a slave in the old South might have received after being sold down the river by his former owner an evil Simon Legree-type to his former owner's evil twin, Skippy, who is, BTW, a composite of all that Kirkland falls...er...stands for.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 19, 2007 10:46 AMWe were annexed into Kirkland in 1988, and although the sins were different back then, we had real problems with the city within the first few years. I got so mad, I ran for council and, for a while in the mid 90s, we shook things up a bit.
Have you thought about it -- running for council, that is -- once you get annexed? I absolutely agree that the draconian tree ordinance -- passed in 2005, I think? -- needs changed.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on May 19, 2007 02:39 PMWill you supply the yard signs?
And you do know, of course, that in certain circles I'm considered far to the right of Attila the Hun? Which brings me to wonder whether the Kirkland city Pa's and Ma's have given much thought to just how many of us neanderthals there are out here in Kingsgate, Finn Hill and Juanita?
I mean, we have pitchforkds, torches, tar and more feathers than you can shake a stick at.
And for a Democrat such as yourself to publicly encourage a tighty-righty such as myself to run for office means you will be required to do political pennance. You aware of that? You will be required to:
...Wax Ron Sims' car...Two coats.
...Weep openly in public places about how unfair it is that taxes are so low.
...Pledge to support with your last breath a measure to give goats the vote.
...Change the King County Records and Elections office to require it only tabulate votes that give off a good feeling.
...Call it unfair in the extreme that criminals have to go to jail at all; it only bruises their already fragile self esteem.
...Make David Goldstein's blog required reading at the primary school level.
...Criminalize automobiles (except for Ron's, which you are still waxing).
...Replace the Star Spangled Banner with I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.
...Handicap every election by spotting the most liberal candidate an extra 25,000 votes. It's only fair, you know!
...Never, never, never, ever say anything nice about a putz like The Piper ever again or it's wash, rinse, repeat.
Thanks for the kind words nevertheless.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 19, 2007 03:15 PMAnd regarding annexation, contrary to what the ever so highly esteamed Growth Management Act may imply, Kirkland annexation of unincorporated King County is a BAD IDEA. Take a look at www.savekirkland.com to learn more about the effort to STOP ANNEXATION.
Right now, Kirkland residents are paying King County a property tax and a portion of our sales tax so that King County can provide regional services, like courts, jails, public health services. Because King County is charged with providing local services (like police response, planning and permitting) to these unincorporated urban areas, and because those services are pricey (the sheriff's forces are strung out all around the county) ... they end up using some of those REGIONAL funds for LOCAL services. That's the "urban subsidy" ... the amount we are subsidizing for LOCAL services in these urban unincorporated areas.
The only alternative to rectifying this situation through annexation is for the named neighborhoods (Finn Hill, etc.) to incorporate into a separate municipality(ies) and thus to provide their own police, permitting, parks, etc., local services.
But here's the problem with creating new cities: The Boundary Review Board may or may not approve that solution, because new cities need to PROVE that they can be self-sustaining. Before the MVET roll-back, that was easier, because the MVET included something called 'sales tax equalization', putting additional dollars into cities that didn't have a strong sales-tax base. That redistribution NO LONGER EXISTS, so it's harder for these neighborhoods to prove they can be self-sustaining and thus become new cities.
And then there's this other consideration: Just how many city managers, police chiefs and planning directors do we actually need to pay for in the Puget Sound? If these neighborhoods are annexed into existing cities, then a larger number of us are paying for ONE EACH of aforesaid city manager, police chief, planning director. If these neighborhoods become a new city, then collectively, we are paying for TWO OR MORE of each of these positions. And a parks director, finance manager, city treasurer, etc. etc. Again, I'll ask: How many do we need?
I supported annexation of these neighborhoods back in the 1990s, because at that time, King County still had money to contribute to capital improvements, etc., as part of the annexation agreement. Many of us knew that the King County money was going to DRY UP, as their tax base shrunk and their criminal justice costs went up, and we'd better move fast. We couldn't get the votes back then, so in recent years, Rep. Springer managed to get the state legislature to weigh in with some funds (10 years' worth) to help make these annexations happen.
I know it's a tough decision for the city to make, because city councilmembers are elected to keep things the same, not to make change. But I'm one Kirklander that wants to see my COUNTY taxes paying for COUNTY services, and not for urban services in adjacent neighborhoods.
By the way, Eric Earling's dad also knows all about this, from his days as an Edmonds city councilman. This problem isn't new ... it's been around a long time. And I'll be glad when it's finally solved.
The other major unincorporated areas, besides north Kirkland, awaiting annexation (and soaking up county revenues in the meantime) are east of Federal Way, east of Kent, east of Renton.
Rob, think about running for city council after annexation. Honestly. There were at least four of us from the newly annexed areas who moved onto the city council in the five or six years after North and South Rose Hill were annexed back in the late 1980s. And I think it turned out well for the city (although there are some who would differ).
Posted by: Deb Eddy on May 19, 2007 06:50 PMIf you take a look at the annexation areas and analyze their affinities and interests, many of them belong in other cities. Frankly, all a lot of us have in common with Kirkland is a post office.
In my case, I can just about spit from my back deck into Bothell. I'm in the Northshore School District and the Woodinville Fire District. I'm in Bothell nearly every day, while Woodinville is just over the hill from me.
I'm in the First Councilmanic District for King County, and the First Congressional District, alebeit the 45th Legislative District.
If I had my druthers, Bothell (it has the Eastside's best mayor in Mark Lamb) is my first choice with Woodinville the second.
You can draw similar conclusions looking at Upper Juanita and Finn Hill. Kenmore has more in common with some in those neighborhoods.
Yet the Boundry Review Board did their own version of the Sykes-Picot Agreement by sticking us all in Kirkland's sphere of influence. We are to Kirkland what the Yalta Conference made Eastern Europe to the USSR.
Like I said...in Kirkland, you have to address public officials as "Comrade."
King County is essentially starving us hicks in the sticks in order to get us to beg for annexation even if it would be to Fallujah, Iraq. 911 calls for King County Sheriff service have response times measured in calendars. And when was the last time anyone tried to get a pothole fixed?
It's no secret...Ron Sims has said as much. It's not as if we're going to have our own version of the Boston Tea Party or anything (Can you see it? Scores of us dressed up like techonology professionals and software engineers in white sockes and birks gathering down at O.O. Denny Park tosssing pocket protectors, PDA's and anything labeled Kirland's Best into Lake Washington...You can call us the Sons of Geekery).
I don't think there's a soul out there who hasn't accepted the inevitability of annexation. The question is to whom? As for me, Kirkland comes in 11th in a three city race. Honestly, I don't identify with Kirkland, I don't spend all that much time there (with the relatively new Woodinville Costco, why go at all?), and I'm totally turned off by Kirkland politics.
Give me the root, hog and die snarling on the Woodinville City Council anytime. I'd rather go there and fight the idiotic efforts of four on that Council to spend like drunken sailors on artificial turf for parks rather than pay for a couple additional police officers, or whatever it is they're doing.
Yet I've been advised be several current and former local and state elected officials that getting the Boundary Review Board to change its mind is tougher than getting the Kirkland City Council to name anything after Ronaldus Maximus Reaganus, the greatest president of the 20th-Century.
So...We be stuck like hogs on a spit! Looks like there's not much left to do save take to the hills in armed rebellion. Time for a few inspiring thoughts from Les Mis:
ENJOLRAS
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
COMBEFERRE
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Courfeyrac:
Then join in the fight
That will give you the right to be free!
ALL
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
FEUILLY
Will you give all you can give
So that our banner may advance
Some will fall and some will live
Will you stand up and take your chance?
The blood of the martyrs
Will water the meadows of France!
ALL
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!
Oh, well! If we do get annexed to the Peoples' Republic of Kirkland, maybe then Joan McBride will pay more attention to me and buy me a vente white chocolate mocha at the downtown Tulley's. Are you reading this, Joan? Hope so!
The Piper
YOU ARE CORRECT: The boundaries of these "planned annexation areas" were set somewhat arbitrarily ... at some time in the distant past ... by city and county staffers, or so I'm told. In some cases, yes, the PAAs split neighborhoods, 'communities of interest'. This is a problem.
I've spent some years trying to get Kirkland and Redmond to agree that an area called Bridleview, east of 132nd, north of NE 60th, actually belongs in KIRKLAND, not REDMOND, as now declared in county documents, for reasons such as you describe having to do with neighborhood orientation and similarities. It's still being discussed :-)), but I'm not in that game anymore, so we'll see what happens.
I don't know how you assess all these differences: post office, school districts, commercial districts, geographic orientation, legislative and congressional districts. But I do know that we need to sort out this mess and get all of us in cities, so that we can hold the county fully responsible for providing county services (and local services ONLY in the rural areas. at an appropriate level).
I'm still encouraging you to run for whatever city council that turns out to be your municipality. Woodinville, Bothell, Kirkland ... wherever. I'm a big believer in getting your point of view out there and seeing what the public thinks of it.
Joan will tune in. Give her time. And if she won't have coffee with you, I will.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on May 19, 2007 07:50 PMDeb, ol' buddy, ol' pal...best you Google my name first and learn what antics I've been up to. There are a lot of folks on your side of the aisle who'd just as soon shoot me as look at me. And that includes a goodly number of the reverend clergy.
But...far be it from me to say no! I mean if I can break bread with the Rev. Sandy Brown and call him friend (as wrong and chuckle headed as he is most of the time), then why not! All I can say, though, is caveat emptor!
Bit of trivia...I'm the only person in the history of the Kirkland CC to ever testify before them wearing a kilt...and an orange, plastic lei. You had to have been there.
As to Joan...Alas, poor Joan, I knew you well! She only sends me one or two sentence snippets from her city provided Blackberry in response to my LTE's to the Times, P-I, and the late and very lamented by me, King County Journal where I was a monthly regular on the letters page.
Whenever you're ready, Deb! De-caf or regular?
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 19, 2007 08:27 PMAfter the Feb 06 windstorm he asked David Barnes of the city of Kirkland about the tree ordinance and he was told in front of witnesses that the city didn't care about Cottonwoods or Alders, since they were weed trees that most municipalities required to be removed.
He cut up three fallen Cottonwoods, and one tree with a single root ball but three stalks - at 3 feet above the ground. The city turned around and said he cut SIX trees (remember he cut only one living tree), fined him and the eventual total came to $13,700.
Part of the penalty was replanting 29 trees, providing none of them were Cottonwoods since the city does not allow them (according to Kirkland Urban Forester Liz Walker).
So, he might be somewhat predjudiced against the city management in his newspaper.
please see photos and read more in:
www.kirklandsucks.com
For more about Waterfund's missions to post-tsunami Thailand, post-Katrina New Orleans and throughout Central America, pleas visit www.Waterfund.org
I see two appropriate quotations;
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
A. Lincoln
Don't F*ck with a man that buys ink by the barrel
Wm. R. Hearst
I understand your point of view with regard to shifting county spending toward regional activities rather than local, however, that doesn't mean that MY TOWN has to be the one to carry the burden of annexation!
The proposed annexation by Kirkland of Kingsgate, Finn Hill and Upper Juanita is terrible for the citizens of Kirkand, although the rest of the county may be relieved. There are too many unknowable costs involved let alone the other charming aspects such as:
A new $44 million 75 bed jail;
The addition of 44 new police officers;
A new City Hall and new maintenance facilities;
A doubling of the population of Kirkland with associated diminished representation on the council;
Distraction from solving Kirkland's long term fiscal imbalance.
As for you point about duplicative city managers, planners, etc., I have found it quite amazing that Kirkland plans to roughly DOUBLE the number of police and greatly increase the number of city employees in order to DOUBLE the number of people in the city. There is no great savings from a county-wide perspective, but when you look at the thing from a city-wide perspective, it is a horrible proposition as the burden falls solely on Kirkland's tax base.
Please help me with my thinking:
Take the PAA, for example. A fine area indeed. However, for numerous reasons, it lacks the tax base to support the needed services it requires. Therefore, when one adds that negative to Kirkland with it's existing fiscal imbalance, somehow one gets a happy ending and there is plenty of money to go around. I don't think so. Yes, I understand there will be some synergies and economies of scale, however, Kirkland's own financial projections show no benefit to annexation. And these long-term projections are circumspect at best attempting to guess at what will happen in the year 2020. This is for certain: taxes will rise and/or services will be cut. Given that 70% of Kirkland's budget is spent on government employees and benefits, adding more government employees will only make things worse.
I am not trying to be confrontational with this issue as I really do want a better understanding of the issue and to find a good solution for the county, the city of Kirkland and for the PAA. Perhaps Bothell or Woodinville might be a better match for annexing the PAA? Woodinville could annex the whole thing and still barely equal Kirkland in size.
Also, does anyone who is a citizen of Kirkland really want Kirkland to become the 7th largest city in the state? For what possible reason would anyone say, "Yippy! I love my town so much I can't wait for it to double in size overnight!" This is precisely why the citizens of Kirkland will not be allowed a vote on this issue. The city council will decide our fate and that stinks. This is too big of an issue to not allow us a vote.
There, I am now officially off my soap box. For a minute there, I thought I was in Hyde Park at speakers corner! Here endeth the lesson. ;-)
Thank you for your input!
Posted by: Rob Butcher on May 20, 2007 10:54 AMLet's start with the COST. I find the numbers pretty shocking, but over the years, I've seen lots of annexation revenue/cost estimates -- and it's amazing how much they can differ. This means you have to ask lots of hard questions about these reports and their assumptions and conclusions (which it sounds like you're doing).
Back in the 'old days' when annexations were opportunistic, a 1:1 employee increase was NOT anticipated with annexations. Let me assure you that Kirkland did not double its police force when it annexed North and South Rose Hill!! I can't say what's the proper increase in staffing, but if I were on the city council, I'd be asking lots of questions about the staffing assumptions.
BTW: The requirement for a new CITY jail is not only provoked by annexation but by (1) King County's demurral from building a Northeast County jail to match the South County (Kent) facility, and (2) the problems with city misdemeanant incarceration, since King County kicked the cities out of the downtown jail (over time) and a rather clunky contract with Yakima County was signed (now in litigation, of course; don't blame me, I didn't have anything to do with it!!) to take care of cities' prisoners. I can understand why Kirkland would want to provide for some prisoners HERE, to control costs over time.
Yeah, it's possible that Bothell, Woodinville and Kirkland could agree to SPLIT the area among all three cities. The preexisting PAA boundaries make that difficult, and all three city councils would have to be motivated to even consider it. I don't know where the politics are, for such a proposal.
The reasons that it's not totally a BAD idea to make your/our city BIGGER is this: SIZE makes a real difference when it comes to weighing in on regional issues. After the METRO decision and as a result of various agreements, cities' voting power at PSRC or GMPC, the ability to weigh in on EMS levies and various other "places at the table" are determined by the city's population.
Finally, Rob, I should mention this: Back in about 1974, Kirkland annexed a narrow strip of land from its then-current borders leading up to and "capturing" Totem Lake Mall. Thus, for about 12 or 13 years, the SALES TAXES coming from Totem Lake flowed into Kirkland's coffers and benefited its citizens. People living just west and south were SHOPPING at Totem Lake, leaving sales tax dollars there, but nonetheless, when the annexation of South Rose Hill came up ... well, there were lots of Kirklanders who complained: "Why should we pay for you?"
This is probably more than you wanted to know ... Sorry about that. But trying to get this annexation mess fixed has taken up countless hours over the last 15 - 17 years, and will take up countless more.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on May 20, 2007 05:40 PMWhat we seem to have here is an unusual amalgamation of opposing forces united in a common goal for diatmetrically and mutually exclusive reasons. Make sense? Me neither...
Rob doesn't want annexation because he likes Kirkland the way it is. I don't want it because I don't like Kirkland the way it is. Deb sees the pushmepullyou of the politics of annexation. What do we do?
Those of us in the unincorporated areas want and need the coverage of municipal services, which King County is noticeably withdrawing in order to "teach us a lesson." Right now, my guess (and I think there's polling data somewhere to support this) is that a strong majority of voters in the three neighborhoods favor annexation to Kirkland.
My gut tells me that it's not necessarily because Kirkland is the end all and be all, but because for the moment it's the only game in town. Kind of reminds me of what happened in Arizona during the Civil War. Faced with serious issues with the pre-existing locals coupled with the withdrawal of federal forces to face what Washington, D.C. considered more pressing matters, some in Arizona appealed to the Confederacy to come in and protect them. It wasn't as much a Blue and Gray issue, though, as it was a life or death issue. Don't much care the color of uniforms just so long as there are a lot of uniforms of some color.
Given the political realities of the situation, is it reasonable or even conceivable for Kirklanders who oppose annexation to expect to succeed without doing something to offer those of us in the proposed annexation areas some sort of viable alternative? I mean, wouldn't it be wise to reach out to us and work to convince enough of us that a better and more blissful future lies not with Kirkland and becoming but a festering carbuncle on the hide of King County's newest megalopolis, but becoming, where appropriate, a more significant and powerful part of Woodinville, Bothell, Kenmore, or maybe even Redmond?
Of course, some in the annexation area, like those in south Finn Hill, will always see themselves aligned with Kirkland, and that's probably cartographically and demographically correct.
Maybe what's needed is to convene a regional summit of affected constituencies together with state and county elected officials to get this whole shebang off the dime.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it appear as if everbody involved save King County is kind of walking around each other hoping, frankly, that the ugly girl at the party, Ms. Kirkland (no offense...only trying to draw a word picture) won't ask them to dance come ladies' choice?
Thoughts???
The Piper
PS: Check the website for kilt pics...
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 20, 2007 08:04 PMIs there an alternative "home" in Bothell, Kenmore or Woodinville? You really have to go ask those city councils whether they'd be even remotely interested ... And if they AREN'T, then -- based on how state law is written now -- my second best advice is to strike the best bargain you can and then find some people in the newly-annexed areas to run for city council.
We'll all be fine if the citizens of the newly annexed areas take an interest in their new city affiliation and become part of the politics.
I know you guys think that Kirkland is 'way too far to the left for you, but (1) I'm not even sure that I agree with that assessment but, in truth, I don't follow local politics as closely as I used to ...
and there is that darned tree ordinance to deal with ...
and (2) politics in suburban cities change over time, as folks get interested and involved.
It was Churchill who said that this is the worst of all forms of government, until you consider the options. Or something like that. The point is: it's messy, but we do certainly govern ourselves.
Piper: Send your email address thru deb@debeddy.net.
Thank you for your very well-considered comments. Yes, I do believe we have a common goal, Piper and I. The question is, just how do we move forward. It is my impression that there is opposition in the PAA against annexation, but it is overwhelmed by the need for better services, which Kirkland is happy to offer. There is opposition to annexation inside of Kirkland as well, but up to now it has been slow to organize.
Here is the reality of the situation today as I see it:
1. Kirkland city council believes in GMA and wants to annex
2. No other neighboring city councils are fighting Kirkland for the PAA, so by default, the only one who shows up, will get the prize.
3. Kirkland has attempted but without success to get it's population interested in the annexation issue, but to date there has been no mass of people either for or against it. Therefor, by default, the council will assume everyone is okay with annexation as the pitch forks and tar are no yet gathering at the ramparts.
4. The PAA appears to be without choices. It is either be annexed by Kirkland, or it is be left to wither on the vine of King County.
5. As for alternative futures for the PAA, it is incumbent upon PAA residents to organize. Either find a city you would prefer to join or develop a plan to incorporate yourself. Hoping that someone else will fix this mess for you will never work because no one else has your interests at stake.
6. Since the Kirkland city council BELIEVES that it is Kirkland's destiny to annex (and hoping that somehow this is saving the planet in the process), the PAA will have to organize in oposition as Kirkland is going to hit the PAA with a marketing blitz, balloons and poney rides on a Welcome To Kirkland, Vote For Annexation Tour coming soon to your PAA neighborhood.
This is how I see it today and it looks like an uphill battle, indeed. I am happy to help in any way I can as I do believe annexation is a bad idea. The comments about how South Finn Hill and other areas closer to the Kirkland boarder may have an affinity toward Kirkland is correct. It is those people who will be vocal during the upcoming PAA Tour. They will organize as they did during Phase One of the annexation process here in Kirkland. The meeting we for Kirkland citizens to express their views on annexation. The Pro-annexation PAA folks showed up in droves and drowned out the opposition voices of actual Kirkland citizens. The council didn't differentiate between citizen and PAA resident so the council left these meetings with warm fuzzy feelings.
Kirkland is fat and happy so the citizens don't really want to rock the boat. I don't believe the average Joe Kirkland knows anything about this issue but that is not relevant. If the council has not heard opposition, then silence is a voice in the affirmative. The same goes for the PAA. Organize or be eaten by the beast. (For the record, I like the beast, and I am a happy citizen of Kirkland. However, I want it to go on a diet rather than eating everything in sight. Don't become it's next meal so that down the road we wont have to complain here about indigestion.)
Congrats to the Sun and to John Gilday and staff!! Hope you can make it work and don't have to sell out in a few years.
Posted by: swatter on May 21, 2007 07:10 AMIf that's the case, then annexation is inevitable -- either now or later. But we all should be watching out for how it's done, both at the financial and policy levels.
BUT HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO:
(1) Watch the costs carefully - now and later. Ask questions. The costs may seem overstated now (and probably are higher than needed, IMHO), but Kirkland may be trying to stave off ugly surprises later on.
(2) Make sure the newly annexed areas set up neighborhood associations ASAP. Having a large group of citizens involved enough and knowledgeable enough to bring political pressure to bear when needed ... well, that's what makes change. And Kirkland has a pretty good citizens' network in these associations, although they can cause headaches for the staff and council. [We knew that would happen when we created 'em, but it was worth it!!]
Yeah, I know that all of us will be somewhat diluted, lost in the crowd of about 80,000 people that will be the 'new' Kirkland. Same thing happened in '88, when we went from 21,000 to 42,000 literally overnight. And yes, there were some rocky spots in that transition from what had been perceived as a "Little Sausalito"!
It WILL BE even more important that the people we elect to the council are independent, smart, know how to read a budget and aren't afraid to ask hard questions. And they also have to know how to listen and represent the varied interests of 80,000 of us ...
Believe it or not, such people aren't a dime a dozen ... that's why I keep encouraging you guys to think about it, or at least help recruit the new wave of candidates. The transition will be a LOT EASIER if this new area provides some leadership to the 'new' city.
(3) Watch King County: Make sure that the money 'saved' by annexation actually goes into regional services and NOT into better local services in another PAA. That would make the whole exercise -- and pain -- pointless.
Scott, I'm still in awe of anyone who'd show up at KCC in a kilt AND an orange lei. The mental picture is just stunning.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on May 21, 2007 08:55 AMBut now on to the issue at hand...
Kathy from Waterfund (post 17) is right. The bait and switch process by which The City of Kirkland defrauded Waterfund based on removal of storm damaged trees was the genesis of The Eastside Sun - much like an irritation is the genesis of a pearl. But I like to think we've become much more.
In the near future we will start publishing position papers from those citizens seeking to unseat the current council and - if those positions are well thought out and reasonable - can count on our support.
But incompetence is not the sole reason for a housecleaning in Kirkland. Code Enforcement officer Craig Salzman and dept. head Eric Shields of The Kirkland Planning Dept are criminally responsible for theft through deception and it's subsequent cover-up, and that MUST be addressed. While jail terms for these men are not probable, immediate termination and preclusion from any public position in the future is demanded by their actions. The new council can make that happen.
The City has taken great leaps in becoming honorable and fair, Judge Al Raines has been removed from the bench... prosecutor Marita Dornay (the one that was sleeping with her witnesses) has been run out of town... Boss Hawg is GONE! But much more needs to be done. Crooked cops need to be fired. No pension, no gold watch. Harassment of legal businesses in downtown Kirkland must STOP. If every third car driving out of Magnolia, Burien and Duvall were stopped, then their DUI percentage would jump to painful levels as well (remember, there are three types of lies... lie, damndable lies and statistics).
Much more HAS to be done before we could dream of forcing thousands of other Washingtonians to become Kirklanders.
Posted by: John Gilday / The Eastside Sun on May 21, 2007 10:09 AM