“I want to encourage people to read each other’s opinions and not read and listen to opinions they want to hear,” he said. “That just leads to a ‘balkanized’ opinion.”

What folks in Kirkland need to understand is the unique nature of living in an unincorporated urban area, while missing out on the benefits of belonging to a city. Want to pull a permit, you have to take a day to drive down to King County’s Development offices in Renton. Want to purchase a boat launch key? Sorry, going to cost you double, doesn’t matter that your mailing address says Kirkland. Think people are driving a bit too fast down your street, keep the kids off the sidewalks when living in the PAA because King County doesn’t care. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture how frustrating that can be when your neighbors a quarter mile away have the city services one expects when living in an urban area. I’m going to venture a guess that many of us moved into the PAA not realizing that we had to go to King County for all of our services. Lesson learned. Now let us pay our fair share to get the services one should get when living in an urban area.

That’s great news about Bothell’s interest in annexation of the PAA (is there a verifiable source??). Given their perceived financial stability, it will most likely be a greater benefit to the PAA, not being saddled with Kirkland’s huge expenses (read tax increases spread across a few) while still being able to enjoy Kirkland parks (such as Juanita Beach) and downtown without having to pay for it. And you (Kirkland Residents) will be paying for it. Given the nature of how cities in Washington operate, with all the anti-development sentiment, the city will have to either cut services or raise taxes. You better hope the developers of Totem Lake are able to score a WalMart, you guys are going need the sales tax revenue.

Note to OneKirkland.com: perhaps it is time to change your website to OneBothell.com? I just looked it up and it is still available!!!

In all seriousness, if Bothell can make annexation work financially, I think that would be a good option for the PAA because service levels are not going to rise in the PAA until they get annexed. King County will let them wither on the vine and Kirkland is in a budget morass.

We do not need the woes of adding all this populus to our city. Let Bothell/Woodinville envelope the areas. On to the next issue!

PS - I like the stretch machine better than thumb screws…..

As for the sum total of the financial advantages mentioned in the last post, the City Council already searched high and low for every possible benefit from annexing, and they still concluded that it would be a drag on the city coffers.

For the sake of the PAA, I hope that Bothell is enthusiastic about annexing it.

On the other hand, they worry annexation may upset the liberal apple cart that has been the Kirkland City Council for many years. And, admittedly, economically, this is a tough time for Kirkland. But increased taxes, or even a levy for the PAA, could overcome much of this, not to mention the keeping of revenue from the casino and Toyota of Kirkland (and others likely to re-locate to a new auto row).

King County is going to help Bothell try to annex the whole PAA. And Kirkland will have to stand by and watch or act (can you imagine the outcry if the city spent precious resources fighting annexation to Bothell in court, after the essentially said they didn’t want the PAA). Bothell isn’t going to wait 6 - 9 months and loose the shot at the state sales tax revenue sharing, Bothell is moving now. Expect to see a group of citizens petitioning Bothell, Bothell will ammend it’s comp plan by end of this year and move forward with a vote by end of next year. The PAA is feeling pressure with continued threats of lower police coverage and other services and will likely feel they have no choice but to join Bothell, which by the way has virtually no bond debt and is in a strong financial situation.

The city could make annexation economically feasible, even favorable, with a little creativity. But I wonder if that would really matter in swinging the anti-annexation people to pro. Seems many just don’t like the idea of a preceived “different-class” of people, and a more conservative group, becoming part of the Kirkland Political Scene. IMHO.

Those who voted to table annexation need to come clean. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways in the big leagues, playing the poor victim to big bad county exec Sims and that ruthless council member Hauge. Give me a break. If the council members do indeed have principles for which they stand, surely they can manage a one on one sit down with Mr. Sims. If not, Kirkland is really in trouble. I call BS on the “strong arm” tactics that were supposedly used on these poor hapless small town folk. :ROLLSEYES:

Back to the spineless weasel comment…let the PAA go. Cut them loose. That would be the appropriate thing to do given the apparent politics and financial troubles the City of Kirkland is facing. Let another city, who actually has managed it’s resources correctly, do what the current council has miserably failed to do. The council has a civic duty beyond it’s city line, it’s a shame they don’t recognize that. Cut the PAA loose if you don’t have the cajones to stand before the citizens of Kirkland and say what you’re really up to.

BTW, Mr. Butcher, this particular report should be marked “Editorial” as it play fast and loose with the actual truths of whats going on with annexation and has instead favored your position of saving Kirkland from annexation. I thought this site was supposed to be reporting on the news, not manipulating it.