Comments on: Bank of America Appeal - CiViK Questions and SRM Answers http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/ Kirkland's Blog for News and views on life in the City of Kirkland, Washington Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:35:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Concerned in Kirkland http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-769 Concerned in Kirkland Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:21:00 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-769 John, thank you for catching my one misspelled word, out of 795 words. I did have one other unintentional typo -- just for the record, not including the lower case 'k' in Kirkland on a couple of occasions, which was intentional. Also, I am very calm, and not in a tizzy, and my grandmothers are both dead. So, unless you crash the car into me, I shouldn't be seeing either of them anytime soon. Lastly, I don't bite, but if I did, I choke on small bones. ;-) Rob, I appreciate your last post. It is spot on. John, thank you for catching my one misspelled word, out of 795 words. I did have one other unintentional typo — just for the record, not including the lower case ‘k’ in Kirkland on a couple of occasions, which was intentional. Also, I am very calm, and not in a tizzy, and my grandmothers are both dead. So, unless you crash the car into me, I shouldn’t be seeing either of them anytime soon. Lastly, I don’t bite, but if I did, I choke on small bones. ;-)

Rob, I appreciate your last post. It is spot on.

]]> By: Rob Butcher http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-768 Rob Butcher Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:55:14 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-768 CiK, Thank you very much for your post. You make many excellent points which I hope to address when time permits. Let me say this: your perspective has sometimes been downed out by rants and that is wrong. I want all voices to be heard regardless of one's view. I do not moderate comments according to some "fairness doctorine". I let comments come from whomever choses to make their voices heard. I have had to moderate a few rude comments about individuals but they have been extremely rare as I let the authors know they will be banned if the practice continues. This is how I try to keep this forum open and free and "rated G". That said, I have refrained from censoring comments about elected officials. I can tell you that some comments herein have disturbed me as I would describe them as uncivil but I have refrained from censoring such comments in the hope that the community will self-moderate just as you have done with your comments. I have found this to be very effective as it is a form of public shaming. I hope you will agree that this is a preferable option to me being a gatekeeper for opions that pass one person's cencorship test. When someone is out of line, the community will self-correct. If I were to limit discussion on <em><strong>Kirkland Views</strong></em> to only opinions with which I personally agreed, I would be violating the vary reason I started this website: because the local press and City Hall were not telling the people of Kirkland the whole story. Openness in government and public participation are vital for good governance. I believe we get the government we deserve. More about my personal views on this subject are posted here on the <a href="http://www.kirklandviews.com/about/"; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">About page</a> and on <a href="http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/04/28/welcome-to-kirkland-views/"; target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this post called, 'Welcome to Kirkland Views!'</a> that I wrote when I first started <strong><em>Kirkland Views</em></strong>. Thank you for sharing your views. If you think too much is being said on one side of an issue, I invite you to even things out. We all learn from eachother and we foster community through civil communication. Remember, it is difficult for some to shout at you when you keep your demeanor. I look forward to hearing from you again. Cheers, Rob CiK,
Thank you very much for your post. You make many excellent points which I hope to address when time permits. Let me say this: your perspective has sometimes been downed out by rants and that is wrong. I want all voices to be heard regardless of one’s view. I do not moderate comments according to some “fairness doctorine”. I let comments come from whomever choses to make their voices heard. I have had to moderate a few rude comments about individuals but they have been extremely rare as I let the authors know they will be banned if the practice continues. This is how I try to keep this forum open and free and “rated G”.
That said, I have refrained from censoring comments about elected officials. I can tell you that some comments herein have disturbed me as I would describe them as uncivil but I have refrained from censoring such comments in the hope that the community will self-moderate just as you have done with your comments. I have found this to be very effective as it is a form of public shaming. I hope you will agree that this is a preferable option to me being a gatekeeper for opions that pass one person’s cencorship test. When someone is out of line, the community will self-correct. If I were to limit discussion on Kirkland Views to only opinions with which I personally agreed, I would be violating the vary reason I started this website: because the local press and City Hall were not telling the people of Kirkland the whole story. Openness in government and public participation are vital for good governance. I believe we get the government we deserve. More about my personal views on this subject are posted here on the About page and on this post called, ‘Welcome to Kirkland Views!’ that I wrote when I first started Kirkland Views.
Thank you for sharing your views. If you think too much is being said on one side of an issue, I invite you to even things out. We all learn from eachother and we foster community through civil communication. Remember, it is difficult for some to shout at you when you keep your demeanor.
I look forward to hearing from you again.

Cheers,

Rob

]]> By: The Eastside Sun http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-767 The Eastside Sun Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:53:22 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-767 Hey, ease up on the 'tirade', I know why you're 'here'. To give us spelling lessons, right? So relax, it was just a joke. I'm not really going to turn the car around and you'll still see Grandma! Sorry for throwing you into such a tizzy. Bite Me John 1:27 Hey, ease up on the ‘tirade’, I know why you’re ‘here’. To give us spelling lessons, right?

So relax, it was just a joke. I’m not really going to turn the car around and you’ll still see Grandma!

Sorry for throwing you into such a tizzy.

Bite Me
John 1:27

]]> By: Concerned in Kirkland http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-765 Concerned in Kirkland Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:15:14 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-765 Comments regarding the above posting: 1) John 'The Eastside Sun' -- Aren't you the one that was fined for illegally cutting trees in Kirkland? Do I have that correct? I'm not hear to dispute whether that was appropriate or not, but at the time it happened, I believe you launched into a tyraid against the council and Lauinger in particular. So, I suspect you still have an ax to grind. You are hardly unbiased and impartial. I suspect the KCC is more impartial on issues, than you are on them. Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." 2) I keep hearing this business about CiViK having provided monetary and other support to Lauinger, Hodgson, and Greenway. I went to the PDC website - http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ - and looked at all of the council members. Looks like Burleigh and McBride took money from CiViK board members and supports too. Are they in 'CiViK's' pocket too? Burleigh and McBride also took money from downtown property owners and some developers? Are they biased in favor of downtown building owners and developers? Let's get real. All of these people who serve us, at their personal expense, are doing what they believe is best for the city -- like it or not. Quit bashing them. Put all the facts on the table, not just the ones you want, half truths, and sometimes outright lies. The irony is, those whining the loudest, are mostly the same 1/2 dozen to dozen people that had the council doing their bidding through, Larry 'I Never Met a Developer I Didn't Like' Springer, Sants Contreras, Bill Woods, and the like. 3. NIMBY's, condo dwellers, and view protectors - The list of CiViK supporters was on their website for a longtime. I can't find it on there now. However, that list was from people all over the city. I wish they would print a map of their supporters for all to see that the supporters and members are citizens from all over the city. The ones working hardest on this appeal won't lose any view either -- never would. Also, another doesn't even live anywhere near downtown. 4. DSP, zoning, et al. The City Council, with support from Monsieur Ramsay and his staff, should take the variability out of the plan. Make the guideline concrete, whether it is 2, 3, 4, or 5 stories. Define the setback. No variances. No 'superior retail' clauses. The property owners and community want to know what they can count on. Less to argue about; faster process. If you really think it is just a bunch of NIMBYs, put it up for Referendum to the community. Let's see how the whole community feels? We are still a democracy, aren't we? Do you have that much conviction in your beliefs? 5. Speaking of tax revenue for the city, a bank will generate very little, if any, sales tax revenue for the City. Much of the reason for superior retail is to generate a critical mass of desirable businesses downtown, and the other is to generate sales tax revenue, to help fund the city. A bank does little to help either of these. Just an observation. (that one is for 'I got out'.) 6. Where were all of you on 9/11/2001? I bet you weren't at a City Council meeting. That is the date the KCC approved a 4 foot modification (read increase in height) to the downtown zoning. That in effect is what makes a 5th story even possible. Perhaps we should put that up for another vote while we are paying attention, and not watching buildings crumble on our TVs. 7. As for the $13.8 million dollar deficit John cites above, the greatest responsibility for that rests with the City Manager, Dave Ramsay. Shouldn't we be calling for his resignation? Why hasn't anybody asked for this yet? His fully burdened cost to the City must be well in excess of $250k per year. He makes more in one month than the entire KCC does in a year for their service. 8. I like your blog very much Rob. However, it tires me sometimes to read the vile rants, particularly from 2 or three of your frequent contributors. Civil discourse is great. We can all agree or disagree, but it does not mean we need to be disagreeable. If you really want to be vile, you should be willing to put your name by your spew. That's my $0.02 worth, on my first post here. I suppose the flaming will begin now... PS. A few final, but related, thoughts. Is an opinion, your vote, and/or your voice more or less valueable if you are a short time kirkland resident, or long time kirkland resident? What is a short, versus a long term resident? Does it matter? Comments regarding the above posting:

1) John ‘The Eastside Sun’ — Aren’t you the one that was fined for illegally cutting trees in Kirkland? Do I have that correct? I’m not hear to dispute whether that was appropriate or not, but at the time it happened, I believe you launched into a tyraid against the council and Lauinger in particular. So, I suspect you still have an ax to grind. You are hardly unbiased and impartial. I suspect the KCC is more impartial on issues, than you are on them. Matt. 7:1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

2) I keep hearing this business about CiViK having provided monetary and other support to Lauinger, Hodgson, and Greenway. I went to the PDC website - http://www.pdc.wa.gov/ - and looked at all of the council members. Looks like Burleigh and McBride took money from CiViK board members and supports too. Are they in ‘CiViK’s’ pocket too? Burleigh and McBride also took money from downtown property owners and some developers? Are they biased in favor of downtown building owners and developers? Let’s get real. All of these people who serve us, at their personal expense, are doing what they believe is best for the city — like it or not. Quit bashing them. Put all the facts on the table, not just the ones you want, half truths, and sometimes outright lies. The irony is, those whining the loudest, are mostly the same 1/2 dozen to dozen people that had the council doing their bidding through, Larry ‘I Never Met a Developer I Didn’t Like’ Springer, Sants Contreras, Bill Woods, and the like.

3. NIMBY’s, condo dwellers, and view protectors - The list of CiViK supporters was on their website for a longtime. I can’t find it on there now. However, that list was from people all over the city. I wish they would print a map of their supporters for all to see that the supporters and members are citizens from all over the city. The ones working hardest on this appeal won’t lose any view either — never would. Also, another doesn’t even live anywhere near downtown.

4. DSP, zoning, et al. The City Council, with support from Monsieur Ramsay and his staff, should take the variability out of the plan. Make the guideline concrete, whether it is 2, 3, 4, or 5 stories. Define the setback. No variances. No ’superior retail’ clauses. The property owners and community want to know what they can count on. Less to argue about; faster process. If you really think it is just a bunch of NIMBYs, put it up for Referendum to the community. Let’s see how the whole community feels? We are still a democracy, aren’t we? Do you have that much conviction in your beliefs?

5. Speaking of tax revenue for the city, a bank will generate very little, if any, sales tax revenue for the City. Much of the reason for superior retail is to generate a critical mass of desirable businesses downtown, and the other is to generate sales tax revenue, to help fund the city. A bank does little to help either of these. Just an observation. (that one is for ‘I got out’.)

6. Where were all of you on 9/11/2001? I bet you weren’t at a City Council meeting. That is the date the KCC approved a 4 foot modification (read increase in height) to the downtown zoning. That in effect is what makes a 5th story even possible. Perhaps we should put that up for another vote while we are paying attention, and not watching buildings crumble on our TVs.

7. As for the $13.8 million dollar deficit John cites above, the greatest responsibility for that rests with the City Manager, Dave Ramsay. Shouldn’t we be calling for his resignation? Why hasn’t anybody asked for this yet? His fully burdened cost to the City must be well in excess of $250k per year. He makes more in one month than the entire KCC does in a year for their service.

8. I like your blog very much Rob. However, it tires me sometimes to read the vile rants, particularly from 2 or three of your frequent contributors. Civil discourse is great. We can all agree or disagree, but it does not mean we need to be disagreeable. If you really want to be vile, you should be willing to put your name by your spew.

That’s my $0.02 worth, on my first post here. I suppose the flaming will begin now…

PS. A few final, but related, thoughts. Is an opinion, your vote, and/or your voice more or less valueable if you are a short time kirkland resident, or long time kirkland resident? What is a short, versus a long term resident? Does it matter?

]]> By: The Eastside Sun http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-678 The Eastside Sun Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:47:36 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-678 OK, STOP YOUR BICKERING! MARK MY WORDS... I'LL TURN THIS CAR AROUND AND NOBODY GETS TO SEE GRANDMA! OK, STOP YOUR BICKERING!

MARK MY WORDS… I’LL TURN THIS CAR AROUND AND NOBODY GETS TO SEE GRANDMA!

]]> By: I got out... http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-675 I got out... Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:54:46 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-675 Can someone help me get past my feeling that Civik is a bunch of whiners that bought condos that blocked my view when they were built and now wants to complain everytime someone builds something new? I hear a lot of people on this blog talk about the good they do but I can't get past my old feelings that all they ever do is whine and fight. It comes across as very selfish to me. Have they done anything proactive that I have missed or do they just react to development they don't like? Sales tax from people spending money here helps fund our City without it coming out of our pockets. Why wouldn't we want to encourage more business? Can someone help me get past my feeling that Civik is a bunch of whiners that bought condos that blocked my view when they were built and now wants to complain everytime someone builds something new? I hear a lot of people on this blog talk about the good they do but I can’t get past my old feelings that all they ever do is whine and fight. It comes across as very selfish to me. Have they done anything proactive that I have missed or do they just react to development they don’t like? Sales tax from people spending money here helps fund our City without it coming out of our pockets. Why wouldn’t we want to encourage more business?

]]> By: murph http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-674 murph Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:49:25 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-674 No, I am aboslutely not kidding! No, I am aboslutely not kidding!

]]> By: kirkland busy body http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-672 kirkland busy body Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:44:01 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-672 Trooper, The people who count are the people like you and I who vote! The DSP as you state is not law: however it was adopted and endorsed by the City Council as a blueprint for Downtown. Until and unless a new DSP is adopted (which as pointed out has not happened) it seems fair that the old one is still valid. I saw great value in the DAT. Unlike the Planning Commission who are not elected that number only 7 people the DAT truly represented a cross section of our City. Members of the DAT were appointed. Each members represented a segment of the Community. Some like Sternoff were appointed from the City Boards that they had been appointed to by the City Council. Other members included a people from the community including Business. Others like myself were just common citizens trying to be involved in the process. I can only assume that Sternoff voted like the others utilizing their areas of knowledge, expertise and biases. I and some others attended a lot of those meetings and I do not minimize anyone's views who attended and gave input. What does concern me is that somehow the work product of over 30 people that was adopted by the City Council is now subject to reinterpretation on the run. The time to have done that was probably 5 years ago but after Lake and Central the Council lost their appetite for Downtown. Having said that I wholeheartedly support the current group that is attempting to review the DSP. Unfortunately my work schedule does not permit me the time to attend any of those meetings. From what I hear though there are clear differences amongst participants. This is most likely not the last battle to be waged Downtown. Clearly the majority of the City Council can only conceive of a Downtown from the ground level. I am waiting for another grocery store, pharmacy and stores where I can buy the things I need. This Council has not addressed any of these needs. I won't hold my breath waiting! Trooper,
The people who count are the people like you and I who vote! The DSP as you state is not law: however it was adopted and endorsed by the City Council as a blueprint for Downtown. Until and unless a new DSP is adopted (which as pointed out has not happened) it seems fair that the old one is still valid. I saw great value in the DAT. Unlike the Planning Commission who are not elected that number only 7 people the DAT truly represented a cross section of our City. Members of the DAT were appointed. Each members represented a segment of the Community. Some like Sternoff were appointed from the City Boards that they had been appointed to by the City Council. Other members included a people from the community including Business. Others like myself were just common citizens trying to be involved in the process. I can only assume that Sternoff voted like the others utilizing their areas of knowledge, expertise and biases. I and some others attended a lot of those meetings and I do not minimize anyone’s views who attended and gave input. What does concern me is that somehow the work product of over 30 people that was adopted by the City Council is now subject to reinterpretation on the run. The time to have done that was probably 5 years ago but after Lake and Central the Council lost their appetite for Downtown. Having said that I wholeheartedly support the current group that is attempting to review the DSP. Unfortunately my work schedule does not permit me the time to attend any of those meetings. From what I hear though there are clear differences amongst participants. This is most likely not the last battle to be waged Downtown. Clearly the majority of the City Council can only conceive of a Downtown from the ground level. I am waiting for another grocery store, pharmacy and stores where I can buy the things I need. This Council has not addressed any of these needs. I won’t hold my breath waiting!

]]> By: DowntownCondoDweller http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-671 DowntownCondoDweller Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:31:24 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-671 Murph - I actually meant that the Council should monitor the site in general - not this topic in specific. I was not clear enough - my error. I know it can be hard to maintain a Chinese Wall in these instances, but it is actually really too bad if it is just this event that is preventing the Council from reading other posts on this site. Hopefully once this is settled they or others at city hall will feel freer to monitor the site in general. Murph - I actually meant that the Council should monitor the site in general - not this topic in specific. I was not clear enough - my error.

I know it can be hard to maintain a Chinese Wall in these instances, but it is actually really too bad if it is just this event that is preventing the Council from reading other posts on this site. Hopefully once this is settled they or others at city hall will feel freer to monitor the site in general.

]]> By: murph http://www.kirklandviews.com/2008/07/26/bank-of-america-appeal-civik-questions-and-srm-answers/#comment-668 murph Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:00:28 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=530#comment-668 Also, let's not assume that just because CiViK opposed the Lake and Central project and the height of BOA, does not mean that they are required to be the downtown development pitbull. Also, let’s not assume that just because CiViK opposed the Lake and Central project and the height of BOA, does not mean that they are required to be the downtown development pitbull.

]]>