City at a crossroads
Will the citizens work together to find common ground or will we split further apart?
There is a great deal of passion surrounding the events of the past four months with regard to the Bank of America project. This appeal process began in April, and it was evident last night that all parties were tired of this endless process. Closure is a good thing. It may or may not be the closure you had hoped for. It may very well not be as much of a victory or defeat as it appears. But we do have a decision. It is a new day. My sincere hope is that we can start anew as a city and attempt to learn what went wrong and apply those lessons toward repairing a process that is clearly broken.
For supporters of CiViK, I would imagine they have a somewhat shallow victory on their hands. They believed they had to appeal the DRB decision because it violated City codes for what could be built on that site. Now they have succeeded and have won the appeal. But at what cost? Great personal and monetary expense has been the toll of four months of this process. Stopping this one development has succeeded but the process which prompted the appeal in the first place remains unchanged.
For supporters of SRM, I would imagine they are dejected and angry at the circus they have been through during the quasi-judicial appeal. They believe they followed instructions of staff, played by the rules and in the end got nothing for their efforts and at a substantial loss of time and expense. It is in their interests to have the process corrected so such appeals will hopefully be averted. Developers need clarity of process and assurances that if they invest the enormous sums of money it takes to go through the DRB process and if they follow all of the rules, they will have a reasonable expectation of success.
There is more to this story. It will come to light over time. I think the City needs to heal from this wound and with the City Council on vacation until September, we have an excellent opportunity to do so. We must all live in this city together and do so with respect for those with opposing views. Vilification of those with whom we disagree is not a successful strategy to finding solutions to problems. It may be an excellent way to accomplish other goals, but if finding common ground in our community is one’s goal, then perhaps other tactics would be more successful.
I do not subscribe to the notion that CiViK controls the actions of four members of the City Council. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that SRM controls the actions of the remaining three on the Council.
I believe that neither party had any intention to circumvent the rules of the game, but I also believe that actions taken by attorneys for both parties do appear less than savory. I believe CiViK wanted to play by the rules of the quasi-judicial appeal. You will note that CiViK has been virtually silent in the press throughout this whole process. SRM wanted to follow the rules as laid out by the City when they purchased the property. This blog has seen a great deal of interesting comments, the majority of which have been in favor of the applicant. I do not believe that either CiViK or SRM has contributed to relevant threads on this blog during the appeal process.
All seven Councilmembers will be held accountable for their conduct during this affair — good or bad. If, as some jokingly say that Kirkland’s best product is process, then this process showed us just what we are getting for our money.
The City Council was in a very difficult position and I believe they did their best to be fair during the quasi-judicial appeal. They are not lawyers. How each one defines fairness is another issue.
Councilmember Hodgson has stated that his unorthodox (and possibly illegal) action was an attempt at correcting what he saw as an unfair process in favor of the applicant. Last night he stated that if he could, he would give SRM the same memo that he handed to CiViK on July 1st. I believe him. Until I have evidence to the contrary, I will take him at his word. I accept the reason he gave for his actions as sincere. I also believe what he did was a breach of his oath of office and quite possibly illegal.
To be sure, there is more to this story.
At the very least there were questionable judgement calls made on the part of some at City Hall, behind the dais and by attorneys for both the applicant and the appellant. Some parties took inappropriate actions. These issues will be better understood over time as more information comes to light.
I think the entire City of Kirkland has been sullied by this process and if we do not learn from this event and make permanent changes to how our City moves forward in developing the downtown area, we as citizens of Kirkland deserve no better. It is incumbent upon us, the citizens of Kirkland to change the system, clarify the code, assure transparency for citizen and developer alike and demand accountability from City Hall.
There are very few clean hands as a result of this mess. There appears that there may have been some bending of the rules along the way. A high stakes game of tit for tat legal jeopardy has been played out before our eyes. Millions of dollars are at stake for both SRM and the City of Kirkland (read the taxpayers). Potential legal action may still be in our future.
Throughout this entire process, most citizens of Kirkland have been on the sidelines watching in horror and disgust.
A new era of openness and ethics needs to begin today.
I look forward to suggestions, ideas, comments and actions offered by the community with the intent of improving this process in a constructive manner. People of good will on both sides of this issue need to come together to find workable solutions. Changes need to be made to the process. It is possible to move forward, but it will take time and energy. The 2009 election cycle is rapidly approaching and that will not make this task any easier.
I hope all people of good will can come together to help improve our broken system. We, the citizens, are ultimately responsible for what takes place in Kirkland. We have the power to shape Kirkland if we don’t like the current circumstances. We all get the government we deserve and I believe we have dropped the ball.
I welcome any and all input on how we, the citizens of Kirkland, can fix that which is broken. May we never again take our eye off the ball.
Print This Article
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
41 Responses to “City at a crossroads”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
OMG! An interview with Kirkland’s Jason Mesnick from “The Bachelor”
Sponsored Ads
Rob,
There is nothing said here that I don’t agree with 110%. Thoughtful, well constructed writing - a great opinion!
Thank you for sharing.
[Reply]
Excellent ideas and I think that you are right and the best thing to do is to focus on the future, the 2009 election, (register to vote now), the budget, the approval of ParkPlace and the restoration of faith in Kirkland.
I like Murph’s idea of a new group. I think the ideas laid out are a good starting point and one place to start organizing would be the neighborhood groups. Sometimes I think that people focus overmuch on Downtown and forget all the other areas of Kirkland. Going around to the various neighborhood associations to generate support for various developments would provide a cohesiveness that would make obtaining approval for new developments and proposals easier and would hopefully alleviate most challenges to projects because stakeholders would be involved from the start.
[Reply]
DCD, the new group idea was posted by EOM on another thread. I agree, it is a great idea.
[Reply]
rob,
great sentiments.
Since this is the opinion page heres mine.
the change should have started right after last years election but didn’t. Greenway fails to realize she only won by 100 votes. That means that half the folks who voted didn’t like her even after spending $10k more than her opponent! Her supporters got what they paid for. Congratulations! she hasn’t learned a thing.
Starting at the neighborhood groups is a good idea. Only problem is that they are controlled by the same folks who either spoke for or were wearing the I love Tom badges the other night. The Kirkland Alliance of neighborhoods is chaired by Jim McElweee. Several neighborhood chairs will not attend those meetings
Yes the same Jim McElwee who spoke for CIVIK. That’s like putting Judge Smails in charge of the golf tournament at Bushwood.
Point is that the only way to change this dynamic is to get involved. Many of these Council members were around for the Lake and Central circus and learned nothing about fairness. They need to go in order to heal this festering wound called Kirkland.
[Reply]
All,
I wanted to point out that I listened to the arguments that CiViK re-hashed last night and that of both the Council and Eric Shields, Planning Director. To the best of my knowledge, the SRM Project didn’t actually violate any City Codes. There was one modification related to parking which according to Eric Shields is typically granted to all projects. The argument boiled down to the fact that BoA, according to the Kirkland Comprehensive Plan is not considered “superior retail”…I think this is very subjective and could have gone either way. So, I believe the SRM project was “within the boundary” of the City Code, it is literally the subjective determination of what “superior retail” is what killed the project.
I’m not going to belabor this point.
One action for CPAD would be to determine whether the definition of “superior retail” can be changed over time based on the needs of the downtown Kirkland area. For example, would a new hair salon on a block that already contains three salons be considered “superior retail”. On that particular block, I think the answer would be no…maybe not on another block. CPAD, IMHO, along with other activities/goals, should work to ensure that ambiguous terms used in the Comprehensive Plan are either more clearly defined, or thrown out all together to reduce the possibility the 11 O’clock appeals directly to KCC, or reduce the effectiveness of such appeals.
EOM
[Reply]
All,
I took a look at last night’s meeting. I admit that I don’t know all the backround. I watched some Council meeting tapes and I read this blog and the paper. My opinion is derived from a little here and some from there to try and make sense of this situation.
I see myself as an outsider having realized that once again I am in a foreign place. Although no guns were fired there were still casualties. Kirkland is bleeding. The people who changed the speed limit, moved the stop sign and ran the red light causing the accident just drove off instead of administering first aid. Nothing to see here just move along and forget what you saw us do. The scabs will form and a scar will be the reminder.
Too bad there isn’t an emmy for best acting in a City Council meeting. Ms. Nahon’s tears, Mr. Hodgon’s illegal outburst, Mr. Asher’s sly smile, Ms Greeway’s script reading CIVIK bullet points and of course the Mayor who mostly forgetting his lines.
I really don’t find any humor in what I know happened. The place I called home, that I told my husband and kids was so special, the place that truly has no soul. It’s not the physical but the mental. Where have all these truly unhappy people come from? When did you start electing people of sketchy character? When did you start allowing these people to make up the rules as they went along? When did you turn the future of Kirkland over to an unelected mob?
Please don’t misinterpret what I stated and asked. Kirkland was never perfect but at least everyone played by the rules. The people who got elected were generally of good character. We knew where the bones were buried and true respect was the norm.
I am disappointed that the majority of my City Leaders are not good role models but even more disappointed that they largely go unchallenged.
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Robin Gentary,
Thank you for contributing to Kirkland Views. Your voice is welcome and your perspective is unique. I am attempting to moderate this blog as minimally as possible but several recent comments by readers about non-elected officials I find inappropriate in a civil discussion. Elected officials have their lives scrutinized and I therefore think moderating speech would be inappropriate.
Your comment above regarding Ms. Nahon is one with which I take issue. She is not an elected official and as such she should be afforded the same courtesy you would wish to have for yourself. While you may not agree with an individual’s stance on an issue, the conversation would be elevated if we refrain from calling people names or insinuating insincerity of their convictions. Thank you for helping me keep the comments on this blog on an intellectual level and firmly planted in the arena of ideas. Let us refrain from insulting one another because that will only lead to further strife and even less civil discourse.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Rob
[Reply]
Gail Reply:
August 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Rob and Robin,
Thank you both for such interesting reading. I think sometimes we get carried away in the heat of the moment and write something that I wish I could take back after I hit SUBMIT. Keeping this blog on point and not insulting to my neighbors is good and I agree. I don’t want this blog to be taken over by angry people insulting eachother. Bravo to Robin for coming back to Kirkland. Help us fix what needs fixing!
[Reply]
The past several years have taken Kirkland down a path of zero economic growth, expensive feel good programs and a never say no to bigger government morass.
We need a strong economy and we get tax increases. Sad reality. What ever happened to supporting the small business man in this town? Instead we have a council that supports the arts, parks, sustainability, etc…
We need a change.
[Reply]
newbie Reply:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Mr. PHB,
I happen to enjoy picnics along the beach in our parks and I like the art we have around town. These aren’t bad or evil things but they are things we want in town. Your conserns about city priorites and taxes are over done. If we don’t want to lose our cherished parks then what solution do you have for our future? I think we should privatize the garbage service like Bellevue does and use that money to improve our parks. Maybe we can buy an art piece in honor of the small busines man. Just joking.
[Reply]
Dear Rob,
I have appreciated your kind words and the opportunity to participate on your blog. Your censoring of my opinion highlighted the root of the problems as I see them in Kirkland. I personally don’t know any of the people I mentioned. It was said about Tom during the Monday night meeting that he was good person. I will take that face value as I will about everyone else. However, until the citizens of Kirland can separate the person from their behavior it will remain hopeless. Admitting the problem is step one on the road to recovery. Again, thank you for the opportunity to have my comments read. I will keep further observations to myself.
Robin
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Hi Robin and All,
Thank you for your comment. As always, you make another excellent point. But perhaps my meaning was misinterpreted. This blog is meant to be a forum for all stripes. It is meant to be a place where people can freely exchange views about ideas. When the discussion shifts from ideas to name calling or worse, then I think that is uncivil. Uncivil communications don’t take us forward toward solutions in Kirkland, they often make us close up and stop communicating with the people who have different views than those we have. This result is the opposite of what we need: better communication and sharing of ideas.
These comments of mine are not aimed at you. They are for the entire community to consider. I have decided that elected officials have placed their lives firmly in the arena and people should be able to express what the like about their representatives. I think average citizens should be treated differently and that is where I think we should use a different standard and treat other citizens as we would like to be treated. I hope this is a fair compromise on an admittedly difficult subject.
My original comment on this subject was directed to all but I used your comment as an example. The reason I chose yours was two fold: one - you had recently written an excellent letter to the editor so your name was familiar with the community; and two- your comment was the first one I read since adding a new feature to the site which would allow nestled comments of comments.
Admittedly this is a difficult subject to tackle and I am struggling with coming up with a compromise which is fair to all, promotes free discussion and doesn’t limit speech. I am saddened if my actions have silence your voice. I hope you will reconsider as you have provided a unique and important perspective to the blog. Like those of your neighbors, our views are always welcome here.
Rob
[Reply]
Rob,
First, thank you for the excellent and very balanced,’City at a Crossroads.’
Second, thank for interjecting and asking people to take the high road and refrain from smearing people. I know many of the people on all sides of this issue, and they are all decent people just trying to advance their cause, beliefs, agenda, or make a profit. I don’t know any of them to be dishonorable or disreputable in anyway, and it degrades such a fantastic blog to read this day in and day out, and gives me a lesser opinion of the person taking the low-road than any of the people involved in this drama. This includes Tom Hodgeson, who I believe was just following his conscience, trying to right what he felt was a wrong. Incidentally, I am unclear what law he broke. I’ve seen people say he broke the law several times, but I don’t recall anybody mentioning which law was supposedly broken, however, unorthodox his approach was.
Purely by observation, this ‘wrong’ I perceive Tom may have been trying to right, looks to stem from this ‘mystery’ letter that the City desperately wanted to keep protected under the guise of ‘Attorney Client Privilege.’ What was so sensitive that it could not be disclosed? Will we ever know? Aren’t the community and people of Kirkland ultimately the ‘Client?’
Attorney General Rob McKenna has recently been pushing for legislation that would make it more difficult for governments within our state to protect documents under attorney client privilege. He wants transparency and full disclosure. Rob would have been an interesting guest to have spoken in our fair city.
Lastly, in my humble opinion, when I try to zero in on the root cause of how this BofA issue became so tangled, I believe it stems from variability of the zoning, and optional 3rd, 4th, and 5th floors. The property owners, developers, and community should all have a common set of known expectations that have been agreed upon, and aren’t as subjective as the current rules are. If the KCC wants to show real leadership, bring all of the stakeholders together to define a more specific code all party’s can count on, which includes height, and setbacks, and less nebulous language about ‘superior retail’ and when you can or cannot have additional floors. Let the DRB focus on the D – Design - much like Santa Barbara does.
Now, can everybody just try to get along!
[Reply]
I agree with CIK and others who have stated that one of the important ways to move forward is to revise the Comprehensive plan to clarify matters and remove superior retail. This is a point that has been brought up to the Council and members of the staff numerous times in the past and for the most part they tend to agree it is too ambiguous. Interestingly enough the glossary for the Comprehensive Plan does not include an entry for superior retail.
The plan is open for revision twice a year. Concerned citizens and others can submit requests for amendments using this form
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/2009_Comprehensive_Plan_Amendment_Application9151.pdf
The cutoff date for initial requests for 2009 is December 2008. So if people do want to help an excellent starting point would be to develop a group to look at ways to revise the plan.
Thank you Rob for trying to keep the tone on the blog civil and to everyone who is looking for solutions to the problems facing the city and not just griping about them. We can make a difference. This is a special community filled with people who care and who do treat people with respect. Even now.
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Thank you for your comments and thank you very much for the link to the Comp Plan.
The scheduled December opportunity to revise the plan is a very worthy project in which interested citizens could participate and help make needed changes in our city. If there is interest, I would consider making a dedicated page on this site to that cause. If there is interest in this from the community, please let me know.
Rob
[Reply]
murph Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Definitely interested. Would the format here take the place of individual communication with the City via the link above, and submit the entire thread to the City in December?
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Either or both. I think the community should decide what role Kirkland Views could or should play. I am happy to facilitate any communications I can and at the same time not squelch anyone’s personal views. There are no ground rules here… be creative and share your ideas of how this could be structured.
DowntownCondoDweller Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Thanks Rob. I think a page on this site dedicated to this topic would be a good start and I would be interested in participating in this discussion or others focused on how to work with the City to improve the process.
[Reply]
Rob,
Well said! I appreciate you taking the time to put your thoughts down in this piece.
Dear Proud Home Builder:
There needs to be a balance between supporting business, the arts, sustainability, and green spaces. We need all of these things for our city to remain vibrant. We need a downtown core of interesting businesses and shops along with the focus on “green” living and art. As someone who is active in the real estate industry, I recognize the need for housing, but not at the expense of losing our city identity.
People buy a home in Kirkland because of all of the reasons you mention. If the city’s efforts to create parks, sustainable lifestyles, and support the arts should wane, I bet less people would be interested in living in Kirkland and buying the new homes being built. Homes in Kirkland command higher prices than in some other areas of the eastside because of the city’s location close to the lake, economic centers, and its artistic and “green” sensibility.
[Reply]
DowntownCondoDweller Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Kirkland has a lot going for it because of the Waterfront, the arts and the focus on sustainable lifestyles. This needs to be maintained and enhanced. The Seattle PI had an excellent article today focusing on what other cities (namely Bremerton) are doing to enhance their waterfronts and this is something Kirkland has done a reasonably good job at, but could improve.
There does need to be a balance though and at the moment I think the City is not focusing on the needs of business owners and how to bring in businesses that will help expand the sorely needed sales tax base. Blocking development efforts is obviously not a great start and it will be interesting to see how ParkPlace shakes out. So while the City should be concerned with promoting development and businesses it should not do so by ignoring the arts. Just needs to be a better balance.
[Reply]
Thank you for the article. Admittedly, I haven’t followed the story all too closely. Reading the comments on this page, it is nice to see how much the citizens of Kirkland care for our town, er, city.
My wife, son & I moved from West Seattle to N. Rose Hill over a year ago and, while there was a bit of culture shock, have come to embrace the “small town” feel that Kirkland offers.
I am looking forward to contributing and hearing fellow citizens thoughts & recommendations on how we can balance our interests and generate much-needed tax dollars for our infrastracture.
Roger
Kirkland WA
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Thank you for your participation in this community, Roger. Kirkland needs the advice and ideas from everyone who cares about our future. Welcome to town.
Rob
[Reply]
First, this all started with Tom’s allegations in a council meeting accusing the DRB of unethical behavior. He claimed “the DRB ignored their charter” and “they made it fit” as though they had a hidden thgenda and he asked “whether a DRB was even necessary.” Tom started the personal attacks on peoples integrity.
Next, Tom didn’t like where things were going. So, in his “sense of fairness” he decided to ignore our democractic majority rule of law and trample all over our civil liberties by taking it upon himself to do what he “thought best.” Who cares what was in the memo. That’s completely irrelevant. He ignored the values he swore to uphold.
The pattern I see is classic. Do what I say and not what I do. Tom and his supporters seem to think it’s ok when they behave badly because why? Oh yeah, they’re polite and civil when they do it.
[Reply]
LTKR
Get over it and get constructive or go away!
[Reply]
Sorry Rob, I clicked the wrong Reply button.
[Reply]
murph Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Twice! Hard to teach an old dog new tricks…
[Reply]
The constructive thing to do is replace the people who have caused this mess with real leaders. What do you call constructive, murph? Turn a blind eyend it never happened?
[Reply]
EastOfMarketer Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
LTKR,
I agree with you regarding the “constructive” thing to do. In fact, a third option would be to change the way people think…if possible. So, IMHO, here the options before us:
1. Attempt to re-energize a recall effort.
2. Try to find qualified and credible replacements, persuade them
to run for a KCC seat and support them.
3. Form a new organization comprised of Citizen’s that want to see
new projects, will support them publicly and present the KCC
a unified “counter” to CiViK.
While option #1 may seem the most immediate, I have a feeling it may end in failure. I think it would be too difficult to achieve given the current climate. Additionally, the time/effort spent on option #1, should it failure, would probably expend all resources that could be achieved for #’s 2 and 3 from above.
Options #2 and #3 could, in fact be rolled together. The Citizens for Proactive Development (CAPD) could help find individuals that would be willing to consider running against the incumbents.
In the last election, Penny Sweet was, practically speaking, statistically even with Jessica Greenway. Given this outcome, the public did not give Jessica Greenway a mandate. Had Penny Sweet defeated Jessica Greenway, I’m sure this project would have been ultimately approved.
EOM
[Reply]
Council members up for re-election in 2009 are as follows:
Lauinger, Hodgson, Burleigh and McBride. I will support McBride and Burleigh in a bid for re-election and will support anyone that runs against Lauinger and Hodgson. That would balance the council in my humble opinion. Now all we need is two good candidates. Got any ideas? I too hope that Penny Sweet takes anothr run at the council, I don’t think we can wait for her to run against Greenway again.
[Reply]
I just got back into town and am getting caught up with all the goings on. It appears that this is a place where people in the know don’t write or go to Council meetings to voice their opinions. It appears to me that is why this CIVIK group prevailed. The Council didn’t hear from anyone else because no one other than the applicant and appleant were on the record. I also heard from a neighbor that all these CIVIK people show up at meetings with buttons proclaiming their love of Kirkland. It is hard for any Council to not be influenced by the body count. In the absence of another visible entity the battle is lost. He also said that CIVIK had a gathering in Downtown last Spring during rush hour. Great tactic. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Taking notes anyone?
My 2 cents worth is that a recall is probably possible. It is probably worth the 500 signatures as are calls and letters to the newspapers announcing the delivery of the petition. The more signatures the more attention. In tandem should be a concerted effort to have a large group show up at every Council meeting wearing badges and at least 3 speakers highlighting budget problems brought on by the lack of development. From what I hear the budget meetings coming up should be a great time to ask questions regarding how money is spent as well as proposed cuts and tax increases. Free ammunition. I must stress that the goal should always be to make this place a better place. The onus is now on the 4 Council members who voted the project down to create an environment for a better project and quick.
The comments regarding Park Place from the Planning Commission Chair are a little troubling. The steering of the possible outcome of the Planning Commission by City Council members comments is IMO another end run.
[Reply]
Please answer me this…
We live off of David Brink Park in Moss Bay neighborhood. Who is our representative on the council or can ANYONE from ANYWHERE challenge Hodgson and Lauinger for their seat???
Can Sweet ONLY challenge Greenway becasue of where they live?
Rob, you might know.
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
For the record, the Kirkland City Council is elected “at large” which means that each council member represents ALL of the citizens of Kirkland, NOT just those from one district or another.
[Reply]
Michelle Goerdel Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Thanks Rob, I was going to comment on this but see that you have already taken care of it for me.
[Reply]
al czervik Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Kirkand Council Members are elected at large: However the Council currently has 4 members who live in North Rose Hill! Lauinger, Hodgson, Asher and Burleigh. Greenway lives in Norkirk and McBride and Sternoff live in the Moss Bay Neighborhood. Personally I think that 2 from a neighborhood is enough represenation even if they are at large.
[Reply]
Yes, as Rob says, there are no districts. A Kirkland resident can file for any one of the Council positions up for election.
The next Council election is in November 2009, when the positions currently held by Lauinger, Hodgson, McBride and Burleigh will be up for election, per the city website. From this blog, it sounds like Penny Sweet will be asked to run against one of the first two.
[Reply]
I couldn’t agree more about Penny, I suggest that everyone interested in getting her to run again take the time to stop by the Grape Choice and personally give her your show of support (and pet the dogs of course!) I’m pretty sure she’s already considering running but the more positive feedback she gets the better.
We’ve got to do something about the budget and Penny is a no-nonsense, fair minded individual who will figure out a way to spread the service cuts and tax increases equitably rather than any sort of knee jerk reaction.
Everyone is going to feel some pain with this budget cycle, but the business community doesn’t feel that a good explanation has been made for why the city chose $90 per head for the head tax other than it is the same as Redmond’s. Well not actually- Redmond dedicates a significant portion of their head tax to infrastructure improvements but my understanding is that ours will all go to the general fund.
Its not the tax increase most of the business community is at issue with, just the lack of reasoning behind the size of the head tax and its damaging effect on the sales tax generating businesses like restaurants that have a lot of employees and thin margins. In my role as public policy chair for the Kirkland chamber, I hope to be able to help work out a compromise that allows the $90 tax but gives some sort of credit to businesses that generate sales tax for Kirkland.
[Reply]
Inside Out Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Michelle,
What alternative does the Kirkland Chamber suggest? If $90 head tax is not the best solution then we need other alternatives. When around 70% of our general fund goes to wages and benefits those have to be a part of the solution but they are not. The core of the problem is that Kirkland’s government is larger than Kirkland’s business and citizen communities can afford. This is a broken record and they have no solution to the problem.
[Reply]
Michelle Goerdel Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
We’re trying to work with the city on an alternative not for the $90 per head tax but to help the businesses with high employee/low margins decide to stay open and stay in town. We’re hoping a credit for those businesses that generate sales tax to offset some of the large tax increase. I agree that the city also needs to work on their ever increasing tax needs, I was only discussing one portion of what is a very large and complicated argument.
[Reply]
I agree with IOR that the Chamber has to come up with an alternative. As advocates for their business members, they are routinely in opposition to any plan that takes money out of businesspeople’s pockets. They need to suggest something and support it.
The current business license fee structure is silly. It is based on number of employees, and there are are giant jumps in fees at several points in their table: http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/__shared/assets/Business_Licence_Application_Fee_Worksheet109.pdf
For example, adding a 6th employee could cost you $525. That makes no sense. It should be more of a continous curve.
I guess like, say, $90/employee.
[Reply]
Rob Butcher Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Excellent point. Let us hope the City Council has the interests of the small business man in mind when they deliberate on the budget.
[Reply]
Michelle Goerdel Reply:
August 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
The current structure is quite confusing but it was the only one a majority agreed upon at the time. As you probably remember there was quite a brouhaha about the initial suggestion of a head tax and a large scale wailing and gnashing of teeth before a compromise was finally agreed upon.
While there is only some disagreement with the head tax (some people will argue that ANY tax increase is wrong), the way the amount was decided upon was quite arbitrary rather than reasoned out. The city is in a hurry to plug the gap that we all admit has been coming for several years now- when have they not discussed the “structural deficit” in the budget process?
I only ask that, since they are delaying asking the citizens to vote on a tax increase because they want to study the issue and make sure they are doing the right thing, that they give the same amount of thought to what the city will be doing to the business community with a tax increase that can’t be voted on.
In my discussions with some of the larger businesses in the community the head tax itself and its size was not the issue, it was the lack of communication about what we would be receiving for that tax increase and how it might impact those businesses with low margins and high employee counts, especially in these uncertain economic times. It will in fact be a tax break for the smallest businesses that make up a large percentage of the businesses in the city.
[Reply]