Letter to the Editor - a lack of vision for Kirkland
Dear Editor,
[The Kirkland Reporter's] recent profiles of some of the “movers and shakers” who made Kirkland into the very pleasant waterfront town it is today has been most welcome for the contrasts presented with the “movers and shakers” of today.
I’ve lived here since 1968 and have watched Kirkland add fantastic waterfront parks, underground the massive overhead wires on Market Street, and oversee the vital developments at Carillon Point, Park Place, Juanita Village, the Performing Arts Center and Peter Kirk Park. I don’t think that any of these actions could take place today!
If the current residents of Kirkland believe that these projects were without detractors, they are sadly mistaken. There were plenty of naysayers, that’s for sure. But, and this is a big “but,” what these folks had was a vision of their city that had all of residents of Kirkland as the eventual beneficiaries.
Sincerely,
Jim Hitter
Print This Article
Related Articles
4 Responses to “Letter to the Editor - a lack of vision for Kirkland”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
-
-
-
-
Translator
By N2H
KCTS 9 Connects - Yakima Valley Gangs
Sponsored Ads
Great letter Jim….
Having lived in and around Kirkland since 1958, I agree that a lot of good has happened.
If we can continue this win/win spirit, the future looks very bright.
Hopefully the newest zoning changes will prevail on the matter of the new gas station proposed for Costco on Rose Hill. This calls for business to be concentrated along NE 85th, and not back in the neighborhood.
If the City of Kirkland sticks to its guns and doesn’t cave in to Costco, we will all win. Costco should build their gas station much closer to 85th.
The City has the chance now to do something about the tremendous loss of tax revenue in the Forbes Lake area. There are approx. 7 acres of prime commercial land being used as storage for the city’s storm water. It should be managed properly and allowed to be developed for Costco’s needs and also for the other land owners there. In effect the city’s stormwater is trespassing on private property and an unconstitutional “taking” appears to be in the works.
If done legally, Kirkland could acquire some land there and expand their Forbes Lake Park down to 90th.
Jim, the “vision” for the Forbes Lake area is laudable, if it allows development to be done in a legal and common sense manner. Specific plans to accomplish all of the above have been presented to the Planning Dept., Dept. of Public Works and also to the City Council. Let’s see what is said at the next Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 28th.
Enthusiastically,
Mike Nienaber
[Reply]
Good Letter, though not entirely accurate. Kirkland has done some great things, and many in spite of opposition. These happened becuase our leaders had a strong vision and believed it was best for the city. They took the time to explain their vision and to work with people tomake it happen. Today’s leaders lack this entirely as they cow-tow to special interest goups and try to keep everyone happy.
And while the city forefathers did some great things, Juanita Village is not one of them. Intead it’s an example of what happens when vision and leadership is lacking. This has been a failure from the standpoint of retail in part because the city caved and allowed height, in return for retail, but did not mandate enough parking. As a result, many of the storefronts have never been occupied…there is no parking for thier potential clients. Others are occupied by leasing centers, work-out rooms and community meeting space for the condos. In fact the vision of a vibrant neighborhood village with restaurants, a grocery store and more has failed dismally. There is no grocery store, there is an overabundance of inexpensive asian restauarants and the few nice place have to deal with angry customers when they get ticketed for lingering over a meal or coffee longer than two hours. We lost local businesses and gained a massage parlor, but all in all it’s the same retail as before minus a grocer and available parking. Employees park in the parks and nearby streets and it’s a pededtrian’s nightmare. Tis is hardly visionary success.
These are the kinds of developments we get when we have leaders with no vision (AKA current City Council and Planning COmmission). We do not have to cave to developers, we must develop a clear vision and ask developers to adhere to our vision. In Kirkland, it’s retail, pedestrian friendly, access and parking. Yet time and time again, we are told by developers it is to expensive to provide this. Then free market will then make the property worth less and it will come into line. If we continue to operate with no vision, and fold on what little vision we do have, the planning of the city fore fathers will be for naught as we become congested, over crowded and underserved.
The BofA site would have been a lovely development, but the city could not agree on a vision for the space. Juanita Village looks pretty, but is totally disfunctional. And if Parkplace is allowed to move forward with 1,700 fewer parking stall, it will fail as well. We need vision and we need leaders, not politicians who pander to special interests and a vocal minority. What’s more, we need leaders with a clear vision we can all understand — whether we support it or not. Right now, we don’t have enough substance and the inmates are runnign the assylum. It’s time to clean hous–new city council, new planning commission, new city manager–with a vision for a vibrant Kirkland.
[Reply]
Mike,
Does Costco have plans to build only on one site or do they plan to build possibly on the site you propose. If they have no plan to do so, what are the chances of it happening. This doesn’t seem realistic if it is only a suggestion and has not already been deemed feasible by Costco. Does Costco already own the land they plan to build on? If so, are you suggesting they not use that land and instead purchase some flooded wetlands upon which to build a gas station?
[Reply]
Dear Unlikely…
Costco has told the City they have a preference to build the gas station on land they already own. If the City does not grant a rezone of that site, Costco claims that they are already zoned to build next to the current warehouse.
Our proposal is that they build on two city lots they currently own and buy our lot that seperates their two lots. This would give them three contiguous city lots, plenty of room for their gas station. Primarily, it would place them much closer to NE 85th where all the cars are. It would minimize traffic penetration much deeper into the neighborhood which would have only one street for access, namely NE 90th.
With our proposed location, traffic could move to and from the gas station via both NE 90th and 120th NE.
Further, the City of Kirkland would have the opportunity, with the help of Costco, to implement our written plan to reclaim approx. 7 acres of artificial wetlands (commercialy zoned but producing no revenue currently). This is a total trespass of water onto privately held land by Kirkland’s neglect in managing their storm water. We private land owners are simply trying to avoid a court battle and subsequent embarassement for Kirkland.
Additionally, Kirkland would have the opportunity to purchase additional land for their Forbes Lake Park and create a trailhead for a marvelous elevated sidewalk starting at 120th and 90th.
I dare you to take a look at the intersection now. Go ahead, you see what I mean. Doesn’t it look more like a mosquito infested swamp in Kent? We’re a long ways from a shining city on the Rose Hill.
Enthusiastically,
Mike Nienaber
[Reply]