1991 Seattle Times article reminds us of that Kirkland has always struggled with the changes from growth
Somehow I stumbled upon a November 19, 1991 Seattle Times article titled “Kirkland Forum Will Take On City’s Growth And Traffic” and it piqued by interest. The article briefly discusses the angst among the citizens of Kirkland over the future of the city. The Growth Management Act was causing Kirkland to revise its comprehensive plan in order to be in compliance.
Some of the points made in the 1991 article appear as though they could have been taken out of today’s papers: “Though many Kirkland residents see the two as irreconcilable, most agree that change as a result of growth is inevitable. But the definition of that change is what’s critical. Most residents can’t imagine giving up the city’s small-town allure for glass-tower gloss.”
Today’s struggles over development echo the challenges of the past. How successful we have been at setting a path for growth in our city is still up for debate. The outcome of our current impasse is anyone’s guess.
As Yogi Berra was fond of saying, “This is like deja vu all over again.”
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
4 Responses to “1991 Seattle Times article reminds us of that Kirkland has always struggled with the changes from growth”
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
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. One comment made in the article is that Kirkland should aspire to be Kirkland. In earlier discussions in this blog it has been pointed out that Kirkland should be Kirkland. So the question is - what is Kirkland to you and how do you see it? What do you want Kirkland to be? A small town? Vibrant arts community? Bedroom community? Waterfront town? All of the above? And how can we work together to ensure a healthy, solvent and vibrant Kirkland?
[Reply]
kirkland busy body Reply:
September 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I like Kirkland and have ever since I moved here well before 1991. The question is how much will it cost to keep Kirkland as it is? Higher taxes? Who pays them? I know there are those on this blog who think that long term solvency can be achieved by cutting the fat. I agree to an extent. What do you do when the fat is gone? How much will present and future residents and busineses be willing to pay? We can be anything we want to be if we want to pay for it!
[Reply]
Wow, I coulda had a V-8. Same old same old. K-land needs to wake up & set some goals & not just let Lauinger & his court do it. Our leaders obviously cannot make decisions, unless it has to do with goofy sculptures for the parks. Geez already!
[Reply]
This has been going on since I moved here in 1981. During that time our City Council and governing bodies HAVE made decisions. Here are a few:
- Portsmith
- Waterview
- 3 Huge lakefront office buildings (Carillon Point_
- Carillon Heights/Villas at Carillon
- Strip Mall on Central (Blockbuster Video) because a downtown hotel was voted down back in the day.
Though I never signed the petition, this is precisely why I think a 60 day moratorium should happen. I am pro-growth - but only with very solid, furture forethought. There are, and have been, serious problems with the zoning right now that must be addressed.
[Reply]