Letter to the editor: Kirkland needs governance for the entire city, not just the few
Dear Kirkland Views Editor:
Below is a letter sent to the Kirkland City Council last week. I believe this view resonates with much of the city as we watch the drama continue to unfold at city hall and downtown.
I appreciate your consideration in posting this letter.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been watching with great interest the whirlwind surrounding your recent decisions relative to annexation and downtown development. As a 20 year resident of Juanita (the last area to be annexed by the city), I am appalled at the level of self-interest on the part of the majority of this council. In addition, it is extremely disconcerting to see how we are now governing on the whims of a few, rather than a vision of an entire city and its future.
It is astounding to me that a group such as CIVIK, representing perhaps 1-3 % of the total population of our fair city are allowed to “hijack” projects AND processes that will affect us for years to come. Last time I checked, you were elected to represent ALL of the city, (not just Rose Hill and downtown) and its welfare. I am continually amazed at recent transcripts of council meetings and the resulting votes, that favor the wealthy condominium owners who have money to hire lawyers.
In particular, the recent petition that was sent regarding a moratorium on building downtown and your actions in regard to it, are unbelievable! If the petition had been city-wide, maybe, I could see you entertaining such a request. However, it is obvious, once again that this council is intent to govern for those who yell the loudest, rather than having the gumption to stand up for what is right and in the best interests of the city.
Unfortunately, your recent actions lead me to the conclusion that you do not represent me, my neighborhood or our city. You have not supported business owners that have been crying for years for assistance and then you bemoan the fact that there is no business downtown, and that those that are marginally surviving may soon go out of business. You say you encourage development, but even reasonable, well-thought out (and if I may say, that which meets all critera for code and then some!) development is rejected on your ridiculous technicalities.
You tabled annexation at the request of a minority of Kirkland residents, particularly those for whom annexation would have little impact, instead of going to those who would actually be annexed, and given them the majority weight in any decision. You, in essence, rejected financial assistance toward a goal of annexation that had been brokered for us by our state representatives, in order to please your political base.
Rather than a city government that we can be proud of, you have reduced us to a laughing stock and unable to have any influence regionally, due to the way you are doing business. It is unfortunate and discouraging to witness, and feel as though one is powerless to change it. This is true not only to me, but to most others I talk to in my circle.
I will be watching as you engage the budget process this fall to see just how you can make sense of our budget shortfall, especially since you are now responsible for the loss of potential revenue through development.
As I know all of you, I trust you will understand that my concern for the city and its well-being is deep. I and many others are distressed at that state of things downtown. I know that each of you have the same deep conviction and love for Kirkland, and I implore you to examine carefully the direction you have taken and seriously reconsider.
I will look forward to your progress, but rest assured, if things don’t change, the people of Kirkland will speak with their votes in the next council election.
Thank you,
Marianna Hanefeld
Print This ArticleRelated Articles
11 Responses to “Letter to the editor: Kirkland needs governance for the entire city, not just the few”
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
I’d like to add that I live in the Rose Hill area and the majority of the council isn’t representing most of my neighbors either. Thanks for your comments- they are pertinent to a lot more Kirkland residents than I think members of the council realize.
[Reply]
Marianna, thank you. I absolutely concur.
[Reply]
I don’t understand why people are critical of special interest. We all belong to one. We live neighborhoods that are represented by special interest neighborhood associations. Those living in the potential annexation have a special interest. Special interest groups normally want someone else to pay for what they want. This was especially true of those living in the potential annexation area. It would have busted the budget, reduced service levels, and adversely impacted all the citizens of Kirkland. And, why didn’t the annexation area petition the city for annexation? Ms. Hanefeld is ignoring the answer.
This council in particular responds to special interest whether they are neighborhood associations, CiViK, senior citizens, charities, or anyone who gets the council’s interest. I agree they over react to some special interest groups but then again, it’s special interest against special interest. Just watch the lineup of people, organizations, and associations who attend the budget session asking for a handout. Those special interest groups who get money are doing so at the expense of other city taxpayers. Is that good for the city?
What is the best interest of the city? It depends on the special interest you belong to.
[Reply]
new2kland Reply:
September 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I enjoy reading what Bob writes and his occasional presentation at Council meetings. It would appear from what he says that he has a good handle on the City finances. I would like to know more specifics of exactly what he would do differently? What entities should pay for the services he wants and who should pay for those services he doesn’t want? What he sees the long term solution is for Kirkland to be financially viable? I agree that the world and our City is influenced by special interest groups. It would be helpful if he would identify what special interest group he is a member of?
[Reply]
Marianna, Michelle, Tia and Bob:
You folks are right on! Let’s all join together and encourage the council to truly represent all of us. Also, the staff has to realize that we citizens have some common sense. The council and staff must no longer run rufshod over we taxpayers. Top priorities must concentrate on public safety and not grandiose philosophies, political correctness, personal egos, etc.
Unfortunately, the staff and council have turned into their own, self-serving special interest group.
[Reply]
I absolutely concur with Marianna’s letter, most every word of it. I feel there’s a “silent majority” out here who needs to speak out. We need to insist that our City Council treats the City of Kirkland as its Number One Special Interest. Right now I’m not optimistic this will happen until we elect a new council. Sad.
[Reply]
I concur with Marianna on every point. Well written and it speaks the mind of many in Kirkland. Indeed, where is our leadership? Bob, special interests groups play a role in bring issues to light, but it is still up to the city leaders to do what is right for the vision of the city and the future of all. When they pander to the interests of few at the cost of many, they fail as leaders. Period.
Question, would a petition from the PAA really mattered. I think not. You are standing on a a formality as a means of defending a weak position on annexation. There wasn’t a need for a petiiton because the city expressed the desire to commence the annexation process. It was already inderstood who was to annex the PAA–it’s not as if it is a neighborhood with no affiliation. And while there would have been some short term costs, I can assure you the loss of the precious services you cling to like a life raft, are coming in a bigger and badder way than had the city annexed. See with annexation, there would have been extra funds to maintain services at least at existing levels in most cases. The city is about to loose additional tax revenue and future property tax revenue as well as thousands of households who could have helped shoulder the deficit. Again, the elected officials lacked the leadership to grasp the issues and deal with them in a manner beneffiting to the many.
Kudos Marianna for calling a spade a spade. And Bob, I am surprised to see you supporting government by special isterest.
[Reply]
Thank you for sending such a well written letter, but rest assured that the “Band of Four” will not read nor care. It seems that they have come to the truth, they simply don’t have to hear us - nothing will happen - they cannot be fired, recalled, or removed from office. but can do as they wish and simply thumb their noses at us - and oh by the way, pay your taxes. But remember, that your Mayor does own property here, and does not pay the same taxes as you and I!
Let’s be truthful - we have a City Council out of control- lead by a Mayor with a long history of making bad financial, personal, and social decisions.
A Greek word in the Iliad of Homer - “Hybris”, defined as outrageous arrogance of power. That we have in these four members of the city Council. The Mayor, acts and votes as if he is on the payroll of a certain group of people, and condones and supports with words from the Council chambers illegal acts by another member Tom. Tom commits illegal acts, but does not pay the fine - (paid I understand by Dave - the question is who paid Dave?) - Ms. Greenway sees no problem in by this act of lawbreaking - where does it end?
Because of the illegal acts, the halt to any taxable development in our city - the city is now in debt by millions of dollars - with lawsuits on the way, for actions caused by this City Council’s “Band of Four” in their support and following the wishes of this protest group - of which at least Ms. Greenway received her largest dollar donations - I guess money does have a vote. I read somewhere that the Mayor’s campagn HQ address was at one of these protesters home address - don’t know if that is true or not, just what I read - but from the voting record would make sense.
Now Dave Asher, (member of the band of four) is talking about rasing your taxes to pay the costs of their incompentent management of the city - at some point people we need to show up with lighted torches at a Council meeting, and demand the resignation of this “Band of Four”
I asked about having the City Legal Council look into this activity, and was told that the Legal Council works for the City Council - unless they direct her to look into these activities - she will not. I have do doubt that should she ask for such an investigation, the vote would be 4 to 3, against any authorization.
Their is no proper “Checks and Balances” system in this city - only “Hybris” - outrageous arrogance, by the “Gang of Four” - each without honor or knowledge of any moral right from wrong.
If you know any City Council people from other cities, ask them of their feelings toward the Kirkland City Council - I do, and have asked their thoughts - it is one of complete disbelief that a city council should be so out of control.
This too will pass, but at a very high cost to the residences of this city.
[Reply]
I want to thank all of you for the echos of support. It is truly encouraging that there are many of us out there that truly care about the future of our fair city.
This should, however, motivate us to action–next week’s council meeting should be interesting, as Dave Asher requested yet another study as to what the “economic impact” of a building moratorim would be. How much more staff time, $$, energy will be devoted to this issue (among others!) We need to go to this meeting and all upcoming meetings so that the real voices of Kirkland are heard.
Please keep in mind that this council decides everything based upon “public comment”. If your views are not being heard, then rest assured the current majority will not represent you, but those who have their ear.
I, for one, am tired of a city government that relies strictly on those who “chirp loudest”. Unfortunately, until this changes and we go back to thinking of the greater welfare of Kirkland, we will have to start showing up at meetings, and shouting louder than the few self-interested residents.
[Reply]
In regard to my special interest, if anyone wants to know my special interest of which I have few, Quid pro quo.
I am for each and every taxpayer who not only supports him or herself but also contributes to society. I’m for equal treatment regardless of which neighborhood they live in, and for those people who understand here is no “I” in teamwork, but there is an “m” and “e”. Self-interest prevails in a request for special interest.
Too many people come to government and ask what’s in it for “me” expecting a subsidy. If allowed to continue and grow, it will ruin this country and our democracy. We will become a nation of beggars without enough resources to pay for what we ask. It will penalize success instead of rewarding it.
I believe the Kennedy inaugural address was wrong. He should have said, “Ask not what government can do for you, ask what you could do for yourself.” We’ve become a great nation, not because of handouts, but because of individual effort. Governments big or small need to protect the rights of individuals, not take them away. What’s your special interest?
[Reply]
Bob,
I am not sure that your definition of quid pro quo is dictionary accurate however I think I understand what you are trying to say. The fact is that government collects money from us and provides services that individually none of us could afford to pay for by ourselves. That said there is a need for government to be efficient and effective with our money. The challenge for government is to provide priority services such as public safety but also to provide those other services that make a community worthwhile to live in. I am sure that the upcoming budget sessions will be a difficult excercise for the council. Cuts in services appear to be coming and I am sure that not everyone will agree on what needs to be cut.
I am still interested in more of your numbers and where they come from so that I can better understand where cuts may be suggested.
[Reply]