By Bob Style
It rarely happens but when it does, it’s sickening. Our council who we elected to represent us has reneged on what we have entrusted them to do: represent us.
Let’s look at the series of events.
First, backroom deals were made with the county to select a method of annexation that would preclude a public vote of it citizens.
Once selected, the Council would not even allow an advisory vote by the citizens of Kirkland.
The Council proceeded to spend over a million dollars of our money for the benefit of those who live outside Kirkland even before getting the annexation issue on the ballot. They reduced our services and raised fees and taxes. The process is still going on and getting worse. Remember when the councilmembers said annexation would be great if it did not reduce our levels of service. I do. They reneged.
We have a $13.1 million budget deficit which will become $15.3 million next year if the city goes forward with annexation. That’s for 2010. In 2011 it will be millions worse because we have to gear up for annexation. All of that cost will be paid for by us, not the PAA because the revenues from the PAA don’t start coming in until the year 2012, yet the city is considering setting the effective annexation date before January 1st, 2012. That’s our money.
It was acknowledged that the city could not take an advance on the state sales tax reimbursement. Even if they could, it would not cover the cost.
Now, the money that would have gone to maintain and improve our services is being diverted to gear up for annexation. If approved, the city’s budget will be in jeopardy and we will experience even greater loss of services; and we can expect those Councilmembers who want annexation to propose higher fees and taxes to pay for it.
If the new Councilmembers are clones of our present council, we as a city are in trouble. It’s time for Kirkland citizens to demand representation. This latest vote did not do it. With one exception, it was a rouse without reason.
Bob Style
Did I miss something? Last I heard the annexation measure was losing. I understand the council can still go forward with annexation but without the PAA taking on our current debt. Have they voted to do that already?
No, mavio, the council has not yet voted on whether to go forward with the annexation without the debt assumption. They cannot do so until after the election is certified and the results have been formally presented to them by the county, which will occur in a couple of weeks. At their meeting on November 17, the council asked staff to prepare a briefing on their options, and to present it at the council work session on December 15.
It really is despicable the way Bob Style tosses around accusations of “back room deals” to “select a method of annexation that would preclude a public vote of it citizens”, when the fact is that NONE of the annexation methods defined in state law (RCW 35A.14) allows for such a vote by existing city citizens. Just another example of Bob Style making things up to suit his purpose of attacking a decision he doesn’t like.
What state law (the Growth Management Act) does say is that unincorporated areas inside the urban growth boundary should become part of cities. The city council’s action in proposing annexation is consistent with that law, consistent with their authority as the elected representatives of the citizens of Kirkland, and consistent with their belief that annexation is in the best long-term interest of the city.
And what exactly does “rouse without reason” mean? It’s an interesting alliteration, but what are you getting at?
Early on in the process of deciding to proceed with annexation, there were meetings between Mary-Alyce Burleigh and Joan McBride with King County Councilmember Jane Hague. Commitments were made without Kirkland Council’s knowledge. When the Council found out about it, they admonished Mary-Alyce and Joan for acting on their own without the approval of Council. I call those meetings back-room dealing.
Your are correct that the Council, not the citizens, are responsible for deciding who gets to annex and when it will take place once the process is started; however, for the city to initiate the process without a vote of the citizens was belligerent.
The city should have asked for a vote of the citizens if the city should initiate the process but they did not. They and King County had reservations what Kirkland citizens would think, so they proceeded anyway.
I do not know what was said at those back-door meetings but I believe a city initiated annexation was desired by the respective councils because they felt if the Kirkland citizens had their say, the annexation would probably fail especially since the 2005 financial staff reported the cost would be too expensive. King County wanted to dump the PAA because to provide urban services was a liability. It was to them and will be for us.
Just today, King Council Councilmember Hague posted her actions on the Internet in developing the King County’s budget. She brags about how the county saved money by the recent annexations. Yes she saved the County money; however she did so at the expense of those who live in the cities who annexed. Mr. Nixon wants the same for Kirkland.
I don’t believe Mr. Toby Nixon has satisfied his political appetite for more power. He has already complained that a vote by the annexation area to elect their representatives in the city is not coming soon enough. When and if that vote comes, enough time will have passed to know the expense of annexation. It will also be the time for voters to remember Mr. Nixon’s fiscal statements on annexation.
Mr. Style writes about political power as though it is something evil. It’s not. It is through the proper exercise of political power that good things get done in our community and bad things are stopped.
What does it mean to have political power? It means being a leader. It means articulating a vision, a mission, a goal; building consensus around that goal; marshaling resources and inspiring and motivating people to achieve that goal. It means using diplomatic, communication, and organization skills to accomplish these things, usually in situations where one has no direct authority but is working with others who are volunteers and have no requirement to follow the leader except that they trust and respect the leader, agree with the goal, and desire to work to achieve it. What’s evil about any of that?
Rather than continually attacking and disrespecting the people amongst us who have the ability to get something done, we should be upholding and supporting them. And if we disagree with the vision or goal they’re pursuing and are unsuccessful at convincing them to change their minds, then instead of attacking them for having political power, we should seek to build our own political power so that we can persuade others to follow a different vision.
There are things I would like to see happen in our community — I am very open about that. I am also very open about desiring to be in a position where I can have more influence to achieve those things. Like most people, I’d prefer that someone else step up and take the lead on these things so that I can enjoy the comfort of my recliner and watching old episodes of Stargate SG1. Until that happens, I’ll continue to be active, Mr. Style’s opposition notwithstanding, and encourage all the other leaders in our community, who are the repeated targets of Mr. Style’s attacks, to do the same.
Toby –
Thank you for stepping up and being a leader in our community. I am in complete agreement with you regarding your assessment of political power. I only wish all folks in a leadership position always acted in the collective interests of the majority and not just in their self interest.
Although I might not agree with Toby Nixon on many “core” issues, (me likely more liberal than Toby) this (posting of November 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM) was EXTREMELY well formulated and very nicely articulated.
I hope that your words will be heard and remembered by the larger community. They really deserve to be heard (and read).
Mr. Style,
What does “a rouse” mean in this context?
Bob,
I’ve heard a lot of complaining and accusations on your part, but never seen proof. Last week in a letter in the reporter you accused Joan McBride of something when she doesn’t even sit on the committee. Your “facts” are opinions…your beliefs…not reality. There were no back room deals. If you recall, then Country Exec Sims sent a rather scathing letter to the council when they tabled the decision.
The FACT is, Kirkland City Council sees the long-term financial benefit to annexing the PAA they have promised to as part of growth management. And they know if they don’t, other cities will realize that financial benefit. The truth is Kirkland, like many cities its size, realize they can’t survive as they have at their current size. Annexation brings more to the table than it costs, including economies of scale in covering the costs for the services we all hold dear.
Your city council works hard on your behalf. They care deeply and struggle with tough decisions in front of them…they look at all the FACTS and make the decisions they see as best for the city and its citizens. I have never seen or heard one of them do something counter to what they believe in their heart is right. That you disagree is understandable, but that you accuse them of not representing you with reason is sour grapes.
The other reality is, Bob, these are tough economic times and all of government and business are struggling. And it means cuts. No matter what happens, no matter if the city did or did not spend money on annexation that they weren’t or won’t be reimbursed for, there is a deficit, of which annexation is but a very small part of. And one that is easier to manage when spread across 80,000 people vs. 45,000, no matter how you slice it.
If you are going to make accusations, quit hiding behind letters and opinion pieces and produce hard facts. I’m tired of the hyperbole.
Cami said:
“Your city council works hard on your behalf. They care deeply and struggle with tough decisions in front of them…they look at all the FACTS and make the decisions they see as best for the city and its citizens. I have never seen or heard one of them do something counter to what they believe in their heart is right. That you disagree is understandable, but that you accuse them of not representing you with reason is sour grapes.”
Cami, well stated! Even though we might disagree with the decisions, the Council does work hard, and its members do spend A LOT of time (working on behalf of all of us) for pretty meager compensation. I am thankful that we have individuals willing to serve on the Council.
All that said, I am not sure I am in support of annexation, but I do/will respect the decison the Council members take – because it is their job – and we “hired” them to do it.
Bob:
You need to get a life – your constent complaining is getting a bit old. You ran for City Council once, and were soundly defeated as people learned your views – I would like to see you run again, and see if I misunderstood – your voice should be heard, if you have positions of value.
It seems that, no matter what is done, you don’t like it – run for office, and represent those who agree with you (and I sometimes do) – but not in this case. There must be something in this city you like, if not – I would move.
You are not a member of any community based organization, nor a member of a service based organization – “that I’m aware of”. You always are complaining, but you don’t seem to want to help the community with your money and time.
If you want to better the community, participate, join, do – there are any number of opportunities to do so. Get off your computer and come out to help!