Comments on: King County Elections Certified Election Results: Annexation Rejected by PAA http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605 Kirkland's blog for hyperlocal news and events in the City of Kirkland, Washington Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:57:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Steve http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-61286 Steve Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:43:23 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-61286 Annexation wasn't exactly rejected; a majority of the voters said that they wanted to be annexed but the percentages wer not high enough to accept Kirkland's debt. It's my understanding that the city of Kirkland had legally agreed to annex the PAA if there was a 60% vote in favor of the total package (annexation, acceptance of indebtedness, acceptance of land use regulations) the only thing being left was for the city council to decide was the actual annexation date. Since the vote was greater than 50% but less than the 60% required to accept the debt, Kirkland still has the option to annex the PAA but is not obligated to. It's not up to the PAA anymore, it's totally in the hands of the Kirkland citizens and city council. FWIW: We have lived in the PAA for 35 years (13 years on Finn Hill and 22 years in Kingsgate) and been opposed to this annexation from the beginning. Even though we have had a Kirkland mailing address for all this time, we have never identified with the city and have always considered it to an advantage that we were not within the city limits. I kind of figure that nobody in the PAA has a right to complain; they knew it was unincorporated but moved here anyway. Annexation wasn’t exactly rejected; a majority of the voters said that they wanted to be annexed but the percentages wer not high enough to accept Kirkland’s debt. It’s my understanding that the city of Kirkland had legally agreed to annex the PAA if there was a 60% vote in favor of the total package (annexation, acceptance of indebtedness, acceptance of land use regulations) the only thing being left was for the city council to decide was the actual annexation date. Since the vote was greater than 50% but less than the 60% required to accept the debt, Kirkland still has the option to annex the PAA but is not obligated to. It’s not up to the PAA anymore, it’s totally in the hands of the Kirkland citizens and city council.

FWIW: We have lived in the PAA for 35 years (13 years on Finn Hill and 22 years in Kingsgate) and been opposed to this annexation from the beginning. Even though we have had a Kirkland mailing address for all this time, we have never identified with the city and have always considered it to an advantage that we were not within the city limits. I kind of figure that nobody in the PAA has a right to complain; they knew it was unincorporated but moved here anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Rob Butcher http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-61212 Rob Butcher Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:13:32 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-61212 This article has experienced an extremely heavy traffic load and the server has not been able to keep the page up. The server load on this article has been bringing down the server and not allowing this page to load properly. I apologize for the inconvenience and I am working to alleviate this problem. Thank you for your patience. This article has experienced an extremely heavy traffic load and the server has not been able to keep the page up. The server load on this article has been bringing down the server and not allowing this page to load properly. I apologize for the inconvenience and I am working to alleviate this problem.
Thank you for your patience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bill Henkens http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-61065 Bill Henkens Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:22:43 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-61065 The simple fact is ... Annexation failed at the polls. It was rejected by a very small margin, but it was rejected. Lots of reasons why, but it failed nontheless. Spin is spin and Toby Nixon is a master at it. For those of us who voted NO.. we now have to wait and see what the new council will do with this very hot issue. Time will tell.

The simple fact is … Annexation failed at the polls. It was rejected by a very small margin, but it was rejected. Lots of reasons why, but it failed nontheless. Spin is spin and Toby Nixon is a master at it. For those of us who voted NO.. we now have to wait and see what the new council will do with this very hot issue. Time will tell.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

]]> By: Rob Butcher http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60929 Rob Butcher Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:44:02 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60929 Hi Lynda, I understand your perspective and I appreciate you making your point. Frankly, the analysis of the wording of this headline, the associated graphic and the press release is burning 100X more cycles than I originally put into it. I did not intend to make such a big deal by not mentioning that the Council <em>could</em> again take up annexation. Annexation is an emotional subject for many. That is why this topic has so many commenting. However, I assure you the headline of this article was not meant to "spin" anything. In fact, I stand by the headline as factual and germane to the body of the article. The article did not delve into "what if?" scenarios. It addressed the action of the County Canvasing Board and the election results. If there is any "spin" taking place, I suggest you look at some of the comments here by others. Some of the "spin" is pretty heavy. I will also go as far as to say that if I did post a headline more in line with what you or Toby suggest, I could very easily be accused of "spin" by your opposition. Many of the issues that are before the Council now were discussed in a previous article, <a href="http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12272" rel="nofollow">What’s Next for the Annexation of Kingsgate, Finn Hill and North Juanita?</a>. Some of the issues mentioned in your suggested headline were already coved in that article. While we may not see eye to eye on this subject, I respect your opinion and I thank you for sharing it. Hi Lynda,
I understand your perspective and I appreciate you making your point. Frankly, the analysis of the wording of this headline, the associated graphic and the press release is burning 100X more cycles than I originally put into it. I did not intend to make such a big deal by not mentioning that the Council could again take up annexation. Annexation is an emotional subject for many. That is why this topic has so many commenting. However, I assure you the headline of this article was not meant to “spin” anything. In fact, I stand by the headline as factual and germane to the body of the article. The article did not delve into “what if?” scenarios. It addressed the action of the County Canvasing Board and the election results. If there is any “spin” taking place, I suggest you look at some of the comments here by others. Some of the “spin” is pretty heavy. I will also go as far as to say that if I did post a headline more in line with what you or Toby suggest, I could very easily be accused of “spin” by your opposition.
Many of the issues that are before the Council now were discussed in a previous article, What’s Next for the Annexation of Kingsgate, Finn Hill and North Juanita?. Some of the issues mentioned in your suggested headline were already coved in that article.
While we may not see eye to eye on this subject, I respect your opinion and I thank you for sharing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Per-Ola http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60925 Per-Ola Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:49:49 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60925 Steve, I might agree with you here. What I meant is not "just" going to the polls, but to get people genuinely interested in issues that DO concern them/their lives and fight (vote) for them. I have a hard time understanding why so many elect not to vote (if you don't agree with any of the choices, then submit a "blank ballot"), and then spend so much time later on complaining about the ones who in effect were elected into office. It really would not take more time than avoiding watching one episode of "Dancing with the Stars" or any other prime-time program, to at least get a basic understanding of the issues in an election. But, in a democracy, you also have the tight "not to vote", it just really don't make it any easier if many are taking that route. Steve,
I might agree with you here. What I meant is not “just” going to the polls, but to get people genuinely interested in issues that DO concern them/their lives and fight (vote) for them.

I have a hard time understanding why so many elect not to vote (if you don’t agree with any of the choices, then submit a “blank ballot”), and then spend so much time later on complaining about the ones who in effect were elected into office.
It really would not take more time than avoiding watching one episode of “Dancing with the Stars” or any other prime-time program, to at least get a basic understanding of the issues in an election.

But, in a democracy, you also have the tight “not to vote”, it just really don’t make it any easier if many are taking that route.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Pete Peterson http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60923 Pete Peterson Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:37:10 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60923 I have given my feelings many times on a NO for annexation. Now I am saying if it is rejected it is revjected. If the City Council can now decide to have the annexation WHY did we even vote. It is very evident the city cannot afford to annex the PAA because they cannot afford togive services to its own people living in Kirkland now. I have talked to people from Kirkland and their comment has been, how can you get services when they are cutting some of our services. Again I say the vote tell how it is so lets forget the annexation. I have given my feelings many times on a NO for annexation. Now I am saying if it is rejected it is revjected. If the City Council can now decide to have the annexation WHY did we even vote. It is very evident the city cannot afford to annex the PAA because they cannot afford togive services to its own people living in Kirkland now. I have talked to people from Kirkland and their comment has been, how can you get services when they are cutting some of our services.
Again I say the vote tell how it is so lets forget the annexation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

]]> By: Steve http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60922 Steve Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:34:36 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60922 I disagree that you have to be engaged and bring everyone and their cousins to the polls; If people don't care, I would rather that they don't vote (unless I can convince them to vote the way I want them to.) High voter turnout just for the sake of high voter turnout is - in my opinion - not a desireable goal; it doesn't necessarily indicate an electorate that is educated on the issues and has a vested interest in the outcome.

I disagree that you have to be engaged and bring everyone and their cousins to the polls; If people don’t care, I would rather that they don’t vote (unless I can convince them to vote the way I want them to.) High voter turnout just for the sake of high voter turnout is – in my opinion – not a desireable goal; it doesn’t necessarily indicate an electorate that is educated on the issues and has a vested interest in the outcome.

Highly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Toby Nixon http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60917 Toby Nixon Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:28:31 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60917 I agree with you, Per-Ola. It really is disappointing that we don't have better turnout for elections. But at least turnout in the PAA at 56% was better than King County countywide (53%), which was better than the statewide turnout (50%). I agree with you, Per-Ola. It really is disappointing that we don’t have better turnout for elections. But at least turnout in the PAA at 56% was better than King County countywide (53%), which was better than the statewide turnout (50%).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

]]> By: Lynda Haneman http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60915 Lynda Haneman Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:06:30 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60915 Hmmmm . . . In regards to your comment (in response to Toby's initial comments) . . ."<em>The point I’m trying to make is this: each side spins. They choose carefully what to say (and what not to say) about the outcome." </em>. . . sounds like a 'Spin" to focus on the negative perspective. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been <em>"Final decision on Annexation still to be Determined - UNDECIDED"</em>. But then that doesn't garner nearly as much attention as the headline you chose.

Hmmmm . . . In regards to your comment (in response to Toby’s initial comments) . . .”The point I’m trying to make is this: each side spins. They choose carefully what to say (and what not to say) about the outcome.” . . . sounds like a ‘Spin” to focus on the negative perspective. Perhaps a more accurate headline would have been “Final decision on Annexation still to be Determined – UNDECIDED”. But then that doesn’t garner nearly as much attention as the headline you chose.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8

]]> By: Bob Style http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/12605#comment-60910 Bob Style Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:40:18 +0000 http://www.kirklandviews.com/?p=12605#comment-60910 Yes the Council did approve Rose Hill and Juanita annexation without indebtedness. They still don't have what the city promised.and have added much more debt to the budget than bonded indebtedness. Services cost money. If the Council approves annexation, it will be more of the same, much more. The city must adopt a balanced budget. It will be much more difficult to do with annexation, about $2.2 million added to our existing $10 million "structural" budget problem and that's only for the first year of a two year budget. What ever budget they adopt, it will not stay balanced for long, abouit a month, maybe shorter.

Yes the Council did approve Rose Hill and Juanita annexation without indebtedness. They still don’t have what the city promised.and have added much more debt to the budget than bonded indebtedness. Services cost money. If the Council approves annexation, it will be more of the same, much more.

The city must adopt a balanced budget. It will be much more difficult to do with annexation, about $2.2 million added to our existing $10 million “structural” budget problem and that’s only for the first year of a two year budget. What ever budget they adopt, it will not stay balanced for long, abouit a month, maybe shorter.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

]]>