By Bob Style
At 52 minutes and 18 seconds into the Council’s study session, Councilmember Asher questioned his ability to get to cause what was happening to the budget. He asked how come one week after the council fired 43 full time positions because of budget shortfalls; staff came up with $2.2 million dollars to pay for annexation preparation. That’s only for 2010. Staff predicted the amount needed in 2011 will be much more. Not to worry, staff will find a way to manipulate the budget much more to pay for it while, at the same time, reducing services by laying off more people.
In-house breeding among some Councilmembers to promote annexation has produced a mutated budget that has been manipulated and does not serve the citizens of Kirkland. It resulted in the reduction of services because the council chose to do so at our expense. Special interest prevails. The council has not been sincere with the public and it shows.
At the Council’s regular meeting which followed the study session, King County Councilmember Jane Hague said she talked with the new county exec about helping Kirkland absorb some of the annexation cost. Why was she there? She was invited. Will the County pay Kirkland for the $2.2 million the first year while at the same time paying for services to the PAA until the effective date of annexation, and then more the second year before the annexation takes effect. I seriously doubt it. She’s speaking into the wind hoping to stave off the repercussions of the next election.
Some Councilmembers are getting to staff. Given the past performance of Councilmembers McBride and Burleigh, I suspect it was them. If the money was there for annexation one week after the layoff, why wasn’t the money there to save the jobs of 43 employees that serve the public? If you too want to know what’s going on, don’t ask the Councilmembers that created this mess because you’ll get a mutated answer.
Bob Style
Bob,
Although I respect your opinion and I understand that there are negatives to any decision just as there are positives, I can’t understand why annexation opponents seem to completely ignore life outside of their own back yard. What is the impact and associated costs of a decline in those communities surrounding Kirkland as King County continues to cut services? Isn’t it better to work with the county now why they are offering rather than wait until they are not? Aren’t we better off having Redmond, Bellevue, Bothell, and Seattle as neighbors rather than say Detroit or St. Louis. Doesn’t that impact the economy of the city as well as its revenue intake? If any of these things are true, isn’t it true the city council has little choice in the matter but to accept the city’s responisibility as a good neighbor within our region and finally approve annexation?
It has been said that if the council does not accept annexation, they will not be voting for the majority. The Council has a responsibility first and foremost to represent those who elected them. The majority they are supposed to represent lives in Kirkland, not the PAA.
Being a good neighbor is a two way street. Good neighbors do not place burdens on others. The PAA is not being a good neighbor. The PAA could incorporate. If they want services, let them decide what urban services they want and how to pay for them. The PAA has high assessed values. The taxes they pay are sufficient to pay for essential services without asking Kirkland to cover non-essential services. That would be a good neighbor.
It’s been said that Kirkland cherry picked all the revenue sources so there is no money left for the PAA to become a city. The people in the PAA chose what services they wanted when they moved there. At the time Kirkland cherry picked annexation areas, the PAA could have incorporated and done the same thing. It was much easier to do back then but the PAA didn’t want to do it. They wanted to remain in the county. They got what they wanted and now are complaining about it.
Mr.Styles. While I respect your right to express your opinion, I find it very difficult to swallow your continuing false accusations which are not supported by any concrete evidence. You continue to accuse Councilmembers without any evidence or basis in fact. If you are so wise and wonderful, why don’t you run for Council and walk a mile in their shoes.
If they are false, let the council prove it.
Just because their job is difficult is not cause for what they’ve done. We have an excellent and knowledgeable staff. Sometimes it’s a tossup as to who is making the decisions, Council or staff.
Staff has been guided by a manager who, in my opinion, is listening to the wrong councilmembers. The results we are getting have been costly in time and money. The cuts the city is making lack responsibility. It’s much harder to provide services if the city gives money away.
Mr. Style,
You’ve got this backwards. You’re the one making accusations here. It’s up to you to provide evidence of wrongdoing. For months you’ve made wild accusations about the Council in general, and specific members, but you’ve been very slippery when it comes to being specific (much less coming up with “proof”).
And, Mr. Style, just what does “In-house breeding…” mean? Do you ever have someone proofread before you hit Submit Comment?
Mr. Hitter
Why attack Bob personally? He has a right to his position, just as you have to yours. Personal attacks have no place in public discourse.
As a member of the PAA, I have to take issue with the statement that the PAA could incorporate themselves. Just let me be clear, I voted NO on this as I think the city of Kirkland has their budget priorities back-asswards, and I think that they did ignore their duty to their constituants by forcing the annexation through without a vote from the people they represent.
But to state that we could incorporate ourselves, when Kirkland DID in fact cherry pick all the commercial revenue generating areas of their PAA is just ignorance. How about if Kirkland gives Totem Lake back to the PAA, then maybe we can realistically incorporate ourselves.