Advertisement

The Future of Kirkland’s Neighborhoods – Annexation Brings Many Questions

By on March 3, 2010 in Archived, Headlines, Opinion

Argosy-at-Marina-Park

By Rob Butcher

UPDATED

At their March 2 Study Session, the Kirkland City Council briefly discussed the issue of how annexation might affect Kirkland’s neighborhoods and how the neighborhoods might be re-partitioned in the post-annexation era. At issue is the size and population of the soon to be annexed neighborhoods of Finn Hill and Kingsgate in relation to Kirkland’s existing neighborhoods.

The average acreage of Kirkland’s current neighborhoods is 405 acres. Finn Hill includes 2,605 acres, Kingsgate 1,248 acres, and North Juanita 621 acres (see graph below).

The average population of Kirkland’s current neighborhoods is 3,706 residents. Finn Hill includes 15,200 residents, Kingsgate 11,700 residents, and North Juanita 5,600.

source: City of Kirkland
Kirkland-Neighborhood-Annexation-Map-SMALL

City of Kirkland - Council Packet March 2, 2010

The city has a practice of doling out money in the form of grants to neighborhoods each year. Every few years each neighborhood receives a windfall from the city (due to budget constraints, the amount was recently reduced to $25,000). The grants are given to the designated neighborhood association to spend in their neighborhood more or less as they see fit – past projects have included benches and fences in neighborhood parks, improved pedestrian safety and even the purchase public art.

Some have raised concerns about the discrepancy in population between, for example, the Everest neighborhood with a population of 1,495 and the Finn Hill neighborhood with 15,300 people. Vast differences between neighborhoods may lead to the disproportionate distribution of city resources.

When annexation is enacted, the city will need to sort out these issues. Two possible actions the city might take are to break up the larger neighborhoods into smaller ones or to merge existing Kirkland neighborhoods into larger ‘hoods. Another issue to deal with is that Kirkland has two North Juanitas – one within the existing city boundaries and another in the annexation area.

Norkirk-Art

Norkirk's Public Art

There are differing views as to how Kirkland should proceed. The Kirkland model of strong neighborhoods was envisioned at a time when Kirkland was a bedroom community. We are now on the verge of having a population of over 80,000. Kirkland is no longer a small town.

The prominence of Kirkland’s thirteen neighborhoods and the  Kirkland Alliance of Neighborhoods has given voice to many who might not otherwise be heard in City Hall. This elevated role of neighborhoods we have in Kirkland is rather unique in the area. Some have argued that the political power of Kirkland’s neighborhoods is needed to counterbalance to development interests in City Hall. Others view the current situation as the balkanization of Kirkland and as a source of disunity and division in our city.

Whatever the outcome, the status quo is likely to change. Will neighborhoods become more powerful in Kirkland or will their influence diminish with annexation? Who knows? What we need is more cooperation and less in-fighting amongst ourselves. We have a great many challenges before us.

After the dust has settled, perhaps our neighborhoods will be merged with one another. Norkirk and Market may become Nor-Mark. Perhaps North and South Rose Hill unite. North and South Juanita may become one. Here’s a suggestion: If the Moss Bay neighborhood merges with the Lakeview neighborhood, I suggest we call it Moss-View.

Kirkland-Neighborhood-Sizes

City of Kirkland - Council Packet March 2, 2010

About Rob Butcher

Editor and Scribbler of Kirkland Views.
View all posts by Rob Butcher →
  • Bob Style

    At 54 minutes into the study session on annexation, Madam Mayor McBride expressed her views on the change of zoning laws upon annexation. She said that Kirkland made a promise to the PAA to try and keep as much of the same laws that the county had. On the other hand, she said she would not like to see Kirkland become more of a suburban community. I think that meant she wants greater densities than what the county allowed. Which is it – retain the suburban ambiance or increase density to city standards?

  • Bob Style

    At 54 minutes into the study session on annexation, Madam Mayor McBride expressed her views on the change of zoning laws upon annexation. She said that Kirkland made a promise to the PAA to try and keep as much of the same laws that the county had. On the other hand, she said she would not like to see Kirkland become more of a suburban community. I think that meant she wants greater densities than what the county allowed. Which is it – retain the suburban ambiance or increase density to city standards?

  • http://www.kirklandzoo.blogspot.com/ Per-Ola

    Personally I think the “hoods” need to be smaller. A Neighborhood Association that is too large, is just that, too large. No project/initiative will touch more than a portion of the residents, and it will be almost impossible to gain consensus, even less to actually get people involved and engaged (what is a NA is the residents are not engaged?).

    This is not politics, but the monikor “all politics are local”, probably still fits pretty well here. People in general do not get engaged in NAs if they get too large. Priorities are just to scattered and there’s more debate than action. People get quickly tired of this and there are so many other priorities that compete for the little amount of time we deem “free” for activities like this.

    Not a critizism, more just an observation…

  • http://www.kirklandzoo.blogspot.com Per-Ola

    Personally I think the “hoods” need to be smaller. A Neighborhood Association that is too large, is just that, too large. No project/initiative will touch more than a portion of the residents, and it will be almost impossible to gain consensus, even less to actually get people involved and engaged (what is a NA is the residents are not engaged?).

    This is not politics, but the monikor “all politics are local”, probably still fits pretty well here. People in general do not get engaged in NAs if they get too large. Priorities are just to scattered and there’s more debate than action. People get quickly tired of this and there are so many other priorities that compete for the little amount of time we deem “free” for activities like this.

    Not a critizism, more just an observation…

  • Cami Keyes

    You raise good points Rob. As a resident of Finn Hill, I know there are natural dividing points here that would make it easier to break-up. For example Holmes Point and Champagne Point, Goat Hill (which may already be in city limits, I’m not sure), and others. I agree with an earlier comment that smaller neighborhoods are good as they allow for an understanding of the unique needs and challenges each area faces. One might be more concerned about drainage, another about a park or sidewalks. But ultimately, I think it’s about what makes sense for each area and I think local people who will represent us in the annexation process will help make this clearer.

    The Kirkland that we all know and love will not change dramatically. We are all already here afterall. Some things at city hall are bound to change, but change is inevitable anyway. Clearly with the challenges of this long recession, what has been will never be the same. But local resources are keeping many of the things we love alive, like holiday decorations and music in the park. I believe the annexation areas have much to offer in terms of resources. And we want to share the burden as the city struggles with its existing and future challenges. We love Kirkland and most of us have considered this our home for a long time.

    All of this is a long way of saying, let’s get along and work on solutions together, rather than focus on potential negatives. I think together we can ensure Kirkland is the place we love for a long time to come.

    Cami

  • Cami Keyes

    You raise good points Rob. As a resident of Finn Hill, I know there are natural dividing points here that would make it easier to break-up. For example Holmes Point and Champagne Point, Goat Hill (which may already be in city limits, I’m not sure), and others. I agree with an earlier comment that smaller neighborhoods are good as they allow for an understanding of the unique needs and challenges each area faces. One might be more concerned about drainage, another about a park or sidewalks. But ultimately, I think it’s about what makes sense for each area and I think local people who will represent us in the annexation process will help make this clearer.

    The Kirkland that we all know and love will not change dramatically. We are all already here afterall. Some things at city hall are bound to change, but change is inevitable anyway. Clearly with the challenges of this long recession, what has been will never be the same. But local resources are keeping many of the things we love alive, like holiday decorations and music in the park. I believe the annexation areas have much to offer in terms of resources. And we want to share the burden as the city struggles with its existing and future challenges. We love Kirkland and most of us have considered this our home for a long time.

    All of this is a long way of saying, let’s get along and work on solutions together, rather than focus on potential negatives. I think together we can ensure Kirkland is the place we love for a long time to come.

    Cami

  • Brian Tucker

    At the risk of starting another old vs. new sparring match (not my intent), I hope, since the new areas’ neighborhoods did not vote to assume taxation for existing CofK debts and therefore won’t have to, that they will also not be beneficiaries of any grant money until the fiscal year in which they pay property taxes to the City (or even the following year if the grants come from City reserves from the prior FY). To me, that seems like one logical outcome of the PAA residents’ election vote.

  • Brian Tucker

    At the risk of starting another old vs. new sparring match (not my intent), I hope, since the new areas’ neighborhoods did not vote to assume taxation for existing CofK debts and therefore won’t have to, that they will also not be beneficiaries of any grant money until the fiscal year in which they pay property taxes to the City (or even the following year if the grants come from City reserves from the prior FY). To me, that seems like one logical outcome of the PAA residents’ election vote.

  • Johanna Palmer

    Thanks for the article Rob. We do need to look at our neighborhoods and make thoughtful decisions. I would like to see some neighborhood boundaries cross NE 132nd to integrate the old and new. The Totem Lake neighborhood is not really a neighborhood, it is a commercial center. Most of the members that attend the TLNA (Totem Lake Neighborhood Association) meetings are from the newly annexed area. Additionally, almost all the current Kirkland residents in the TL neighborhood are up on the hill with the Kingsgate area. The TLNA never spent the grant money allocated to it by the city (about $50,000) because there are no Kirkland parks or other city property within the boundary of the “neighborhood”.

  • Johanna Palmer

    Thanks for the article Rob. We do need to look at our neighborhoods and make thoughtful decisions. I would like to see some neighborhood boundaries cross NE 132nd to integrate the old and new. The Totem Lake neighborhood is not really a neighborhood, it is a commercial center. Most of the members that attend the TLNA (Totem Lake Neighborhood Association) meetings are from the newly annexed area. Additionally, almost all the current Kirkland residents in the TL neighborhood are up on the hill with the Kingsgate area. The TLNA never spent the grant money allocated to it by the city (about $50,000) because there are no Kirkland parks or other city property within the boundary of the “neighborhood”.

  • Steve

    How does the the city of Kirkland determine who to give the money to? What if there are multiple groups, each claiming that they represent the neighborhood?

    BTW: “This elevated roll of neighborhoods” should be “This elevated ROLE of neighborhoods”/

  • Steve

    How does the the city of Kirkland determine who to give the money to? What if there are multiple groups, each claiming that they represent the neighborhood?

    BTW: “This elevated roll of neighborhoods” should be “This elevated ROLE of neighborhoods”/

  • http://www.tobynixon.com/ Toby Nixon

    Steve, even if there are existing groups in these areas, the city won’t anoint one of them as the official group. The city will create its own official neighborhood association, under the city’s processes and policies, which will be the only one that receives the budget allotment. The official neighborhood associations are extensions of the city’s Neighborhood Services department, not spontaneously created groups. Other neighborhood groups, be they existing or new, can continue to exist in any number, but they don’t compete for the budget allotment. In particular, the neighborhood associations will not replace existing homeowner associations, such as those that exist in the planned unit developments in Kingsgate.

  • http://www.tobynixon.com Toby Nixon

    Steve, even if there are existing groups in these areas, the city won’t anoint one of them as the official group. The city will create its own official neighborhood association, under the city’s processes and policies, which will be the only one that receives the budget allotment. The official neighborhood associations are extensions of the city’s Neighborhood Services department, not spontaneously created groups. Other neighborhood groups, be they existing or new, can continue to exist in any number, but they don’t compete for the budget allotment. In particular, the neighborhood associations will not replace existing homeowner associations, such as those that exist in the planned unit developments in Kingsgate.