Kirkland’s building moratorium needs to be effective, inclusive and short-lived
What a year. In the first quarter of 2008, Kirkland was rocked by harsh economic realities and looming budget shortfalls as sales tax receipts came in well below budgeted levels. Ever since, the City has been struggling to cope. Now we face imminent cuts in service levels and increases in taxes.
For those with hopes for annexation, Kirkland added insult to injury as the Council punted the idea into 2009. Appeals, quasi-judicial hearings, and Perry Mason-style courtroom drama left us stunned and horrified through the second and third quarters of the year. Now we are spending time and money to defend our actions in Superior Court. And as if that were not enough, we have just slapped a moratorium on business development in the downtown core.
So far 2008 has not been a banner year for Kirkland. But I am optimistic we can have a 4th quarter comeback.
What has happened so far this year with regard to downtown development has been a travesty. Put it aside for now (at least until the next election cycle). If you are a concerned citizen of good will, I hope you will put your differences aside temporarily, because Kirkland needs everyone to participate in repairing what we have wrought. Those who are unwilling to contribute to a solution will be left behind. The City needs help from everyone in finding a long-term solution in which we can all prosper.
You may have disagreed with actions of the Council up to this moment, but I urge you to focus on making the moratorium as short-lived as possible. The more bickering and in-fighting we have, the longer the process will take and the worse off Kirkland will be. This will require compromise on all sides. Passions around this issue run hot.
Personally, I was not in favor of a moratorium as I believe it sends the wrong message about our city at the worst possible moment. I want it to end as soon as possible. That said, I understand why it is in place. I may have disagreements with the course we have taken to date, but I share the goal of the entire Council going forward: remove ambiguity from the development process, thus preventing the insanity of the past year from ever happening again.
Some argue that the current comp plan and zoning codes are in desperate need of revision. Other say we only need to tweak them a little here and there. Whatever your position, it is my hope that all parties earnestly strive for compromise. That is the only sensible way through this mess. Heavy-handed dictates will only make matters worse.
Some want to preserve our “quaint” downtown and to have no new building at all. Others want maximum buildout without regard to citizen sensitivities to this issue. Neither extreme should prevail. Neither will. We need to find a sensible middle ground.
In my mind, we need to adhere to a few common sense guidelines:
- Do make this an open and public process;
- Do consider input from all parties;
- Do remain keenly aware of the long-term unintended consequences of Council actions;
- Do eliminate ambiguity in the code;
- Do provide guidance and reliability for citizens and developers alike;
- Do acknowledge the negative impact the moratorium is having on Kirkland and work to minimize it;
- Do end this moratorium as quickly as possible;
- Do not strong-arm this process;
- Do not disregard the earnest efforts of citizens, city staff, developers and yes, your loyal opposition;
- Do not use the moratorium as a surreptitious means of forcing Parkplace to give up on its preferred mix-use plan;
- Do not give the impression to the public that decisions are made outside of the public process.
We are in this mess because of our own doing. We produced a poorly-worded set of rules which are open to interpretation and fraught with uncertainty and risk for citizens and developers alike. We need to clarify and correct the mistakes of the past.
By taking on this task, the Kirkland City Council has created a unique opportunity for themselves to show the people of Kirkland that they can rise to this challenge and clarify the rules under which development can proceed in downtown. This is their opportunity to show us that they can work quickly, efficiently and fairly. I sincerely hope the Council and we, the people of Kirkland, can rise to this challenge.
We need an end to this moratorium as soon as possible. That is something upon which I hope we can all agree.
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|












I agree with everything said and reiterate my earlier question – what is the plan to accomplish this? Has the Council even thought that far ahead? I hope so.
As people keep pointing out – 60 days is not that long. I recommend that the Council quickly get together a group comprised of:
Two council members (one yes voter and one no voter)
Member of the DRB
Member of the Planning Commission
Member if Planning staff
Member of CiViK
Member of the Parks Commission
Member of the Parking Board
Member of the Downtown Advisory Committee
Member of the Park Lane Committee
Several members from local neighborhood groups
Member of the KDA
Member of the new downtown property owners group
Member of the Chamber of Commerce
Couple of at large slots
I know it is a somewhat large group and I am sure I am missing someone, but if people who really had a desire to work for the best interest of Kirkland long term sat down and worked out a plan maybe we could all move forward.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Interesting idea. At the Study Session, the Council (including those who opposed the moratorium) said they wanted to take this on as their own project – but a group as you’ve described could be a useful resource and sounding board.
Your list includes a “downtown property owners group” – are you referring to the group whose letter was posted earlier this week? In addition, I think there is also a downtown condo leadership group. Both of these groups should have a representative at the table that you’ve suggested.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Interesting. I think a published list of goals for this moratorium should be available. Is this an effort to prevent future appeals or is this an attempt to change building heights and down zone by those who did not get their will enacted in 2001?
Like or Dislike:
0
0