The following letter is from King County Councilmember Jane Hague in response to a letter to the editor posted here: http://www.kirklandviews.com/archives/18944
It has always been my goal as the Eastside’s regional representative on the King County Council to work with city officials and stakeholders to bring consensus to outstanding issues.
It has been a pleasure to work successfully for the Kirkland Performance Center, the transit center, acquisition of parklands, annexation, fireworks ban and for better fire service.
In this same vein, I’m looking forward to joining with the three landowners of the South Kirkland Park & Ride (Kirkland, Bellevue, and King County) in resolving zoning inconsistencies and increasing access to the second busiest interchange along 405 and 520 (after 405/SR 167).
The Park & Ride is at capacity and buses need better ingress and egress. We will explore other services to minimize vehicle miles travelled, and we will do this through a regional conversation.
All good projects need to be thoroughly vetted, and I know Kirkland residents will be a valuable asset to this project.
As always, I am available through email, phone, or in person.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve.
-Jane
Jane Hague
King County Council – District 6
jane.hague@kingcounty.gov
(206) 296-1006
Ms. Hague ignores the fact that Kirkland citizens send outside agencies that include the county about $3 million a year and only get back $1 million in benefits. Is that looking out for Kirkland? She's using us as a resource without having to pay us back.
As a County Councilmember she failed to provide adequate transportation to the areas north of Kirkland thereby creating the traffic jams in Kirkland.
She promoted the annexation that caused us to pay more for less, reduced our services, locked doors at our parks, took away the trash cans, added more than $3 million to our debt. Ms. Hague is not looking out for Kirkland..
She fails to acknowledge that the Kirkland Council refuses to add road capacity so the people getting off the busses at the proposed TOD South Park & Ride have a way to either go around or through Kirkland without forcing people into traffic jams or using residential streets to avoid them.. METRO supported by Ms. Hague will add to the congestion in Kirkland thereby decreasing our quality of life. Many of us want congestion not only reduced, but eliminated. Ms. Hague thinks otherwise. The METRO project might add capacity to the bus system; however, it will reduce our capacity to accommodate single-family homes and businesses in Kirkland. METRO will create traffic jams in Kirkland, not reduce or eliminate them.
It’s been years ago when Caesar was reported to have said, “I know my enemies, warn me of my friends? Ms. Hague is in that category. Being sacraficed and stabbed in the back is something we don't need.
That doesn't seem like much of a response to the letter. She doesn't address the author's concerns in a number of areas. The subsidization of housing, the annexation, the reduction of benefits, etc.
To be honest, not sure anyone, less councilmemember Hague, wants to get into a debate over the endless negative tirades from Mr. Styles. Hence, in my view her answer was “good enough”.
Kirkland is part of King County, is part of Washington State, is part of the United States – and hence the World. We have to engage and participate in those communities. As a City, just as well as individual residents.
I am reading KirklandViews less and less these days due to the neverending negative letters towards “common services” (often provided by our local government, elected by us). Instead of just complain, get engaged and provide solutions. Every council meeting provides ample time for “Items from the Audience”.
Mr. Style wants congestion “eliminated”??? That's easy for him: Just go back to the 1950s, which is where most of his ideas seem to have come from.
For the rest of us, we have to deal with the realities of the 21st century in a place that is very attractive and desirable. Simply closing down the city and locking out newcomers isn't an option that is either realistic or desirable.
I don't see your point reflected in anything Mr. Style has said. He is asking for solutions, and not a time machine. Jane Hague did not respond to the issues presented here. She only provided a bland non-response that used as many words as possible to avoid answering any questions.
I would like to thank Jane Hague and the commenters below for participating in this discussion. It is through this exchange of views that we all gain perspective, a better understanding of the issues and learn what our neighbors think.
While reasonable people will disagree with the details of how our region accommodates the expected doubling in population over the next few decades, I think it is obvious to all that such an increase in population will indeed impact “our quality of life” as some have defined it. Today, Kirkland is one of the most densely populated cities in our region. We can expect Kirkland's population to grow and become more dense – this likely means fewer (or smaller) single family residences being built in the future. More people means more congestion on the roads.
What I find interesting about this issue is how Kirkland compares in population density to other Eastside cities and how each city plans for the projected population growth in our region. Since Kirkland is the most densely populated today, must Kirkland increase its population density as rapidly as other Eastside cities? Or does Kirkland have lower growth targets than less densely populated cities, thus distributing the population growth more evenly across the Eastside?
I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Mr. Style's long history of rants.
I am. I read his articles. Some are more well grounded than others. But the fact remains that your comment was just a baseless slam against a person who, whether you like his tone or not, is speaking his mind and asking tough questions that need real answers.
I have a suggestion for you. Try applying this to your reading for a few weeks: You can always tell the person who is right because they are making unpopular points. It was true of the housing bubble, of the dotcom bust, and is true of our state and city governments. I think you may benefit from test driving that viewpoint.