Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Double Abyss | CA-50: The Talk of Next Week »

Friday, June 2, 2006

“It’s the Right Thing To Do”

Posted by on June 2 at 17:19 PM

Last night I attended the meeting of the Northeast District Council, the most recent stop on the Nickels campaign to promote the annexation of North Highline. I wrote on this subject in February, and I was curious to see whether Nickels staffers have since revised a sales pitch that back then seemed incomplete — suspiciously so.

The proposal is for Seattle to annex North Highline, the unincorporated sliver of land on Seattle’s southwest border, just north of Burien. The area — which includes parts of White Center, Boulevard Park and part of South Park — has a depressed tax base relative to Seattle, such that it can’t give revenue back to the city in proportion to the services it would get from the city. What’s more, there is a significant, increasingly organized opposition within North Highline to Seattle’s overtures.

So…why is Nickels so hellbent on making this happen? What is in it for him? Or us, as Seattle taxpayers?

Nickels’s representative Julien Loh, who has been assigned the task of promoting this bewildering idea, answered that question thus:

“We think it’s the right thing to do.”

But that didn’t satisfy anybody. Since when do politicians care about the right thing to do — especially when it runs against self-interest? So the question was asked again, and this time he answered:

“We can offer better services to the people of North Highline then King County.”

Still, he’s not speaking about Seattle’s interest. The question is rephrased and asked again, to which he answers that Seattle wants a “stable neighborhood south of its border.”

More iterations of the same question only bring more of the same incomplete answer: It’s because Nickels represented the area when he was on county council, and he feels an affection toward those folks. Or it’s because it’s a very diverse neighborhood which would add to the cultural fabric of our city. Or it’s because the Growth Management Act said cities should absorb unincorporated areas and that’s what we’re doing. Did I mention it’s the right thing to do?

All of the above happened at the Southwest District Council meeting I attended February 1 — four months ago. Since then, I wrote a critical article. And then this past week, the P-I wrote almost the same piece.

So surely the Nickels promotional team has reacted to the skepticism and tweaked its campaign.

Nope. Last night’s meeting unfolded exactly like the one four months ago, as members of the district council put the same questions to Loh and he answered in the same platitudes. I counted three times that he said, “the right thing to do.” It was like being at a press conference emceed by Scott McClellan.

People at the meeting wanted to know what the financial cost of annexation would be, and Loh told them the financial assessment would be released next month. Which is the same answer he gave when the same question came up in February.

The members became agitated as Loh kept to his talking points, and they only calmed down after University District Community Council president Matt Fox seized the floor and gave everyone a neat five minute rebuttal to Loh’s presentation that reduced the city’s case to rubble and, seemingly, confirmed the skepticism of all present. Loh didn’t even bother contesting Fox’s points.

It’s remarkable to see a campaign which is ostensbily designed to promote a policy have the exact opposite effect. Maybe Nickels’ motives aren’t sinister, but when the media and residents on both ends of the city all have the same reaction, that’s a campaign that needs fixing — and it shouldn’t take four months.


CommentsRSS icon

Nickels and the City Council have set up a deal where an inordinate amount of Metro's transit funding inside Seattle will be diverted to South Lake Union and Paul Allen's vanity streetcar. That might help to explain his push to absorb the North Highline bus service area into the city proper.

That, plus potential voters in North Highline would most likely support Nickels because he has the name recognition of having been its representative on the King County Council.

Seattle, remind me again why you voted for this guy?


Tom Francis, where did the Stranger find you?

You have the same annoying style as Josh Feit--self referential, self-righteous and self absorbed?

You tell us that four months ago you wrote "a critical article"? Good for you! And you had NO effect on the subject? That's really annoying because it's supposed to be about you, Tom!

You tend to run on, and on, but with some editing, you can graduate to Josh's level.

I live in south Seattle, and we'd get improved services. Where are you in human services, Tom? Tom? Are you listening? Over here Tom. Step away from the mirror....

Because he wasn't Mark Sidran.

Plus, they probably see it as an investment. The tax base may be low right now. But if real estate values keep rising, that area is the only area left near downtown Seattle where you could still have some significant gentrification/development and some starter homes for younger folks.

Moreover, if you improve the services there, it probably increases the property values right out of the gate, and makes it a more desireable place to live for the sort of people who tend to increase the valuation of the tax base.

You already have a slowly growing hipster/artist presense in South Park (call it Georgetown spillover). From that perspective, Columbia City 2006 could easily be White Center 2015 or 2020.

The physical infrastructure of White Center could certainly support that kind of Fremont Center type urban village, if there was a critical mass of the sort of people who make that sort of thing happen.

From the standpoint of controlling the destiny of what happens in that part of the city, incorporating that area into the city makes sense, because then it opts directly into any planning/zoning that happens and that planning/zoning can be controlled through the mayor's office and city council.

If it stays unicorporated, then it exists as a possible drag on any improvement efforts within the borders of Seattle.

I'm sure there are myriad of political/ethical/philosophical reasons to be against the idea.

But viewed through the longterm prism, it makes sense to me why they are pushing it (regardless of whether I agree with the idea).

Tom, you don't really seem that interested in finding out about the real issues in North Highline. I live nearby and as far as I can tell you hung out for a day or so and talked to some of the leaders in the community against annexation by Seattle. After all, White Center is out of the Stranger's usual coverage radius.

They are against annexation because they either have personal ties to county government or they are afraid that their voice would be lost in the big city of Seattle.

But were you to spend more time in White Center and Boulevard Park you would find that most people haven't decided anything about annexation and that only a few people are paying attention.

As for the mayor's "campaign" and motives, you seem to have the same narrow minded reaction the Republicans had towards Clinton. He must be up to something...he is evil...what are his motives...you even quote chief Nickels hater, Matt Fox, to back up your point.

The real truth is that it is "the right thing to do" The Growth Management Act and the county's poor tax structure for urban services make annexation inevitable. Urban areas are supposed to be in cities. White Center is very diverse with mostly low to middle income residents. They have many challenges with roads, crime and infrastructure.

So, Burien or Seattle? Well, lets see, Burien is a relatively new city that would double in size with this annexation and take on a whole new urban center while they are trying to remake their own center. They have relatively modest tax revenues with no major industry.

Seattle, is 20 times the size of North Highline and is one of the wealthiest cities in the county with a large business, retail, and industrial base. Seattle also has a long proud history of neighborhood planning and investment. We have many similar neighborhoods to North Highline with similar challenges.

So, you tell me, what is the "right" thing to do? If you stopped hatin on Greg for a second you might actually realize that Seattle should annex at least a good portion of the area. How Seattle progressives got so "what's in it for me", I don't know. Certainly we try to help our own city residents with programs. So, pull up the gates...we are done helping people.

Maybe Julian didn't have a better rap because he hasn't figured out a good way to say that a lot of people in this city are being selfish on this issue.

What low-income community doesn't long to be subsumed by its larger, more affluent, and development-happy neighbor?

It is interesting how a devil who has designs "agenda" is always in the Sranger reporting.

What devil? The forces of growth and change? Slumbering under class and working class White Center, in the coming era changing and rebuilding and adding population?

God, tell me, what devils.

I was born in White Center, and believe me, it is part of Seattle. Simply never formalized.

Most of this is just such drivel. Oh yes, it is the mayor who is making home prices rise in other areas so White Center will change. Thanks God, Center is going ot change a bit. The ethnic food joints just might pay their bills, and the old couples will sell their houses with some good appreciation. How horrible that will be.

Such silly drivel from you over educated - nothing to think about - Nickels haters. I like the guy. He comes down here and talks and walks and is totally at home ....

Maybe that is the problem for all the snobs? He is a chubby - very friendly - home town guy. Not afraid of the nitwits on the all talk city council.

Yes to formal Seattle annexation .... the sooner the better.

OK, question for the writers from North Highline who support annexation by Seattle:

How will your community fare on Seattle City Council? Especially on land use issues?

You guys live next to South Delridge, which has many of the same challenges. Have you talked to those folks about whether they're happy with their services?

As for whether this is a wise policy or not, I think there are still too many unanswered questions for anyone to say. The point of my post is that the Nickels campaign has had a long time to give very informed answers to these questions, and they haven't.

For Gas Girl: I don't care that the Nickels administration didn't respond to my article -- that's not the point. The point is that I had the same reaction that people in the SW District Council had, which was the same reaction as people in the NE District Council, which was the same reaction as the P-I, etc. This campaign is to promote annexation, and by that measure it's failing.

For Surf Logs Kill: Actually, the most popular idea in North Highline is to not do anything. All the surveys suggest residents want to stay incorporated, and guess what? They can. Annexation can only happen if the people in the area vote for it.

And yeah, maybe those of us who doubt the noble, unselfish motives of the mayor are a bunch of cynics, but that's not really the point, either. Nickels and his staff need to know their audience. They need to anticipate skepticism and if it's such a great policy they're touting, why is it so hard to convince their own constituents?

This all misses the point.

So Team Nickels continues to use idiotic talking points. So annexation isn't logical by rational standards. Whatever.

This whole mess is about one thing, and one thing only: empire building. Why? It's what empire-builders do. It's what amibitious leaders of executive branches of government do, and have done, for millenia.

Why? Because it's *there*. When the Roman Empire conquered Britain was it logical or rational? No. It was a drain on imperial revenues. All the good revenue-generating places--much like here in Greater Seattle--had already been cherry picked. So why do it? For the greater glory of the Emperor!

"It's the right thing to do" means "it's for the greater glory of the Emperor."

Claude --

If this is empire building, then, I was really skanked by all that history and biography about Caesar and Nappy, the Arch Duke and Sir Ottoman.

Honey, go get some feed, take a shower, and get off the bong for a while.

Maybe rebuild some perspective. Or write a bad novella.

Everybody who said that the most popular proposition in North Highline is that everyone should just go away and leave us alone is right. I'm a PCO there, so I know personally that this is the case.

Since unincorporated areas are shrinking, this isn't going to be an option for much longer. The bottom line is that we'd have a much louder voice in local affairs as somewhat less than half of Burien as opposed to being 4% of Seattle.

Not to mention the fact that I am not at all impressed by the services Seattle offers to the neighboring Delridge area. North Highline as is and Burien are much better alternatives there.

Tom asks how North Highline will fare on land use questions with the city council. I am not sure what you are referring to, but generally Seattle will help pay for a neighborhood plan and will make zoning changes to reflect that plan. Nothing wrong with that. In general, I think it is time we had the conversation about city council districts for at least half the council. I would love to see four at large and five districts. Everyone in the city could still vote for a majority of the council, but communities would have a more direct connection to government.

For Surf Logs Kill: Actually, the most popular idea in North Highline is to not do anything. All the surveys suggest residents want to stay incorporated, and guess what? They can. Annexation can only happen if the people in the area vote for it.

Well, Tom, I am still not sure you are qualified to know what the most popular idea in North Highline is but here is my guess--60% still not paying attention, 20% want to stay the way they are, 10% want to go into Seattle, 10% want to go into Burien.

And you are right that folks must vote for annexation. But the day is coming soon when the county will be forced to drastically cut services in urban areas due to unavoidable budget restraints.

The fear of the unknown is a steep slope to climb for North Highline residents. The conversation is really only starting. No one is even contemplating a vote for at least a year.

If you are so proud of your skepticism, perhaps you ought to apply it to the motives of Seattle "progressives" who say we shouldn't annex an area that needs to be at least partially in Seattle.

As someone who helped write a neighborhood plan, only to see the City attempt to back out on every meaningful compromise it made to pass the damn thing, I'm not so sanguine about how ducky that whole process would turn out in N. Highline.

Yeah, Seattle will make zoning changes all right - whether the community wants them or not.

People are missing some imporant facts in this discussion.

If Burien does not annex North Highline, the taxpayers in Burien will get screwed. Why? It costs us less to annex North Highline than to let Seattle Annex the are.

I know that isn't intuitive, but if Burien annexes North Highline it will only cost Burien taxpayers an additional $600K a year, but if we don't annex the area it will cost us a additional whopping $2.2 million a year in taxes (primarily due to lost police services that we currently share with North Highline) plus another $1 million+ to build a new fire station on the north end of Burien.

Then, sewer rates are going to double for both Burien and North Highline residents if Seattle annexes the area. The two local sewer districts that currently serve Burien and North Highline have rates which are half the monthly rate that the average Seattle sewer customer pays. The reason Burien residents will pay higher rates if Seattle annexes North Highline is that the sewer districts here will loose so many customers and still have similar operating costs as they do now.

Something interesting to note is density...the smallest lot one can build a house on in Burien is 7200 sqare feet, but in Seattle you can build a house on a lot as small as 2500 sqare feet. So, Tom, do you think that Greg Nickels could be interested in all the buildable land in North Highline since he's running out of that in Seattle? The question is this--for whom is Seattle annexation "the right thing to do". Seattle residents? North Highline residents? I don't think so...could it be the developers Greg Nickels seems so fond of?

There is a most interesting resource in the net! Thousands of users conversating at one time!
Beautiful girls and most glamour boys from all over the world! Come in faster! JOIN US. IT IS FREE. LETS TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING!
www.snegorod.com

incest father and daughter with mother and son!

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).