Update: Time set for annexation discussion at tomorrow’s Seattle council meeting

When we broke the news Wednesday on partner site West Seattle Blog that Seattle’s new mayor wants White Center to vote on annexation this November, we got word that the Seattle City Council would get briefed during its morning meeting tomorrow (Monday 2/1). We now know from the online agenda that the discussion is set for 10:30 am. If you can’t be there, you can watch live online via the Seattle Channel.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

8 Responses to “Update: Time set for annexation discussion at tomorrow’s Seattle council meeting”

  1. This is the obvious fit for all White Center residents don’t be fooled with Buriens B/S. THEY CHERRY PICKED THE AREA AND HAVE NO WANT OR PLANS for the remaining portions of White Center, lets go to Seatte and Burien can go broke without us.If the elected officials on NHUAC try to stand in the way because of fear of losing any power they already do not have then we should all show up at there po-dunk meetings and explain to them the reality of this oppurtunity. Russ Pritchard already pilfered our Community Fire dept. And he now sits on the NHUAC Board dont be fooled thinking he is looking out for our best interests after he raped the taxpayers of this community with his unethical wage and severance, lets put our tax dollars in the hands of some professional bean counters VOTE YES TO SEATTLE!!!

    Comment by The obvious — January 31, 10 4:29 pm

  2. After the City of Seattle made a special announcement about their impending budget woes today, I suspect there will little chance of an annexation vote this year.

    If you haven’t heard or read about thair new projections, here is a link to KOMO’s website: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/83215247.html

    Quite honestly, I don’t see how the executive and the council could possibly move forward with annexation when their financial situation is so bad.

  3. FWIW, that’s nothing new. They’ve been saying it for months; we’ve been covering it (at WSB) for months. Actually dating way back into the previous administration. Mayor McGinn spoke today at the Citizens Budget Conference, which has been scheduled for weeks, so it wasn’t a “special announcement.” Doesn’t mean it may not have the kind of effect you mention but just for context’s sake, this has been out there a long time and if the tv station intimated it hasn’t, it’s because they haven’t covered it before.

  4. Tracy, your point is taken, however there is something about this particular announcement that leads me to believe this is the heralding of even bigger announcements regarding Seattle’s budget shortfalls.

    Heck of a time to become mayor of Seattle, with serious (if not critical) budget constraints. It will be difficult for Mayor McGinn to work-in his legislative priorities, when there simply is little to no money.

    Again, I’m surprised that the annexation of the NH area is even on McGinn’s radar screen. I know for a fact that many of the neighborhood associations have already heard about this annexation endeavor, and McGinn and the council are going to take a beating over it.

    The only thing I can think of, is that McGinn just wants to put it on the ballot and see where it goes. Perhaps he thinks it will be rejected, and that a failed annexation attempt will finally put this whole thing to rest (for Seattle at least), and get “it” off of their plate.

    I’ll be watching the special committee meetings on annexation closely, to see where this all goes.

  5. I’m so glad Seattle is putting annexation up for a vote. So many community members say they would vote no to annex to Seattle it’s amazing. This will be an opportunity to show Seattle that, then they can go away quitely.

    They can’t afford to annex us anyway, look at their budget shortfall, how do they honestly figure that they could provide services or help our community when they can’t even help or service their own?

  6. “The Obvious” said that Burien “cherry-picked” the areas they wanted, and left the rest for whoever wants it.

    What exactly do you mean “cherry-picked?” They took what was manageable and logical, and that tried to follow established neighborhood lines.

    You simply don’t make a very good argument, in saying that Burien cherry-picked. If that was true, they would’ve taken all higher value property along shorewood, all the way to Seola Beach Drive, and then focused on ALL of the commercial core.

    Now that would would’ve been cherry-picking.

    Instead Burien established a logical east/west border, and expanded the city boundary northward. AND, they didn’t even take all of Shorewood.

    Sounds like you’re just angry…

  7. Oh so the Golf course is a natural east west boarder across 116TH ? I think not. It was totally cherry picked and would have been much worse if the boundry review board had not stepped in and stopped those egotistical politicians who want nothing to do White Centers downtown core. Not only did they not want it you are right when you say Burien could not manage the rest of the area thats why Seattle is the logical choice for us.

  8. Logical choice not, Seattle is greedy and runs on reckless fuel. That is obvious by looking at there south end borders.