White Center Community Development Association’s letter to Seattle City Council
One week from today, the Seattle City Council’s Regional Development and Sustainability Committee takes up North Highline annexation again – with a decision to be made on whether to keep proceeding toward a November election in which residents of the remaining unincorporated area would be asked if they want to become part of Seattle. Today, the White Center Community Development Association – whose executive director Aileen Balahadia helped guide Seattle’s mayor on a WC walking tour two weeks ago – sent the council a letter, and published it on the WCCDA website. Read it in its entirety here. One excerpt:
We now need a municipal partner to fully achieve our vision of a vibrant commercial district connected to safe, residential communities. Whatever city embraces us will be able to tap that already existing blueprint and the human capital and resident leadership ready to carry it out.
In recent discussions, Seattle leaders had indicated that even if a vote is taken this fall, the actual annexation would likely not kick in any earlier than 2013.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Having been involved in the 2009 North Highline battle, my only recommendation is that if there is an election to decide which city will annex, it should be during a general election in November to assure that there will be a higher turnout, which would reflect a larger view of voter sentiment.
Also, I despise the term “human capital.” It is one of the latest buzzwords to be used by corporatistas to describe utilizing the energy and talents of people. It is extremely degrading and dehumanizing.
March 12th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I have a big question:
If this question was put on the ballot this fall, how would it be stated? Will it be an “annex to Seattle, yes or no?” type question? Or will it be broader and offer information as to what other options might be.
The reason I ask – because Burien said they would wait until Seattle had their shot, I get concerned that folks in the area think that Seattle annexation is the only choice. Right now, everything is about Seattle versus what we currently have (or don’t have). I would still like to see things presented as a three-way comparison of current versus Seattle versus Burien. I would like to see well-rounded information available about all the options available to us, so I feel like I’m making a truly informed choice.
March 12th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
It would be a question of annexing to Seattle, as part of a process that will either kick into high gear this month or die – Seattle going to the Boundary Review Board and a whole procedural array of things necessary to initiate an annexation. For something else – like an advisory vote saying “seattle? burien? none?” – someone would have to initiate a ballot measure, gather signatures, etc. – TR
March 12th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
For years, we have been listening to the CDA’s assertions of neutrality. Finally, the truth is out!
March 12th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Accusations, Liz, you’re full of them. You should respect others opinions and agree to disagree. With any hope the voters will have their say.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
With no visions or plans for North Highline offered by Seattle, what exactly would I be voting on? I know what they want, does Seattle know what we would like or do they even care.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Well I guess we know which way the CDA has been leaning this entire time. After years of having them say that they take no stance on either side of the issue.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
It is my understanding that regardless of “who” wants WC, it is up to the remaining residents of the unincorporated area (the geographic area left AFTER Burien annexed last year)to vote on whether they want to go to Seattle. So as I read the CDA’s letter, it just basically says to give residents the chance to vote. If residents say “no” then it is clear that the only option left is to go to Burien. What would be heartbreaking would be if folks say no to Seattle and Burien is unable to annex in the near-term. While “staying unincorporated” may feel like an option, it is not a realistic one, as KC will continue to starve these areas dry, providing less than adequate levels of service for rapidly urbanizing areas. My hope is that there is education around whatever option is presented. For example, reading here that WC would lose libraries if it went to Seattle felt like a pretty big blow…it would be great if someone like the NHUAC could create a side by side comparison for educational purposes rather than spending their time lobbying either way.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Kgdlg, both of those libraries are in complete control of Burien and King County. Seattle would fund the only library it had left in it’s new area. We can’t blame Seattle for the desicions that Burien and King County make.