Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts

Op-Ed: Deborah Buck vs City of Shoreline and CRISTA Ministries

Friday, April 6, 2012

Photo by Afia Menke, ND MA

Guest Editorial by Afia Menke, ND MA


On Tuesday evening, there appeared a beautiful rainbow in the gray, sun-lit sky. As I stopped to take a photo of the glorious colors, my neighbor, Deborah Buck, pulled up along side of my car. She asked me, “Do you know why there is such a beautiful rainbow? It’s because I won my case, I just found out!”

Deborah was referring to her suit against The City of Shoreline and Crista Ministries over a proposed Crista Ministries Master Plan.

Previous to her case, many Hillwood residents surrounding Crista Ministries fought with Crista and The City of Shoreline about the proposed Master Plan which would increase impervious surface area (via increased pavement for parking and buildings), increase the traffic flow in our tiny dead-end cul de sac by an estimated 1000 (+) trips /day, level 100(+) trees in Pilieated Woodpecker habitat, further disturb underground springs built over and damaged years ago and potentially destroy the historic sanatorium building on the Crista Ministries property. Residents attended City Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, attended Crista “community” meetings, wrote letters and made many public comments.

The City of Shoreline curiously seemed to collaborate with Crista on moving the Master Plan forward and the residents came away feeling thwarted by the way communication with the residents unfolded both by Crista Ministries and The City of Shoreline. To this date, many residents do not understand why The City of Shoreline, in particular, refused to honor our letters, comments, concerns and queries.

Deborah took Crista Ministries and The City of Shoreline to court and Deborah Buck lost her case in a lower court. At that point, I admit, I felt defeated. I thought taking both The City of Shoreline and Crista Ministries to court was too big of a battle for a little band of neighbors. I lowered my head, surrendered and instead I focused my efforts on other community development activities.

But Deborah Buck valiantly pressed on. She appealed her case to The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington with the help of her brother, Peter Buck, a well-known attorney. She felt that the City of Shoreline and Crista Ministries should have considered public comments in a more honoring way.

As a result of Deborah’s tenacity and passion that The City of Shoreline and Crista Ministries do the right thing, The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington ruled in Deborah’s favor, reversing the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals told The City of Shoreline and Crista Ministries that they must take into account all of the residents’ concerns, comments and letters before they press on with the Master Plan. This means, an Environmental Impact Statement will almost certainly be performed before implementing the “grand” Master Plan. In essence, this will either slow the destruction/construction of the Crista Master Plan or better yet, end it. We can only hope for the latter.

Deborah Buck and our citizen comments prevailed. We feel heard and vindicated. Maybe, we even saved our small cul de sac village, the Pilieated Woodpecker habitat and trees, the underground steams, the historic building and the peace of our neighborhood.

I feel taller since Deborah told me her good news. Instead of driving into my cul de sac dreading the day construction will commence, I think about the rainbow over King’s Elementary as a sign that our justice system can work and that neighbors, especially determined neighbors can make a difference.

This is one victory our neighborhood will celebrate. Thank you, Deborah Buck.


Photo by Afia Menke, ND MA




Read more...

Op-Ed: Great Decisions group is for those not afraid to look at foreign policy issues

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Larry Fuell, who lives in Edmonds, is Director of the Global Affairs Center and teaches Political Science at Shoreline Community College.

By Larry Fuell
  • Most voters don’t care about foreign policy issues, at least for choosing a Presidential candidate
  • Most candidate are risk averse, and there are too many uncontrollable variables in foreign policy to take a position on just about any issue in advance
  • Elections are lousy forums for discussing foreign policy

That, in a nutshell, is what I told a group of senior citizens recently. Most voters find issues like the war on terrorism, immigration reform, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uncomfortable to talk about. There is a strong isolationist streak in our culture and nothing aggravates it like these sorts of issues. Our electoral system highlights candidate personality rather substantive issue positions, and, anyway, there is little difference between candidates on foreign policy issues.

Most candidates are risk averse, meaning they prefer not to take positions in advance on issues they have little or no control over, and this includes nearly all foreign policy issues. Who would have predicted a year ago the kinds of changes happening today in the Middle East, and what it means for U.S. interests in that region? Who would have predicted even two weeks ago that our withdrawal from a difficult situation in Afghanistan would be complicated by a seemingly random shooting by a U.S. soldier?

But, if you do not think yourself to be like “most voters” or just enjoy talking about world affairs with like-minded citizens, we have just the opportunity for you in April and May. On six consecutive Thursday evenings, you are invited to learn about and discuss some of the most pressing issues of today, including:
  • Changes in the Middle East
  • The new challenge of Cybersecurity
  • Mexico’s war on drugs
  • Economic development in Indonesia
  • Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • Protecting ocean resources

Enrollment is limited to 25 persons in order to ensure this is a discussion, not a lecture series. So sign up soon by contacting me. Other details:

When: April 19 and 26; May 3, 10, 17 and 24, 6-8 pm
Where: Shoreline Community College, the PUB, 9202
Format: A short topic-specific video, brief comments by a guest specialist, followed by roundtable discussion.
Cost: Registration is Free; a short text of briefing papers on each of the topics will be available in late March at the SCC Bookstore (PUB 9114). $25 (est.)



Read more...

Op-Ed: Why you should care about the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units in Shoreline

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The brown building is the "mother-in-law apartment"
Photo by Carrie Kovacevich

Carrie Kovacevich lives next door to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" that took advantage of the loopholes in the regulations.

By Carrie Kovacevich, Briarcrest

The Shoreline City Council is currently considering a change to the Shoreline Municipal Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that would allow two houses to be built on lots in single-family residential neighborhoods throughout Shoreline, as long as lot coverage requirements are met.

An ADU is commonly called a mother-in-law or rental unit and can be located within the primary residence or in a detached structure. Shoreline Municipal Code 20.40.210D states that “accessory dwelling units shall not be larger than 50 percent of the living area of the primary residence.” Right now, if a house contains 1,500 square feet of living space, an accessory dwelling unit (whether located within the existing house or in a detached structure) cannot be larger than 50% of that, or 750 square feet.

The Council is now considering the addition of this language to the Code: “Attached accessory dwelling units where building square footage will not be increased by more than 10% may be larger than 50 percent of the primary residence.”

An attached accessory dwelling unit can be located in the upper or lower level of an existing two-story house, within a converted attached garage, in an addition to the original structure, or, as in the photographs provided, an entirely new house attached by a short wall to the existing house.

The original home with the ADU to the right.
This is legal construction under current rules.
Photo by Carrie Kovacevich

In our neighborhood, a new 3-bedroom house was built behind the original 3-bedroom house on the lot. It passed inspection as an “addition.” Under the new ordinance, the owners can now receive an ADU permit and rent out either the original house (1,100 square feet) or the new house that was recently built (2,400 square feet).

Why should we care?
  • Two Houses Per Lot are Possible. The proposed language allows an owner/investor to get a permit for an addition and build a second house on their lot which is attached to the original structure. After the “addition” is completed, they can apply for an ADU permit. They are not increasing the square footage by more than 10% because that was accomplished previously. Essentially, they are seeking a permit for an ADU that already exists!
  • Density and Parking. Shoreline allows up to 8 adults (with no limit on the number of minors) in every residence in Shoreline, regardless of the number of bedrooms. An ADU is considered a residence. That means as many as 16 adults and an unlimited number of children can live next door to you in the primary residence and its accessory dwelling unit.
  • Owner occupation. The ordinance does require that the owner or a close family member occupy either the primary residence or the ADU. An owner is more inclined to maintain the property and monitor their tenants’ activities. However, Shoreline Code Enforcement personnel indicate that it is extremely difficult to actually enforce owner occupation, particularly when it is a close family member, so this safeguard does not actually exist.
  • Decreased Quality of Single-Family Neighborhoods. Our neighborhood and most of Shoreline is zoned single-family residential. Yet this ordinance would allow two houses, attached by a short wall, to be built on single-family lots, in spite of this zoning.

This proposed ordinance can have significantly negative impacts on homeowners and residents of Shoreline due to increased density and damage to the quality of single-family residential neighborhoods. It can also have a negative impact on our property values,

I urge residents in Shoreline to write the Shoreline City Council as soon as possible and express their concerns about this ordinance and the new language being proposed. 

Please ask the Council to:
  1. limit the size of attached ADUs to 800 square feet
  2. require exterior alterations containing an accessory dwelling unit to be a design consistent with the primary building
  3. limit the number of people who can occupy the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit to no more than eight adults
  4. design a mechanism that ensures an owner resides there
The Shoreline City Council’s email contact information, or regular mail to 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA 98133-4905.

Corrected 3-15-2012 12:28am

Read more...

Op-Ed: King County Executive Dow Constantine condemns State Senate meltdown

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Budget, policy reversals have devastating impact on people of King County

From the Office of Dow Constantine, King County Executive

King County Executive Dow Constantine today expressed grave concern over the Republican-led budget proposal adopted in the early hours of this morning in the state Senate:

“Here in King County we have spent the past two years enacting methodical, thoughtful reform of local government across party lines. What happened this morning in the state Senate is the opposite of government reform. It is a political stunt that has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

“The Republican-led Senate vote in the wee hours of the morning robbed residents of an opportunity to see, much less comment on, a state budget that would have devastating impacts upon them. This proposed budget would:
  • Create more homeless and hungry families by eliminating food support for 12,000 families per month, cutting $202 million in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and reducing the time they can get benefits;
  • Take away child care assistance from as many as 4,000 working, single mothers and their children, senselessly denying moms the opportunity to work and support their families;
  • Eliminate treatment programs for 15,000 chemically-dependent residents, putting more addicts on the streets and, at great cost, putting more people in local jails who should be getting treatment;
  • Close the door on the future for up to 5,500 students in higher education and community and technical colleges through $30 million in cuts to tuition waivers and other support;
  • Slash public health grants by half, including cuts to defenses against epidemics and a very pointed attack on family-planning programs; and
  • Divert funds from local infrastructure, leading to further deterioration of local roads and utility systems and higher rates for publicly-owned utilities, such as sewer and water systems.

“The vote to further slash access to colleges like the UW and WSU is an attack on our economic recovery and the prospects of the next generation.

“The multiple votes against family planning and reproductive parity are in direct opposition to the values and interests of the vast majority of the people of King County.

“The Senate Republican budget uses gimmicks of its own and is not sustainable as has been portrayed. A companion bill essential to the budget, SB 6378, would suspend the contributions needed to cover shortfalls in several State pension systems for the next year, and simply shift these costs into the future.

The political stunt in the Senate also killed HB 2748, a bill King County put forward to enable much-needed efficiencies. This measure would have saved $1 million a year in the unnecessary overhead costs of maintaining separate local Flood and Ferry Districts, and redirected those funds into greater flood protection and water transit service for the people and businesses of King County. Again, reform derailed by political tricks.”



Read more...

Infopinion: Everyone has an opinion - Marriage Equality Act on track for passage in Washington state

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

By Diane Hettrick, Editor

The Marriage Equality Act, which extends the right of full and legal marriage to same-sex couples in Washington state passed the Senate on Wednesday evening. Having already passed in the House, it is expected to be passed by the full legislature sometime in the next week. Same sex marriage will be legal in Washington state.

Courtesy of TVW, I watched the live proceedings as the Senate committee on Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections listened to public testimony from anyone who signed up. Our Senator, Maralyn Chase, serves on this committee.

It was pretty fascinating. Religious leaders of several varieties were there. A rabbi, who said he had the largest Reform congregation in the state and was head of the Washington state Reform rabbis organization, said that Jews are in full support and see it as a matter of dignity and fairness. A Christian minister pointed out that religious organizations are not obliged to perform ceremonies just because a civil union is recognized by the state, so there's no reason for the state to hold back on religious grounds.

A Lutheran minister spoke in favor. Another Christian minister said his church was performing ceremonies for same-sex couples and was offended that the state did not honor those unions.

Representatives from the restaurant, catering, and tourist industry spoke in favor, for business and economic reasons. They envisioned more weddings, anniversaries, receptions, and suggested there would be an increase in tourism as couples came to Washington to marry.

A genial Catholic priest said that the Roman Catholic church was in opposition. A scary woman delivered a staccato speech, using every second of the alloted time to talk about the harm this would do to children and family structure. She turned out to be from out of state.

Finally, there were many stories from people in domestic partnerships, who had been bludgeoned with bureaucracy when one of the couple was hospitalized. The domestic partnerships aren't enough, they said. We were still prevented from being with our partner when they needed us.

And that was just one hour. I understand that a wedding photographer complained he would be forced to take photos of people he didn't approve of (and who would want to pay money to have that black cloud at their wedding?). The Washington state AFL-CIO endorsed, as did Microsoft and Starbucks.

The Metropolitan King County Council passed a resolution in support, as did the Shoreline City Council, unanimously.

Mayor Keith McGlashan travelled to Olympia to watch the proceedings.

Read more...

Commentary: Evan Smith - thoughts on the Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

By Evan Smith
Contributing Writer

As I write this, people are gathering for presidential caucuses in Iowa. It reminds me of attending a caucus in Shoreline seven and a half years ago.

I went to my neighborhood Democratic caucus in 2004.

People signed in as supporters of Howard Dean, John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich. I signed in as “uncommitted.“

I came away with three negative opinions:

  • The attendance was unrepresentative; thirteen people attended from my precinct, a precinct that usually has more than a hundred Democratic voters.
  • There was no discussion, either about the candidates or anything else; everyone stayed with the candidates that they came in supporting; one woman wanted to discuss the Party’s stand on the blanket primary, an issue that was then current, but everyone wanted to choose delegates for their candidates and get out.
  • Everyone who signed in got on Democratic lists; my son and I have been getting Party mail for seven and a half years.

We know that a primary allows more participation and more privacy, but we also know that it costs money that the State doesn’t have, So, in presidential years, let’s move our State primary to June, include a section on which voters would declare a private-choice party preference for the section that includes the presidential primary and require parties to choose at least 85 percent of their delegates through the primary system or lose major-party status.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Statement from GOV WATCH

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Gov Watch would like to congratulate all candidates participating in elections for Lake Forest Park council and mayor positions. With the combination of campaign pamphlets from candidates, public forums, newspaper editorials and letters to editors, neighborhood coffees and Gov Watch pamphlets, the campaigns provided citizens with unprecedented information to determine their voting preferences.

It is most gratifying to read and hear all candidates pledge to address the budget issues without raising taxes and without expenditures exceeding revenues. All citizens will be interested and following the course of events as the new budget is developed. We encourage all citizens to attend Council meetings and remain engaged over events and issues.

Congratulations to those candidates who prevailed. The citizens of Lake Forest Park are counting on your efforts to retain the quality of our services with the revenues available. We recognize these tasks shall not be easily met given the economic times we are in but we have confidence you will find the checks and balances necessary to see our City through these times.

Lake Forest Park is more a community than a city, more residential in character than our neighbors and certainly more involved in community affairs. Yes, we may have different views politically but we all share the same sense of values, respect one another and enjoy the fellowship that a small town provides. It is in that spirit that we wish all newly elected officials success in the coming years.

Jack Tonkin
Committee Member


Read more...

Op-Ed: Shorewood's football finale - a "meaningless" win? Not if you were there

Monday, November 7, 2011

By Frank Workman

Shorewood’s football finale Friday night may not have seemed to matter much in the Grand Scheme of Things, but their 36-30 overtime win over an evenly-matched and equally-gritty Squalicum team served as yet another reminder of the pure and entertaining nature of High School sports.

On a weekend that saw the sport’s best teams playing ‘meaningful’ playoff games, don’t believe for one second that this game held no meaning to the two teams involved.

It had to have meant something to the Storm’s sophomore tailback Luke Weber, who carried the ball for over 200 yards in his 40 + carries. Weber was so gassed from his efforts that he wasn’t able to answer the bell at the start of the overtime period. His absence, coupled with SW’s inspired defense, contributed to the T-Birds’ goal line stand.

The game had to have meant a lot to Squalicum’s massive senor receiver Lucas Potes. This 6’ 3”, 210-pound senior trudged off the field as slowly as a human being possibly can walk, crying all the way. When he collapsed, sobbing, into his father’s arms, it was impossible to tell if he had lost a ‘meaningless’ football game or the state championship.

It was obvious that winning the game meant a lot to Eugene Holley, SW’s mainstay running back. His winning TD set off a grand celebration for his teammates, the likes of which have been few and far between for the T-Birds of late. The post-game hug he shared with a coach lasted so long, it could have been timed with a calendar instead of a stopwatch. One can only imagine how many moms, dads, grandmas, and grandpas in attendance were warmed on the frosty night with similar hugs, and left with a memory that will last them a lifetime.

Time will only tell if the outcome of this game will hold any lasting meaning for Head Coach Rob Petschl, the outstanding coaching staff he has assembled, and the T-Bird football program.

You would think ending the season on a high note like this would give encouragement to the returning players to spend more off-season time in the weight room, and would inspire those boys who haven’t participated in the past to turn out for the team next year.

If so, then there would seem to have been a lot of significance to Friday’s ‘meaningless’ win.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Ronald Wastewater District has become an island without any bridges

Saturday, October 22, 2011

By Sis Polin

I retired from the position of General Manager of Ronald Wastewater District in 1990.  I was with the District for 25 years; I worked my way up from the lowest ranks to that position.  I am proud to say that I played a major role, along with the previous commissioners, in establishing the basic foundation in the financial and maintenance areas that has made the District what it is today.

I was also very community-oriented and was involved with the formation of the City of Shoreline and served on its first Planning Commission.  I served on many Boards at King County.  I served on a “think tank” whose charge was to come up with a state solution to fund public works projects when federal money dried up.  The Public Works Trust Fund was approved by the legislature and the Governor appointed me to the first Board.  The City and Ronald benefitted by getting low interest loans.

Why do I tell you all of this about myself and why am I writing this article?  Ronald has become an island without any bridges.  Since the subject of Ronald’s future has apparently become a campaign issue and since there is a lack of factual content , I thought it was time for me to speak up with my perception of Ronald.

The most obvious to me is the lack of transparency.  There is a lot of PR on the Ronald web page but it lacks substantive information. For example: 

1. They do not have their proposed or draft budget on line.  In fact, I was surprised to see that they announced there would be no increase in the “local” $11.15 rate and on the same site announced a budget hearing on November 22.  I don’t know how you can determine a rate, if you haven’t approved a budget yet.  Seems a little premature!

2. Along with the announcement about the “local” rate, there was nothing mentioned about the King County Metro portion of the bill, which is substantial.  Why not put all the facts out about what the bill will be, especially since the Metro portion is $30+?  How involved is the District in the Metro budget process? I saw a reference that said if you had questions, call our King County Councilman for information. Really?
 

3. Why is the rate resolution not published on the webpage? (I did find the Rules and Regulations on there.)

4. The Web site does not have a standard format to publish monthly agendas, budget proposals, and the budget process schedule.   Meeting dates seem to change along with meeting times.  I did find quite a bit of information online regarding numerous legal appeals that the District lost over a union issue.  It finally ended when the employee withdrew her application.  What did that cost?

5. The District contracts with lawyers, engineers, and financial firms.  Is there a bidding process for this and why are these contractors not listed on their page?  Transparent?  Not really!

6. I have a big issue about rental apartments which is too detailed to discuss here, but I’ll raise one question.  The District has a low income policy; is it addressed in low income housing that is in our City?  This is a whole segment of residents for which there is no transparency .

I am disturbed that scare tactics -  of higher utility taxes, sewers overflowing, and raiding the capital improvement fund  -  without any kind of facts to back up these statements, are irresponsible.
  
When Shoreline became a City, the District entered into an agreement with the City. From my recollections, the thinking at the time was that Shoreline needed time to get organized, deal with planning, zoning, etc. and after some specific date, which is now approaching, the process would begin to absorb the wastewater district.

I could probably come up with many other questions, because I was fortunate to be on the inside.  But the ratepayers are on the outside and there has to be a better method than the District is using to keep them informed and give them an opportunity to be involved in the decision process if they so choose.

Decisions have to be made based on facts, not emotions.  That is transparency!


Read more...

Op-Ed: LFP residents: Act like civil human beings

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Sarah Sue Burich is a bicycle commuter who lives in North Seattle and must pass through Lake Forest Park on the Burke Gilman detour twice a day.  She has found it a frustrating and frightening experience.

To residents of Lake Forest Park,

I am a bike commuter and have to admit, Burke-Gilman construction is obnoxious. It is an inconvenience for everyone. I can understand how awful it is living right across from it. It is an eye sore, noisy, tons of construction dudes hanging out in your front yard. It is an adjustment for all, especially with new bikers on the street, creating additional hazard and stress to drives home. 

It is also stressful for us bikers as well. The new detour is longer, tiring and a lot more interface with traffic. We do not want this bike trail construction going on as much as you do! Unfortunately, it is one of our only options right now.

I make an effort to be a conscientious and safe biker. I can understand how nerve wracking it can be to drive by bikers. I’ve been in your position many times. 

However, I strongly believe that we have just as much right to be on these roads as anyone else. We are very aware of you on the roads. My intention when I get on my bike is for safety and defensive biking. 

It is difficult when there are road-enraged drivers that decide that they need to make a point and swerve at us. 
I was recently driven off the road. 
I cannot understand why bullying and endangering a human life is okay? 
What if you found out your daughter, sister or spouse was victim of such road rage? How would that feel? I want to emphasize that these bikers you see that seem like a nuisance to you are human beings. Scaring them by honking, swerving and harassing them will not only fuel your own anger, but risk hurting someone.

I request adapting to this construction until it passes like civil human beings and acknowledging the other perspective. Thank you for your consideration.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Property Taxes: separating myths from facts

Thursday, September 22, 2011

By Janne Kaje
Kaje is a ten-year Shoreline resident, volunteer Planning Commission member since 2008, and co-chair of Friends of Aldercrest, a neighborhood non-profit that helped to forge the agreement on the School District owned Aldercrest property.

Last year, Shoreline residents resoundingly approved “Proposition 1,” a property tax increase to support basic city services. Lake Forest Park voters chose the opposite path, thumping their version of Prop.1 by a wide margin. 
This year, the issue of property taxes is again center stage in LFP, this time in the mayoral race. Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding or an intentional mischaracterization of how property taxes work in Washington State.

A previous writer complained that property values are falling but the LFP city council keeps raising the tax rate, and are considering another increase from the tax year 2011 rate of $1.39 per $1000 to $1.54 for 2012. If property values have gone down 10% this year as the writer suggests, then this increase actually makes perfect sense for a status quo budget. 

Why? Raising the current rate (actually $1.39551) to 1.54 is a slightly more than 10% increase. If your house value decreases by 10% and the tax rate goes up 10%, it is roughly a wash. 

Example: Your home value this year is $400,000, but drops to $360,000 next year. 2011 city taxes = 400 x 1.39551 = $558.20. 2012 city taxes = 360 x 1.54 = $554.40. You just saved about $4.00 despite the higher rate

But not all property values change by the same amount. Using King County iMap and links to property tax records, I took a sample of ten LFP homes from various neighborhoods. 
 As it turns out, in LFP, the biggest percentage drops in assessed value seem to have been on the lowest valued properties, down as much as 20% in just a few years, while the highest value homes along the waterfront have only lost 0-3% on average. Some of those have even appreciated.

So, the owners of higher-end homes are likely to pay more in real dollars if the rate increase goes through, while some other folks may even pay less than they had before. A friend of mine with a modest home on NE 205th would see her bill rise by less than $7.

So what is the city’s track record? Are they really raising taxes every year while residents struggle with tough economic times? Let’s look at the numbers, all of which are easily available from the King County Assessor website, if you do just a little digging in the Data and Reports section

The total value of all real property in LFP dropped 4% from 2010 to 2011, and a whopping 13% from 2009 to 2010. For tax year 2011, it all adds up to just over two billion dollars in total value and about $2.8 million in city property tax collections. That is 0.6% more in taxes than in 2010, which was 1.5% more than in 2009, which was 1.4% more than in 2008. 

Hardly a spending spree when you consider sharply escalating health care costs, fuel costs and contractual increases in employee compensation. Hence the layoffs. Of course the city's other sources of revenue, such as sales tax, are also down, so the overall picture is not even status quo.

Is it likely that the city will raise the rate to $1.54? Not really. The County Assessor's site hasn't posted the total property values for 2012 by city, but based on my quick analysis, I'm guessing that values have dropped by about 6% on average. 

By state law, the city can only raise the total amount it collects via property taxes by 1% annually absent a public vote, except for increases due to new construction. If my estimate is correct, and the city aims for the 1% net increase, then the LFP Council would increase the rate to about $1.50.

The bottom line is that the city tax rate doesn’t tell you anything about whether the city is actually spending more or less than last year. For that, you have to look at the budget itself, and I strongly recommend that residents take the time to go to council meetings and share their views on priorities. During 2011, the average LFP homeowner (average home value is $415,900) pays about $1.59 per day for their city government. Small drip coffee, anyone?


Read more...

Guest Editorial: American Legion Commander endorses the veterans' levy out of first-hand experience

Sunday, July 31, 2011

By Thomas F. Drapac

Thomas F. Drapac is the Commander of the Starr Sutherland Jr. Post No. 227 of the American Legion, Department of Washington, located in Shoreline. He was instrumental in bringing the veterans in Shoreline together to support the new Veteran's Day observance in Shoreline.


In my opinion, the King County Veterans and Human Services Levy is one of the most successful, local, publicly funded assistance programs in the country.

This levy was of personal assistance to me in 2005-2006 and I can attest that it works.

As a Navy Vietnam (1965-69) era veteran I didn’t think anything was wrong with drinking a case of beer or more every day. I went through wives and jobs like water running over a dam. It took nearly four decades of abuse for me to hit bottom.

In 2004-2005 my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) problems totally took over my life. To say my brain went into the “land of stupid” would be an understatement. I lost my businesses, wife, cars and property.

I discovered leather isn’t rain proof.

With the help of our VA folks and the Salvation Army William Booth Center transitional housing (supported partially by the King County levy), I am now a reliable citizen. And I try to help other veterans in need by my activity in veteran’s service organizations.

What we have in this King County veterans levy is tax dollars that are going to proven programs that work. 

Do I still have problem with this “PTSD” stuff … yes. But my coping skills are better and I’ve learned that booze and drugs aren’t the answer. Thank you for your support is what I have to say to my King County friends and fellow veterans.



Read more...

Op-Ed: We can’t afford to lose bus service

Friday, July 1, 2011

by King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson
Bob Ferguson represents District 1 (which includes Shoreline and Lake Forest Park) on the Metropolitan King County Council. His e-mail is bob.ferguson@kingcounty.gov.

As a regular bus commuter on the #41 from Northgate, I get a first-hand perspective on our transit system in King County. 

At 6:45 p.m., on a jam-packed bus last week, my bus had to leave commuters behind at the last downtown stop because there was not enough room to get them home. From my experience, it is evident that our community can’t afford to lose bus service.

Within the next month, the King County Council has to come to terms with a “Sophie’s Choice” – make heavy cuts to critical bus service or impose a $20 Congestion Reduction Charge.

King County Metro Transit faces a precipitous revenue shortfall as a result of the recession-driven decline in sales-tax revenue, which is Metro’s primary source of funding. Without new funding, 17 percent of all bus service will be eliminated. These service cuts would be the rough equivalent of eliminating all rush-hour or all weekend service in King County.

To keep our current level of bus service rolling, King County Executive Dow Constantine recently proposed a temporary $20 Congestion Reduction Charge on vehicle licenses for each of the next two years.

The Washington State Legislature authorized the imposition of the $20 Congestion Reduction Charge exclusively for King County because of the work we have already done to find efficiencies and reduce administrative costs. Over the past several years, the Council has overseen sweeping reforms of Metro Transit that have generated nearly $400 million in savings, including staff reductions, operational efficiencies, labor partnerships, fare increases, the cancellation of bus replacements, and the tapping of cash reserves.

In addition, the Council is poised to adopt a new strategic plan for Metro Transit. Following policy direction from the Regional Transit Task Force, the new plan will do away with the old 40/40/20 policy, a failed formula that required any new revenue to be spent on transit service according to arbitrary geographic lines – not on ridership. Under the old policy, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park were lumped together with Seattle and received only 20¢ of every dollar towards new service. The new policy will put productivity first, ensuring that our transit dollars are spent efficiently on those routes that get people where they need to go.

After considerable thought, I have decided to support the Executive’s proposed $20 Congestion Reduction Charge. This decision was not an easy one. Families are struggling in this economy, and I do not take fee decisions lightly. However, families and workers rely on transit everyday to get to their jobs and to get their children to school.

We have stretched our shrinking dollars as far as we can. Without revenue growth, service must be cut. The new revenues generated by the Congestion Reduction Charge are vital to preserving the bus service we need to keep our community and our economy moving. We simply can’t afford to lose bus service.

More information about the routes affected by service cuts if the Council fails to take action is available on the King County website

Read more...

Aldercrest Proposal: A big win for parks, a model for collaboration

Sunday, February 13, 2011

by Janne Kaje, Co-Chair, Friends of Aldercrest

On Thursday, February 17, the Shoreline Planning Commission will decide whether to recommend proposed changes to zoning and land use at Aldercrest Annex, the 16-acre School District site that many in Shoreline remember as ‘Old Kellogg’. 

If approved, the proposal will create a new 6 to 7 acre permanent city park, while allowing higher-density development on the remainder, with several provisions in place to buffer neighboring properties from new development. How big is 6 to 7 acres? As a point of reference, Paramount Park is about 8.5 acres in size - this will be a fantastic addition to the city’s park roster! But for the Ballinger neighborhood, this is really about saving existing open space that we had enjoyed for decades, before realizing how close we were to losing it forever.

How did we do it? In a dire economic climate for the city and School District, and in a city with an unfortunate tradition in recent years of bickering and negative politics rather than teamwork, it is amazing and hope-inspiring that we have a plan in hand that is a win for the School District, a win for the neighborhood, and a win for the city. 

This could not have happened without the willingness of the District as the property owner to work toward a solution and to trust the intentions of the neighborhood groups. It also could not have happened without the support of the City Council who directed the city manager and staff to make this process a high priority over the past eight months. Getting the right folks to the table was a big part of the battle, but other aspects of the process were equally important.

Everyone who participated in the negotiations truly sought to understand the interests and challenges faced by the other parties. The reality is that the District owns the property and has a right and obligation to sell it for fair market value. The community representatives understood and respected that fact from the outset. By recognizing and respecting the rights and interests of all parties, we were able to hit the ground running.

Sometimes the actions and stated positions of public officials are viewed as reflective of personal beliefs, and criticism is launched in personal terms. The participants in this process came to the table trusting that each of us personally had the best interest of the community in mind, but understanding that professional responsibilities define many of the boundaries for negotiation.

As neighborhood representatives, we understood from the outset that in the absence of an agreement, the entire 16 acres would be developed, possibly at single-family density, but more likely at much higher density considering the surrounding land uses and location.Would we have liked to secure even more space for a park? Of course. But a realistic understanding of the alternative to an agreement can go a long way toward defining reasonable boundaries for negotiation.

Thursday’s public hearing is an opportunity to support parks and to support collaboration as a path forward on other issues that we are sure to face in the years ahead

Make your voice heard at the hearing or by sending comments to the Planning Commission.

Read more...

COMMENTARY / EVAN SMITH: No battle to control redistricting here

Tuesday, November 2, 2010


TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010
By Evan Smith
ShorelineAreaNews Politics Writer

We’re hearing a lot about Democrats and Republicans fighting for control of state legislatures because of legislators’ role in drawing Congressional and legislative districts.

In most states, legislatures redraw the district lines after the census every ten years, usually to the majority party’s advantage.

It can’t happen here.

Your vote for 32nd District State legislator won’t affect Congressional and legislative redistricting.

That’s because, a few decades ago, the Washington Legislature gave the power to draw district lines to a bipartisan commission.

Next year, State Senate Democrats, State Senate Republicans, State House Democrats and State House Republicans will each name a commissioner. Those four will agree on a non-partisan chairman, someone who has no history with either party.

Washington made the change after a couple of bad experiences.

When the 1950 census gave Washington a seventh seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Eastern and Central Washington legislators knew it would have to be in Western Washington; so, they stalled the process, while the State elected a congressman at large for three cycles.

After the 1962 “one-man, one-vote” decision, legislators couldn’t agree on districts. Voters settled it with an initiative.

In the 1980s, legislators punished a Republican legislator by putting his Mountlake Terrace home into a district with this solidly Democratic area.

Read more...

Op-ed: Vote No on Proposition 1

Friday, October 22, 2010


Arthur Peach
Arthur Peach is the Chair of the No on Prop 1 Committee

We need fundamental financial reform in Shoreline. Proposition 1 raises taxes, but makes only gesture, not a real promise, toward maintaining the services. It would allow the City to use the additional revenue any way it sees fit. The City of Redmond faced a shortfall similar to ours several years ago and addressed it with a fundamental reformation of the way it constructed its budget. According to Redmond Mayor Marchione the result has been a 9% decrease in expenses while maintaining all services (SEATTLE TIMES, OCTOBER 5). If Redmond can cut expenses and keep services, Shoreline can too!

Raising property taxes will create a greater problem for our City; more businesses will leave, more homes will go up for sale or worse, go into foreclosure. Shoreline already pays the highest cumulative property tax rate in King County. Proponents of Proposition 1 argue that Shoreline only receives about $0.10 on the dollar, but do not take into account the issues that arise with the effects of cumulative taxes on the citizens. The City needs to adjust to the reality that we are all facing - we have to do more with less.

Retaining services during an economic downturn is always difficult. What few people know is that each year for the last 10 years the City has transferred on average $1.4 million from the Operating Budget to the Capital Improvement Projects. The City needs to correct the structural gap between expenses and revenues. The City has not reevaluated employee health care plans since 2003. We could save money and protect health care coverage at the same level by reevaluating. We could develop a larger retail sales tax base, creating incentives to keep existing businesses and recruit new ones, instead of driving them out. We could move the police department to City Hall. We need solutions, not a tax that leaves a structural problem for future Shoreline residents.

We can see the City through this crisis without raising taxes.

Vote No on Proposition 1.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Mayor and Deputy Mayor speak on Shoreline Proposition 1

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Keith McGlashan is the Mayor, City of Shoreline

Before you sit down and begin checking the boxes of yes/no offerings and then move on to the this person/that person offerings I would like to tell you a little bit about Shoreline Proposition 1.

We knew the day was coming that we would have to go out and ask the citizens for a levy lid lift way before I was on the council. I have been on the Shoreline City Council since January 2006 and there has not been an annual budget review where this was not discussed and that changes in policy and efficiencies were put into place to ward off the pending deficiencies for as long as possible.

The 2001 Eyman initiative (I-747) put every municipality on equal ground as other taxing jurisdictions. What it did was to say… municipalities could not raise property taxes more than 1% per year without approval of the voters. I-747 passed state wide but was not supported by the City of Shoreline tax payers. Since its passage in 2001 the City of Shoreline has been held to that 1% increase although inflation alone averaged about 3% to 4% per year. Therefore it is no surprise that we find ourselves at this crossroad.

When you look at your property tax statement you, like myself, are shocked at the amount of taxes we pay to live in Shoreline. But 90% of those taxes go to other entities like King County, the Port of Seattle, and EMS services. We have also been a very generous and supporting community with our school district and fire district. Only approximately 10% of the property taxes you pay go to the city of Shoreline to provide the services that create the quality of life we all enjoy in Shoreline.

So where do cuts take place if Prop 1 fails?

We have heard from the community and public safety is of utmost importance to them, so I am sure there is council support to do what we can to protect our police services. Where the council would agree to make cuts is anyone's guess, but a few items on the table could be… human services, sports programs, after school programs, city granting programs, the Shoreline pool, school resource officer(s), park maintenance or closures. I’m not sure where the council will make the deep cuts that will have to be made, but I am sure that the value of life we all care about in Shoreline will be greatly effected.

Prop 1 is to continue the current services that the City of Shoreline provides to its citizens. There are no employee pay increases and no new programs included. Even with the passage of Prop 1 there will still be challenges ahead of us in these recessionary times. Retail sales tax and real estate excise tax, among other sources of revenue, continue to lag behind previous levels, and there are other initiatives on the ballot (I-1100 and I-1105) that if passed, will effect our budget greatly.

I ask your support for keeping Shoreline a great place to live and to vote yes for Proposition 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Will Hall is the Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline

As someone who cares about Shoreline, your decision on Proposition 1 is important. If approved, the city can maintain our parks, police, and community services. If not, there will be major, permanent cuts in services that we need to keep Shoreline a great place to live. I'd like to share why I'm asking you to join me in voting "Yes" on Shoreline Proposition 1.

Our community formed the City of Shoreline 15 years ago to preserve our great schools and to get better services than we got from King County. We've done that. Crime is down. Flooding is down. Our parks are better. We have miles of new sidewalks and the Interurban Trail. We have a vibrant senior center and great programs for youth. The list goes on and on. Please vote Yes on Proposition 1 to protect these important improvements.

In the past ten years (since Tim Eyman's initiatives), the city's property tax levy increased 9% while inflation increased 27%. In real dollars, that means we are giving the city 18% less property tax than we did in 2000! The city has done an amazing job of cutting costs by over $2 million to make ends meet. The city cut employee health benefits, eliminated cost-of-living adjustments for two years, slashed travel budgets, reduced staff, and made dozens of other cuts in administrative expenses. And still, Shoreline is one of the best places to live in the region. That's an incredible value, and a tribute to the fiscally conservative work of city leadership.

As a result, the City of Shoreline is one of the most efficient cities in the state, with 25% fewer employees than comparable cities, employee salaries below comparable cities, and one of the lowest city property tax rates in the region. There simply is no more waste or excess to cut in the city budget without eliminating entire programs.

Without Proposition 1, the city will have to make $14 million in cuts to the services that make this a great, and safe, place to live. If we want to preserve what makes our city special, we need to vote "Yes" on Proposition 1.

I know the economy is in terrible shape right now. Many of my neighbors are unemployed, living on fixed income, or hurting financially. I've had my pay reduced two years in a row. My wife hasn't seen a raise in years. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. But I don't want to turn my back on people who depend on city services during these difficult times.

What do you like best about living in Shoreline? People tell me they want to live in a safe community with clean streets, free parks for kids to play, and city staff that work to protect our neighborhoods. For an average of $7.60 per household per month, we can preserve those things and still have a great city for a bargain price.

If you have questions, please let me know. You can also learn more from the city's website.  Thank you for caring about our community and this important choice.  

Please vote "Yes" on Shoreline Proposition 1.

Read more...

Op-Ed: The Ballot Initiatives – From a Human Services Perspective

Sunday, October 17, 2010


Beratta Gomillion is the Executive Director of the Center for Human Services, a community-based, not-for-profit youth and family services agency since 1970, located at 17018 15th NE in Shoreline's North City neighborhood, serving Shoreline and Northshore families.

Op-Ed by Beratta Gomillion
As Executive Director of the Center for Human Services I have analyzed the upcoming ballot’s state and county initiatives with the eyes of how they will impact non-profit human services. The following synopsis contains my personal opinions as a private citizen.

Initiatives 1100 and 1105

These two initiatives were written by large corporations who want to sell liquor. We should be concerned about how these initiatives, if passed, will increase the number of outlets selling hard liquor from the current 315 to at least 3,350 (according to the sate auditor’s report) and how these establishments (gas stations, mini-marts, convenience stores, etc.) are much more apt to sell to minors. But, in addition, you should know that the current system (state-run liquor stores) are not only closely regulated but also brings in about $350 million to state and local governments for core services like education, health care, human services, police and fire fighters. The Office of Finance Management says the I-1100 would cost the state and local governments $275 million over 5 years and I-1105 would reduce revenue by more than $750 million. The Center for Human Services would lose approximately $26,000 from the City of Shoreline alone that goes toward providing substance abuse treatment to youth and adults. I urge a “NO” vote on these.

Initiative 1107

This initiative would repeal the small, mostly temporary tax on non-essential items like candy, soda, bottled water and gum. I admit that there are some issues about this existing tax around what is taxed and what is exempted from being taxed, but human services cannot afford for this tax to be repealed. The money that is raised by the tax goes to fund schools, health care, and human services. This initiative is almost entirely sponsored by the American Beverage Association (the national lobbying arm of the big soda companies). A “no” vote is a vote for your community.

Initiative 1053

This initiative established a “two thirds” rule on any revenue-raising bills. In other words, it gives a small minority (17 legislators) the ability to prevent the majority from taking action on a responsible, balanced approach to the budget. If I-1053 had been in place this year, more families would have been cut from the Basic Health Plan and lost health care coverage for their children. Please vote “no”.

My hope is that everyone will read the “for” and “against” statements in the voters guide very carefully to understand the real impacts of voting for them. 


Read more...

Evan Smith: Feeling betrayed on the loss of the Museum at Ronald School

Friday, September 17, 2010

COMMENTARY/Evan Smith

By Evan Smith
ShorelineAreaNews Politics Writer

I was one of the 426 voters who provided the margin that the Shoreline School bond issue needed to exceed the required 60 percent for passage.

A few weeks before the February election, I was prepared to vote against the school-construction bond issue because building the new Shorewood High School meant moving the Shoreline Historical Museum from the 98-year-old Ronald School building that it has occupied for 35 years.

Then, in late January, the School District and the Museum board announced the now-famous “agreement in principle.” under which the School District would give the Museum clear title to the building in exchange for the Museum’s moving the building to an adjacent site and dropping its opposition to the bond.

The deal seemed impractical, particularly moving the old stone building, even if it was just across a parking lot, and it seemed to favor the School District, which could build the new high school without having to keep the historic façade of the Ronald building.

Yet, many of us dropped our skepticism when we saw people from both sides celebrating the agreement. People who rarely agreed on anything were joining to promote the bond issue.

Now, we see that it was a sham agreement between a cynical School District and a gullible Museum board, both of whom should have known that there was a possibility that someone else would buy the land to which the building was to be moved.

There’s a tendency to accuse the School District of a land grab, but the District probably knows that the School will be harder to design and build around the Ronald building than it would have been with the building gone.

The Museum board has never been very adept at asserting its position. When the Museum needed space to add an elevator to make it accessible to the handicapped, it gave the School District the right to buy the building for a nominal payment.

I need to take some responsibility. If we cripples hadn’t been so assertive in the 1990s, organizations like the Museum wouldn’t have felt the need to add elevators. In retrospect, I would give up my right to use the Museum in exchange for its being available to my children.

Read more...

Evan Smith: Let’s get back to a true Memorial Day

Monday, May 31, 2010

COMMENTARY/ EVAN SMITH

Memorial Day has become a time for the first fling of summer.

It should be what our grandparents called “Decoration Day,” a day set aside to decorate the graves of our ancestors.

It was conceived as a day to honor those who died in war, but many families, like mine, who don’t have veterans to honor, visited the graves of departed relatives.

Much of that changed in the 1970s, when Congress moved Memorial Day from its traditional May 30 date to the last Monday in May.

People who take advantage of the three-day holiday miss the festive nature of a cemetery on Memorial Day with the fresh flowers and the flags put up by veterans ‘ groups.

I usually can’t make it to the family plot, but I’m lucky to have a cousin who goes every year. He reports on decorating the family graves and even the one nearby grave of a man that no one seems to know.

Photo: Decorated grave of William J. "Jim" Harris, Civil War veteran


Read more...
ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP