Kirkland Annexation, Part Three

I still haven't made up my mind, but I wanted to clarify, since I suspect visitors looking for my perspective on this subject will begin to arrive soon:

Although I'm certainly for annexation on an emotional level (it will make my house worth more money, and I want to sell in the next couple of years,) I can still be sold that it wouldn't make sense on a logistical level. I just need more information. Unfortunately, the anti-annexation sites aren't really doing a bang-up job of making the case against annexation.

I'm glad to be involved in this discussion though, it's nice to finally roll up my sleeves and hop into a local issue after living here for almost five years.

Add: I also think it's crap that Kirkland residents can't vote on this issue. Lame.

Kirkland Annexation, Part Two [UPDATE 2]

This being Seattle's Eastside, it's not surprising that there are a few other bloggers with some opinions on the proposed Kirkland annexation of my neighborhood. And of the three blogs I found about it, all three were anti-annexation. All three also happened to be located in Kirkland.

There's the rather alarmistly-named Save Kirkland [UPDATE: Since this morning, this blog has been taken offline; UPDATE 2: This blog might have been relocated to the still-rather-alarmistly-named "SaveKirkland.com, which has its own "Annexation Blog"], whose owner seems to have lost interest after last December, when the final update was made. And there are two others that express very rational opinions about the proposed annexation, both local bloggers who happened to blog their thoughts about it: the Kirkland Weblog and Steve Lacey's blog.

I'm not surprised that some Kirkland residents are against this; although the City Council's reason for annexation is to increase their tax revenue (and judging by the document "Dollars and Cents" (PDF) on their site, their current budget deficit needs to change somehow), the residents seem to think that the services they enjoy and we long for would be spread "far too thin" according to Steve Lacey.

Could be. I'd have to see some evidence of that either way, and the last thing I'd want is to go from crappy emergency service to crappier emergency services. The Kirkland Weblog goes into a little more depth:

Our small town would suddenly rival the size of Kent. Throw in another 30,000 people and we're Bellevue. That means big expenses to expand our police/fire services/city hall/sidewalks/sewers/garbage/etc. There is a proposed new 75 bed jail in the plan, but mysteriously no one seems to know where that would be located. The state offers a kickback type incentive to make annexation more feasible, but that's only for ten years. Then what? The financial picture is troublesome. Unfortunately, the 'PAA' is primarily residential and doesn't have many revenue producing/ economic development opportunities to offer up as an offset to the expenses it would create for our city.

But reading through some of the online conversation, there's also this meme:

[M]ost importantly, the small town feel of Kirkland is what makes it so charming.

To me, that smacks of the country club saying "well, there's plenty of economic reasons we shouldn't let them in, but the pale white color around the golf course is what makes it so charming (wink wink)." No, that's not an accusation of racism: it's a function of a close, united social group who naturally doesn't want to allow any newcomers into the group. It's no different than a social community online: how welcome are newcomers into tight-knit communities, especially specialized ones? Answer: not very.

Both blogs informed me of something I didn't know: that Kirkland residents don't actually get to vote on annexation. I don't know what I think about that. I feel like sure, I might be invited to the party, but the other guests really don't want me there.

I'm going to reserve further opinion until I attend one of the annexation meetings, but expect to see more discussion about this issue in this space soon.

Take Me, Please!

As Jeff Grubb has often reminded me in the past, all politics is local. So it was with some interest that I received a postcard in the mail this Saturday with a notice that the City of Kirkland is looking to annex my neighborhood and a couple of the surrounding areas.

My neighborhood exists in a really strange place. Right across the street - literally - is Kirkland, a really nice bedroom community synonymous with multi-million dollar waterfront condos, a picture-perfect downtown that has a reasonable (for the Eastside) amount of nightlife, coiffed lawns, coiffed dogs being walked by coiffed young women who are seeing very rich men who drive Lotus' and Porsches'.

And just up the street is Bothell, which is as if someone transplanted a small mountain town into the middle of the Eastside and slapped a bunch of industry in it.

My neighborhood sits in a kind of no-man's land between it all. We're technically "unincorporated King County," which means neither city claims us (although we're served by Bothell's post office, so technically we have a Bothell address.) It means we can't call the local smokies if there's trouble - we have to call the King County Sheriff. It also means that people in our neighborhood can turn our cul-de-sac into Little Beirut on the 4th of July with literally pickup-trucks full of fireworks. Not that I mind, but it makes it hard to sleep.

There's also a stigma against Bothell. "Bothell." It kind of rolls out of Seattlites' mouths like "Kent" and "Renton" and "Republicans." Kirkland, on the other hand, sounds like a fellow you'd want to invite over for dinner. I admit, there's a little bit of envy: a Kirkland address is desirable.

So that's my interest in annexation: I want a Kirkland address, because it ought to make the property value of my house go up. I also would sleep a little better knowing I could call the cops and they'd take less than an hour to show up. And frankly, the idea of putting the kibosh on Little Beirut kind of intrigues me to. Call me a killjoy if you want. I deserve it.

Kirkland did a fine job of putting all kinds of information about annexation online, including PDFs of economic forecasts and an FAQs. They're pretty upfront about the reasons behind the annexation - they're looking for more tax revenue - but the good news is that (according to their FAQ) we'd likely be paying less in property taxes and utilities.

I'm going to attend one of the meetings next week, but it certainly looks like a good deal on paper. Welcome to our new yuppie overlords!

Frosty Hardison Gets What's Coming To Him

Thanks to Seattlest for alerting me to the fact that local dipshit Frosty Hardison (previously discussed here) was featured on The Daily Show, where they appropriately trotted his ignorance out and exposed it for what it is.

When people who believe the Earth was created in six days start dictating science curricula, it's high time we examine our process.

Fuck you, Frosty. Hope you like being exposed for the village idiot you are.

You do have to admit that Frosty does a pretty funny Church Lady and Robin Williams though.

Activism Ad Absurdium

Meet I-957, also known as the Washington State Defense of Marriage Initiative. Washington, like many states, will put voter-sponsored Initiatives on the ballot. These initiatives are for all kinds of different things: banning smoking in public places, pull tab casinos, and so forth. The Defense of Marriage Initiative, sponsored by the Washington State Defense of Marriage Alliance, wants to expand on the Anderson v. King County court ruling that defined marriage in Washington State as something specific to a man and a woman. Here's WA-DOMA's goals, from their website (bold mine):

add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;

require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"

establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Good golly Miss Molly but that is a kick in the pants! I've been happily married for more than five years, and my house has yet to see the pitter-patter of little feet (unless you count the romper-stomper of kitten paws.) And what about couples who are impotent? Or choose to adopt? Or couples past the point of menopause? True, conservative Christians feel that marriage is about procreation but mother of God, we didn't actually expect to have this thrown in our face this much!

Are your panties in a wad yet? Because here's the punchline. Scroll down to the bottom of the site I linked above you you'll find WA-DOMA's mission statement:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a "legitimate state interest" allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this "legitimate state interest," it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional [sic] and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

So there you go - it's activism ad absurdium, attempting to weaken an existing law or decision by introducing one that takes the reasoning behind the existing law or decision and inflating it to the point where its absurdity - and thus invalidity - is revealed.

Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about this. It reminds me of the town of Dayton, Tennessee, who put a teacher named Scopes on trial for teaching evolution - not out of some principle that banning the teaching of evolution was bad, but that Tennessee state law contradicted itself (the textbook teachers were required to use taught evolution, but the Butler Act prohibited them from teaching it.) That, and it was good for the local economy and would put the town on the map.

It also seems as if it's a little out of place in this context. I used to think "well, the voters are smart enough not to pass anything that seems too absurd," if the last six years have taught me nothing if not that the American voters probably shouldn't be trusted too far.

This will certainly be an interesting local politics story, and I'll be keeping an eye on it closely.

Maria and Me

My life has been all about politics lately: check my Flickr photostream for pics of Maria Cantwell's visit to my office today.

WA Initiatives

Looks like the moronic initiatives in Washington State are failing.

Is the other shoe going to drop tonight?

Vote Ye Washingtonians!

My absentee ballot arrived in the mail last week, and I used my extra hour this morning wisely and filled it out. As usual, Jeff is doing a bang-up job blogging local politics, especially the various state initiatives. So here's a brief breakdown of what's going down in Washington Legislative District 45:

I 920. Should we repeal an estate tax that effects 250 of the richest dead people in Washington each year? Let's see. No.

I 933. Should taxpayers have to pay people who want to turn their land into subdivisions but can't because of environmental or other regulation? An easy no.

I 937. Encourages environmental solutions for power companies with 25,000 or more customers. As Jeff explained, this is a wind power initiative. Sure, why not.

King County Prop 5. Should we raise sales and use of land tax by one tenth of one percent to fund King County Transit? I love taking the bus. My stress level has gone way down since I stopped driving here so much (big surprise). I'll pay a little more in property taxes to extend that benefit to others.

US Senate. Maria Cantwell (Democrat) or Mike McGavick (Republican)? I'm not a Cantwell fan, but McGavick is the former CEO of Safeco and his entire campaign reeks of personal greed, power tripping and the same kind of NeoCon nonsense that has landed the country in this spot in the first place. Perhaps if he was closer to Barry Goldwater than Rush Limbaugh, I'd consider it. So congrats Maria, you got my vote.

WA Legislative District 45. Senator: Eric Oemig (D) or Toby Nixon (R). Getting over the "Nixon" part, Eric Oemig's groundpounders came by the house last weekend for a Get out the Vote campaign. The best I've neard from Nixon was some vague attack ads I got in the mail. Bam.

Representatives: I'm not going to go through every candidate, but I do want to point out that Tim Lee, the Republican candidate who wants to represent District 45 on the Eastside, appeared at a convention with his company's staff in "Redmond Sux" t-shirts. I don't know much about local politics, but I know that someone who wants to represent the Eastside shouldn't be parading around in a shirt that tells the world "Redmond Sux."

Of course, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I'm taking that information from an attack ad that his Democratic opponent, incumbent Larry Springer, sent me in the mail. So who says dirty politics aren't effective sometimes?

Local Politics

I neglected to post before Tuesday's primary, mostly because I have been completely swamped getting ready for the currently-running Tokyo Game Show, but it was on my mind. I got my ballot in the mailbox with minutes to spare (in Washington, we can vote absentee whenever we want, which is good because it creates a paper trail that can't be hacked.) Jeff has been doing a fantastic job of covering local politics on his blog, even summarizing the results nicely this week. But I did want to mention that I voted against Maria Cantwell in the Senate primary - and she did end up with 90% of the vote. So maybe I haven't completely lost my finicky, anti-establishmentism. I didn't vote for Mike the Mover or that guy who wanted Israel wiped off the map (but 8000 fellow Washingtonians did, according to a Seattle PI story I read a couple of weeks ago.) I did cast my vote for Hong Tran though; her progressive stance on health care and the Iraq war appealed to me more than Cantwell's "we need to pull out sometime maybe." I'm oversimplifying, true. But I have a general feeling of discontent that we need to have us a nice, old-fashioned shakeup in Congress.

I wonder if the Democratic party is looking for good PR people?