Bravo voters, job well done.
We prevailed in sending a clear message to the city of Federal Way.
We are so happy that the attempted annexation of our unincorporated communities was defeated by the voters.
We offer special thanks to the numerous volunteers who assisted in saturating both the north and south communities with opposition signs.
With special thanks to the many people who spent long hours standing and waving signs encouraging people to vote, of course vote NO. Their effort and passion made all the difference in this vote.
This is an overwhelming vote that makes it clear that annexation is refused; the voters do not want to be a part of the City of Federal Way.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes!! Great work everyone! Now we just need to watch out for a "sneak attack" second attempt in November. Too bad the NO voters of West and Lea Hill didn't get the results they wanted. I wonder if there's anything we can do to help support their efforts to appeal the decision?
Thank you for the hard work. I think it would be helpful to continue this blog and I hope you choose to do so. Even if annexation ceases to be of immediate concern, there are many other issues facing our neighborhood community. Thus far, this is the only e-place that I have found where we homeowners and our neighbors can exchange information.
Hello Jerry and Tracey:
I must confess that I'm mystified at the antagonism toward becoming a part of Federal Way. It's pretty clear to me that unincorporated urban/suburban areas like ours will have to either incorporate ourselves or be annexed. And, as I understand it, we have a limited time to get State financial help to go through this process. When I hear remarks like, "we just want to be left alone"
all
I
can envision is people who pile junked cars in their yards or have meth labs in their garages. I'm not afraid of better police protection, and I want to have a voice about how my infrastructure tax dollars are spend. Staying in unincorporated King County gives me neither of these things, and I don't save any money.
So, if you're on to some wisdom that hasn't come my way, please share it.
Thanks,
Fred Moore
Mr. Moore,
I appreciate your taking the time to write.
Sorry, but the folks I know who want to be left alone are not harboring unsightly landscapes or illegal activities, they simply do not feel the need to be subjected to a long list of city life rules and regulations. Read the Federal Way Mirror (http://www.fedwaymirror.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=91&cat=23&id=10
4261
7&more=0 )for reinforcement of the authority the city has and the fact they are seeking more.
If you want a reason why i question the city's sincerity and integrity, ask why the north and south annexation areas were connected by Peasley Canyon Road. The official answer is that in order to get the maximum money from the state, the vote needed to affect over 20,000 people. However, there appears to be no stipulation that they must all be on the same ballot measure, just that the total annexed be over 20k. Look at a density map of the two areas or just take the numbers offered by the city for population in the north and south. With similar land mass, the north has 12000 people and the south has 8000. In order to insure getting both areas in, they connected the two by the uninhabited Peasley Canyon Road so that a decision of the voters in the north could potentially dictate the outcome for the south. The city manager at the time called this "just clever".
(http://www.fedwaymirror.com/portals-code/searchd.cgi ) I call it underhanded and manipulative.
Is that the government you want ruling you?
You say better police protection but we now have 3 or 4 deputies handling our area. So what are the other 25 police officers going to be doing?
Are
you going to pay them to eat donuts or expect them to enforce every minute violation they see on private property; the grass is too long, there is moss on the roof, you do not have the money to get the car fixed and now they are going to fine you $100 per day until you have it towed away just to get rid of the fines.
The voice you think you will have about the infrastructure dollars seems misplaced. At the meetings, it was stated that the city would only maintain the infrastructure at its current level and only improve it as developments occurred. They expressly were not going to repave roads, pave gavel roads with asphalt or even maintain gravel roads.
Yes, the money from the county and the state do have sunset clauses. You would need to go to the Federal Way website to get some of the data, but also contact King County and the city officials for the facts they omitted.
We question whether we really need to be annexed into Federal Way, or otherwise, and if it is the right decision for the way of life we have here.
One of the quotes that apply is 'if we wanted to be in a city, we would have moved into a city'. We chose not.
There is no mechanism in the state of Washington for mandating real estate into a city, although the city represented just such a scenario. The five methods of annexation is the only way.
If we are satisfied with the quality of services, the density of population and the government we now have, then we refuse to be annexed.
Apparently over 64% of the voters feel we should not be annexed.
I respect their opinion.
You sent your comments directly rather than adding a comment to the blog. Do you want them published on the blog? I can easily add them, unedited, and would credit them to you.
Respectfully,
Jerry Galland
Jerry:
I gather you are in the area south of Peasley Canyon Road, which is indeed more rural than where I am in Camelot. My arguments in favor of annexation are basically that our level of government services from King County is promised to decrease in the future, not remain as they are. I don't expect any drastic improvement, just attention to what is needed.
I believe that the city will do a better job of that than the County, especially if we become a landlocked area surrounded by incorporated cities. And, obviously, I haven't seen dumped cars in every yard, and I'm equally sure that meth labs don't proliferate our area.
But those of us north of Peasley Canyon do in fact live in every bit as much of a city as those people across the freeway. The need for community standards and maintenance are just as high. We live on little lots just like the people in Auburn and Federal Way do, and I'm not interested in living next to anyone who doesn't appreciate that fact.
It's too bad that we have to have ordinances to make some people maintain their property, but that's how it is.
And, as to the 60% no vote, you actually got 10% of the total registered vote. The problem was that the majority probably figured that the annexation was a done deal and didn't bother to vote. I certainly hope they wake up and do so next time, and vote in favor.
Feel free to post my comments on your blog. I couldn't figure out how to do so myself. I'm not a blogger myself.
Thanks for replying to me.
Fred Moore
I am confused by the math you used to figure the percentage. According to the King County website, as of 5pm August 23rd, 2001 people voted against, for a 64.18% 'no' of the registered voters who voted.
That is not 10% but rather 19.11% of all the registered voters (10,468, a fairly reasonable number considering only a 30% return.
Jerry Galland
Dear Mr. Moore,
I live in the North area of the proposed annexation. Many of my neighbors and the people I met in opposition of annexation to FW live in the North area, take pride in their homes and likewise do not like "junkers" collecting on nieghbors lots. There are many small farms and homes on large agreage in the north area that are entertwined between the small lot areas you speak of. I encourage you to drive around all of the North area that was proposed to be annexed. I disagree with your comment that voters who did not vote would have voted "yes". Your assertion is unfounded. You appear to be very passionate about belonging to Federal Way. Many of the opposition are not necessarily against belonging to a city in the future...but are passionate about not becoming residents of the city of Federal Way.
I just re-read my comment...excuse me to anyone reading it I was in a hurry and made some real "mis-spelled" words! I did go to school and college believe it or not! :o)
Mr. Galland,
You said "You say better police protection but we now have 3 or 4 deputies handling our area. So what are the other 25 police officers going to be doing?
Are
you going to pay them to eat donuts or expect them to enforce every minute violation they see on private property; the grass is too long, there is moss on the roof, you do not have the money to get the car fixed and now they are going to fine you $100 per day until you have it towed away just to get rid of the fines."
Most of your campaign was based on accurate facts. Please don't resort to tactics that are half truths or outright wrong. Police in any jurisdiction do not enforce zoning codes. They may accompany a code compliance officer in some cases but that would happen with the King County Sherrifs office as well as any City Police agency. And the donut reference was inappropriate. These people work hard and are understaffed. They cannot keep up with all of the crime in the area. This is a regional problem and not just limited to our little corner of King County.
I stand corrected.
Although it continues to amaze me that people with apparently legitimate viewpoints hide behind the 'Anonymous' moniker, I did learn something from the latest writer. I just assumed the police were all policy and code enforcers. In reality, according to a phone call with the Federal Way police department a few minutes ago, the city of Federal Way only has 3 official Code Enforcers on staff.
So, it must be assumed, the 29 police officers promised would not be 'code enforcers'.
Thanks.
Post a Comment