I read “Brightwater opponents take patriotic approach” (news story, Jan. 25) with interest. The process does seem to fly in the face of how most of us understand government in the United States. As the story reported, Edmonds’ Brightwater opponents “believe it’s unfair that King County has the right under state law to impose eminent domain to build a public facility outside the area it serves, where people can’t vote for the projects’ elected decision-maker.” No one in Snohomish County can vote for the decision makers. Edmonds was the only site conspicuous at the first King County hearing as having no one there to speak for or against its site.
King County’s Pam Bissonnette says the plant has to go somewhere. And she misses the point on local input. There may well have been 235 meetings regarding Brightwater, but they are not the decision makers.
Do Snohomish County residents know the reception Snohomish residents got at King County Council? Other business was attended to throughout public testimony. At one point, a person felt compelled to call the council to task. And why should the council listen? We are not their constituents. At the second hearing I attended, the rude behavior of the council members during the testimony of Snohomish County residents was noted by one of the attendees.
The question was asked by the residents by the Route 9 site, “Can King County at a future date down the road sell some of the land it takes by eminent domain?” Could it go back to the school district for their planned for bus barn or whatever? This question, to my knowledge, has never been answered although duly recorded and filed.
I feel each jurisdiction should stay within it’s jurisdiction. If that means Snohomish County needs to build a facility for Snohomish County residents, so be it.
Mill Creek
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.