Not a ‘land grab’ when it is sought

The letter, “Annexation stance doesn’t fit,” asking how John Koster can “…stand against the micro-managing arm of government, and less taxes — while supporting government land-grabs such as the Bothell annexation?” is a good example of how so many people in what was the proposed annexation area were misled by the false claims of Fire District 1 and its union.

First, it is hardly a “land-grab” for a city, responding to citizens’ requests, to allow all citizens who would be affected to vote “yes” or “no” for annexation. But to answer the writer’s question, Bothell is a smaller and more efficient government than Snohomish County and had annexation succeeded, taxes paid by homeowners would have been lower than we currently pay. That fact has been verified by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office.

It is also a fact that cities can more efficiently (less expensively) provide more and better services than counties. Why? Because of the very different responsibilities of cities and counties. Cities — especially small ones like Bothell — have smaller governmental structures than very large county structures like Snohomish County — and also because cities are responsible for far smaller geographic areas than counties, thus reducing the number or roads, bridges, waterways, ports, tunnels and other infrastructure they must maintain.

Counties also manage forest and agricultural land, fish and wildlife habitat and are responsible for air and water pollution. Counties must address landslides, avalanches, flooding and other natural phenomena that cities either never have to address or do so far less frequently. Finally, counties receive property taxes from a low-density population while the property taxes collected in cities are geographically concentrated, allowing for more efficient use of those funds.

For these reasons, cities are also more nimble and more responsive to the needs of their residents than are counties.

Tom Turner

Unincorporated Snohomish County