Was the decision of County Executive Aaron Reardon to veto the ordinance abolishing fully contained communities a decision made on the merits, or was it made to satisfy builder/developers who have financially supported him?
King County’s experience with fully contained communities proves that FCCs don’t work. They are not fully contained. Adequate jobs are not created inside the community. Traffic congestion increases. Developers don’t pay for all the needed mitigation. Taxpayers are forced to pay for mitigation measures, like road improvements. King County has learned from experience, and no longer allows FCCs in rural areas.
I have attended several county council meetings where members of the public spoke on the FCC issue. Dozens of citizens have spoken out against FCCs. I have not heard a single citizen, other than builder/developers, speak in favor of FCCs.
Mr. Reardon’s stated rationale for the veto is unpersuasive. He claims the ordinance abolishing FCCs “was made very quickly.” This is false. As stated by County Councilman Dave Somers, the council has been working on the FCC issue for three years.
So, why did Mr. Reardon veto the FCC ordinance? How much money did builders contribute to Reardon’s last election campaign? How often has Reardon met with builders outside the public eye? Are land use decisions being made at golf tournaments sponsored by the Master Builders Association? Is Aaron Reardon a politician who deserves your support?
Hal Field
Brier
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
