Letters

Mountlake Terrace

Redevelopment threatens city’s soul

Mountlake Terrace is planning to redevelop the downtown area. Height restrictions may be significantly amended, which may have a negative impact on citizens.

Some years ago, the comprehensive plan was amended and the Community Business Downtown District was expanded. Homes once in the middle of single family neighborhoods are now located in or adjacent to the expanded downtown district.

Not all single family properties within the downtown district will be appropriate for development. Those individuals may find themselves in the midst of businesses and mixed use high-rises. Those individuals may discover that their quality of life is seriously degraded as their neighborhood is transformed.

Taller buildings may be accompanied by increased traffic, noise, pollution and parking issues for hundreds of homes near downtown.

More private and commercial vehicles traveling to and from downtown will go through residential areas, resulting in increased traffic, noise and pollution.

This process should concern the one hundred plus single family homeowners, whose property will continue to be zoned for single family use, but will be directly adjacent to or across from the downtown district. Those individuals may very well have a large complex constructed next to their homes. The fact these owners relied on previous zoning regulations when they purchased their residences will be irrelevant. Those houses may be financially impacted by development.

Edmonds is often cited by Mountlake Terrace residents as the type of downtown they desire. Even with more stringent height requirements in place, Edmonds has a vibrant, attractive downtown in a city committed to low-rise buildings and single-family neighborhoods.

The essence of Mountlake Terrace’s soul – that small town feeling within an increasingly crowded and overdeveloped South Snohomish County – does not have to be sacrificed in order to redevelop downtown.

ERIC SOLL

Mountlake Terrace

Citizens could set the example for leaders

As a teacher in a preschool setting, I am involved when differences arise between students. If I, as teacher, took the approach that Linda Rogers suggested, pointing at one as the good one and the other as the bad one, the class would become divisive and dysfunctional. The same is true in our city and it is about how we treat each other when we have differences.

Several on the Council have excused themselves in order to regain composure and then apologized. Not the behavior of a “bad” Council person. Labels and finger pointing when you have not walked in someone’s shoes does not show professionalism and creates dysfunctionality.

In our preschool we focus on teaching students that a true leader is considerate and respectfully and works with others to create solutions that benefit all. These students broaden their awareness, develop skills and everyone wins.

I remember writing a letter to the editor earlier this year in which I said the challenge for the Mountlake Terrace City Council would not be to make a decision to work together, but to develop the skills that allowed them to follow through on that commitment.

Perhaps our citizens could model and suggest actions based on forgiveness, tolerance, compassion and encouragement, ethical leadership based on principles of caring. Then our leaders would know our desire that they not repeat the behaviors of the last election.. Our community would be better served.

SHARON RIEGIE MAYNARD

Mountlake Terrace

Mobile homes

Poor habits put residents in trouble

Michael Sikora favors well-being of others. He said people are too obsessed with money and don’t care about the well-being of others.

Really? I think he is not interested in the well-being of others at all. He is more interested in the well-being of himself by forcing the taxpayers to pay his way. He retired at age 62 when he obviously did not have enough money to support himself for the rest of his life. He was also divorced twice. (I know a lady who is 76 years of age and still works 35 to 40 hours a week out of necessity but could go on welfare).

Most of the people in the two mobile home parks didn’t plan for old age financially and now force those who did, not only to pay for those parks but also allow them to live there below market rents. Is it right for some people to work hard, deny themselves new cars and live in apartments and older homes during their lifetime to save for old age and then be forced to pay considerable taxes to support those who refused to do the same? Oh, I know, I will get an earful from them saying that it was not their fault that they have so little at retirement age. Really? All of them?

PETER BOONSTRA

Lynnwood