LEtters to the Editor

Merging

City is better off as own entity with own identity

I am writing to and for the people in the town I grew up in. I am writing first and foremost, not as a resident of Washington State or Snohomish County or as President of the Edmonds City Council, but simply as a citizen of the City of Edmonds. As I sit at my computer to begin, I feel somewhat like a mosquito at a nudist colony – with so much potential material I am not sure where to start!

Let me first start by stating that the situation to be addressed is not at all new. The problem has existed over the years: how to pay for city services. Over the years some ideas have been proposed such as emergency medic transport fees and B &O taxes.

However, now comes the grimmest idea of them all. Recently, folks may have read that in order to be efficient, the City of Edmonds should merge into the City of Lynnwood. Let me repeat it just in case you cannot believe what you just read. Some have stated that the City of Edmonds – the Gem of the Puget Sound, the “friendliest” Town on the Sound, the place where you don’t get “malled,” where you can have an “Edmonds Kind of Day” – should be merged into Lynnwood! To quote from one letter writer, we need to do this because, “businesses merge to gain efficiencies.” It is being called consolidation – I call it oppression. Lynnwood would swallow up Edmonds like the New York Yankees do free agents.

This business model for the Edmonds giveaway plan is apparently based upon the cold calculations of the corporate boardroom. No doubt using calculators, indicators, efficiencies, data-points, co-efficiencies and boardroom number crunchers to determine Edmonds should be given away to Lynnwood for some false, so-called efficiencies.

But this kind of efficiency makes as much sense as having King County putting their Brightwater sewage plant in South Edmonds…of course this idea was also in the name of efficiencies.

Cold calculations do not satisfy the human spirit. For who among us would actually calculate giving away our beaches to Lynnwood. Who among us can measure the cost of giving away our parks to Lynnwood. How do you estimate giving away our views to Lynnwood! How do you reconcile giving our downtown away to the power of the Alderwood Mall! What accounting ledger would dare state some false efficiency gained as a balanced account against losing the spirit, charm and character of Edmonds. I didn’t lead the effort to create the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission just to turn it all over to Lynnwood.

I am confident that the people of Edmonds want no part of giving our town over to Lynnwood. I believe that the good people of Edmonds are going to work with bold determination to preserve and protect Edmonds for Edmonds. I state this with the full knowledge and confidence that I’m speaking for the vast majority of Edmonds citizens.

MICHAEL PLUNKETT

Edmonds City Council

City taxes

Lack of understanding the real problem

I am writing to follow up on a letter I previously wrote regarding property taxes appearing in the Nov. 19 issue of the Enterprise. Dan Clement, Edmonds finance director, and Mayor Gary Haakenson were kind enough to follow up and point out the error in my critique of property tax calculation. I must say, I’m so full of crow, I hardly had any room for turkey at Thanksgiving!

Contrary to my critique, I have learned that the only times an increased property value can increase your property taxes is when your property appreciates above the average rate for property in Edmonds (not necessarily a bad thing) or when you make improvements to your house.

I was indeed able to verify that this is the case based on statistics from the state Department of Revenue and the Edmonds 2004 budget, provided on their respective web sites.

In the process, though, I realized that Washington state, county, and city governments could do a better job of explaining and presenting property tax information to citizens. Verifying the property tax calculation is an exercise in frustration, requiring you to wade through reams of cryptically labeled numbers. It is also difficult to determine what is “voter approved” and what is not, even though my 2004 property tax bill says that 40 percent is voter approved.

In many ways, this is the real crux of the matter. When voters are frustrated with taxes they don’t understand or feel are unfair, they respond by passing blunt-instrument initiatives like 747 and 695 ($30 car tabs). This in turn makes it more difficult for government to provide services much in need in the state, such as better education and transportation.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “A democratic society depends upon an informed and educated citizenry.” Consider me first in line for that education.

BRETT GASPERS

Edmonds

Annex

Just leave Esperance alone, please

Having lived in the Esperance area for over 30 years now, and voted against annexation numerous times in the past, I have just one question for the city officials of Edmonds, what don’t you understand about the word “No?” Having been through this fiasco before and seen firsthand how city officials will say anything to get people to vote their way, why are we to believe anything they say now.

As far as the parks in the area needing improvement as Mr. Bowman says, there are only two, one of them just had new playground equipment installed recently, and the other, if the city of Edmonds had had its way, wouldn’t have been a park at all but a municipal dump for all the sand and gravel etc. for the city of Edmonds. They tried buying that piece of property years ago just for that purpose, with complete disregard to the wishes of the people in the neighborhood and the environment. I guess Mr. Bowman just can’t wait to spend some of the city’s new found wealth.

As far as fixing roads and the storm-water system, where is all the money going to be coming from? Having traveled some of the roads in the city of Edmonds from time to time, it seems as if the city should be concentrating on some of them first before taking on any additional construction projects.

My wife and I bought our property over 30 years ago because we liked the area. If we had wanted to be in the city of Edmonds we would have bought in the city of Edmonds. We didn’t. Respect our right to live where we like. Please, leave us alone.

G. Huff

Esperance

Downtown

Increasing height of ceilings needed

We believe that the proposed 12 foot ceiling height on the first floor of retail space need be increased to benefit present and future retailers. And in order for that to be meaningful, the overall building height need be increased to 33 feet to facilitate the construction of three story buildings. That in turn will provide the necessary incentives for developers to build new and/or upgrade existing buildings as needed now and in the future.

We fully agree with and support the Edmonds Economic Development Director and the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce position regarding the subject.

Approval of these proposals will in the near future provide the impetus required to grow the community positively, improve overall economic development, increase business opportunities and create additional positive synergy and vitality for our exceptional community.

RON and MICHELLE CLYBORNE

Edmonds

Planning Board’s plan the right one

The Planning Commission is taking the right steps in updating the Comprehensive Plan for Downtown Edmonds. They have sought input from citizens, property owners, businesses, developers, and third party consultants. One goal is to encourage viable retail on the Fifth Avenue and Main Street corridors. The Planning Commission is exactly correct in concluding that higher ground floor ceilings (like ALL of the historic buildings in Edmonds and elsewhere) will better attract and service retail businesses and customers. The Planning Commission is exactly correct that no private owner will rebuild to this standard unless they can build three story buildings. The Planning Commission is exactly correct that a 3 story building with 12 foot ceilings on the ground floor cannot be built under the current 30 height limit.

The City of Edmonds and its citizens are faced with two options: 1) leave the current height limit in place and rejoice in the fact that our few lovely older buildings will continue to be surrounded by ridiculously non-historic, CMU (look it up) structures that serve neither the aesthetics nor the vitality of Edmonds or 2) raise the height limit to allow redevelopment under strict design controls increasing both the quaintness and vitality of downtown Edmonds.

I firmly believe that preservation of Edmonds’ charm and redevelopment with a few feet of additional height are not mutually exclusive. The discussion should not be about height. It should be about design. I think that there are a large number of downtown property owners that would be more than willing to cooperate on a downtown Edmonds charette (an architectural competition) that would produce award winning designs for downtown Edmonds that would satisfy even the strongest opponents of new and necessary building heights.

Onward and, yes, upward,

BOB GREGG

Edmonds

Spend money on sidewalks, parks

Everett is testing a new promising porous concrete. This won’t happen in Edmonds as no employee would dare to mention it. Mayor Haakenson has stated: “There is no money in my budget for sidewalks”, perhaps referring to citizen efforts to see a severely needed sidewalk built on 76th Avenue in Meadowdale, a project he has opposed throughout his administration. Yet, hundreds of thousands of citizens’ dollars in the past five years have been wasted on foolish economic snake oil ventures.

And now he says there “isn’t enough money” for a needed park at a very good price. The Mayor and his followers on the Council, Marin, Moore, and Olson instead will want to see a large part of the park site (and cost advantage) to the mayor’s builder friends. Further they want to raise building heights in the downtown area for “economic development.” One sneakily proposed ruse called “averaging” would even allow a very favored few to go well over 33 feet and potentially as high as 66 feet.

Council President Michael Plunkett has, to his credit, and supported by Department of Labor statistics, put the record straight by stating that this push for supposed economic downtown development is false, and has noted the fact that Edmonds citizens clearly do not want higher downtown building heights.

Our elected leaders have for well over one hundred years of relative prosperity honored our reasonable height limits, thereby allowing the economic laws of supply and demand to work well to our city’s advantage. Let’s keep it that way. I believe the good people of Edmonds will not tolerate any little Smith towers or high rises in downtown Edmonds. We would prefer needed parks and sidewalks instead.

RAY MARTIN

Edmonds

Increasing building height wrong

I do not support increasing the building height to 33 feet in the BC zone.

According to an Edmonds newspaper, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce summed up the situation very nicely: “it’s hard to build three stories and keep the historic small scale feel of the area”. There’s simply no denying that the character of our quaint downtown area would be negatively changed. And, not to be overlooked, many residents who paid high prices for nice views, and continue to pay higher property taxes because of those views, would have those views blocked or impaired.

The good news is that we really do not need 33-foot high buildings. Only restaurants really require 12-foot ceilings. I know of at least four single-story buildings that have been extensively renovated in the past several years and there’s a building next to the Edmonds bakery on Main being extensively renovated for a restaurant. These are all viable projects with nothing built above them.

By far the biggest stakeholders in this issue are the current owners of BC zone businesses and the citizens of Edmonds. They will generally be here for their lifetimes. Their wishes should supercede the will of the merchants, as the merchant’s longevity here is as long as the term of their lease and as long as they achieve satisfactory business volume. The force behind higher heights – the developers – are not stakeholders. Developers interest in a project ends with its sale.

Edmonds does not need speculative and opportunistic developers doing projects in the BC zone that are optimized to maximize their profits and then make a quick getaway, leaving behind oversized buildings for the rest of us to endure forever. Thirty-three foot buildings are a bad idea!

RON WAMBOLT

Edmonds