Mountlake Terrace

City staff already has its mind made up

At last Thursday’s council work session on residential zoning, I heard Councilman Doug Wittinger numerous times ask staff for additional context to inform council’s decisions. It turns out that it is all around us and easily discoverable as Councilwoman Michelle Angrick demonstrated by sharing Internet research she had done on cottage housing rules in nearby cities. Both Shoreline and Lake Forest Park have recent experience with cottage housing. Mayor Jerry Smith cited inside knowledge of what led Shoreline to repeal their cottage housing ordinance. Yet not a word of this context made the pages of staff reports. Why?

The council also considered allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) as separate structures of up to 800 square feet on any residential lot, another clever means of increasing density without any effort at public outreach.

During the ADU discussion, the city attorney mentioned that legal issues with outright allowance led the city of Seattle to allow such “mother-in-law apartments” only through a variance process. He later said that he had discussed this with the city manager. Again, not a word of this context is in staff reports.

Staff’s responsibility to inform council members of the whole story should have precedence over staff’s point of view. Such deficiencies of staff reports are reflections of a council majority that regularly has its mind made up before the presentation ever begins. Why present both sides of the story when they know council only cares about one? Edmonds and Lynnwood may have regular neighborhood meetings, but our brain trust already knows what’s good or us.

Maybe an election this year can get council’s attention; a petition campaign has proven incapable of penetrating some rather thick exteriors.

Leonard French

Mountlake Terrace

Citizen’s newsletter

Where is the power in Mountlake Terrace?

In the March 30 edition of The Enterprise, Mountlake Terrace City Manager John Caulfield explained why The Broadcast, a citizen newsletter, was not allowed distribution space in city owned buildings: “The only groups or organizations allowed to put out pamphlets are the ones we already have a business relationship with.”

“If we start allowing that information in City Hall or any of our facilities, it can be interpreted that we actually support that point of view,” he said.

That point of view? You mean, Mr. Caulfield, that the citizen’s point of view is not to be considered and possibly supported?

The city manager’s words indicate a major reason why we have a disentranced populace: business partners are welcome, citizens are not.

Excuse me?

In a democracy, the citizens are the first partner in any partnership.

In a democracy, the people speak, their elected officials listen and respond with directives to their paid staff, the city manager.

The model is not that the city manager decides, speaks, and then the city council, citizens and media agrees.

In MLT, there is no city council policy to exclude a citizen newsletter from city owned buildings, which, by the way, were purchased and supported by the citizen’s taxes.

When did the shift of power and decision making move from the Mountlake Terrace community and their elected officials to the city manager?

Have you looked recently to see how it is in your city and in your country?

Sharon Maynard

Mountlake Terrace