Disingenuous and misleading position leading me to vote no on Prop. 1 | Letter
Published 12:07 pm Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Today I observed two campaign signs placed within 50 feet of each other – one seeking a “yes” vote on Proposition 1 with a “build the ARC [Aquatics, Recreation and Community center]” message; the other a “No on Proposition 1” recommendation with a message stating “No Blank Check.”
The “Yes On Proposition 1” sign infers that the opposition is against the construction of the ARC, while the “No On Proposition 1” sign takes no position on the proposal to construct the ARC – only the creation of a Municipal Park Taxing District.
The proponents of Proposition 1 base their support on the belief that the Municipal Park Taxing District is the most expedient and cost-effective means to fund the ARC; and that the citizens who will incur the new tax should accept, on faith, that the city government will spend those tax dollars wisely in a prudent and appropriate manner.
Unfortunately, the city’s track record with regard to its ability to properly prioritize expenditures and direct them to the areas of highest need does not engender the level of trust necessary to support the “blank check” that would result from the passage of Proposition 1.
Every day I drive by the fire station located just east of Juanita High School on Northeast 132nd Street and observe the recently-installed digital sign. I can’t help but wonder how much this must have cost and how those funds might have been better spent on enhancing fire-fighting capabilities.
When the City Council learned that the portion of railroad right-of-way within the city limits, abandoned by the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train and owned by King County was for sale, they jumped at the opportunity to purchase it for use as a pedestrian / bike trail – even though they admitted they did not have the funds. No problem, just borrow it from themselves. The public works department did not need the $5 million diverted from road maintenance and surface-water projects.
Offered at the time as justification for this “nice-to-have” was a determination that a rail operation was incompatible with the trail concept and would provide minimal benefit to citizens living in the Kirkland community and commuting to points south. Ironically, we now learn that the city has announced that they are considering a mass-transit option for the trail.
Haven’t we experienced enough misrepresentation and obfuscation from the city government to justify questioning the “trust us to act in your best interests” message? Remember the plastic bag ban?
If the ballot proposal was whether or not to build the ARC, I would probably vote in favor. Given the disingenuous and misleading position demonstrated by the proponents (Vote yes on Prop 1 – build the ARC), I will be voting no.
Mike Main, Kirkland
