To annex, or not to annex: that is the question – the strung-out, interminable, never-ending, Kirkland question. And it’s gotten old to the point of annoying.

The Proposed Annexation Areas of Kingsgate, Finn Hill, and Upper Juanita have been hanging, slowly twisting in the wind, for years while Kirkland, like a school girl, plays a political game of come hither. Yes, no, maybe, I can’t make up my mind, I’m not sure you’re good enough for me, don’t you dare look at another – right out of a trashy teen romance novel.

In the meantime, the adults in the room – King County and Bothell – want to do business and forge ahead. But Kirkland, ever the teasing ingénue, can’t make up its mind whether to wear the pink yes-to-annexation dress, or the skimpy little no-to-annexation jeans. Either way, it’s maxed out its credit cards such that any dates the PAAs might have with it will be expensive, limited in opportunities for growth, and the kind every high school boy regrets to the end of his days.

The PAAS also need to decide: Do we date what is pretty clearly a trouble-waiting-to-happen Kirkland, or a Bothell, who’s just like the girl who married dear old dad? One thing is for certain, the PAAs can not remain single – King County is marching them to a shotgun wedding by reducing public safety and other services while the state’s offer of a substantial tax-incentive dowry will evaporate with no possibility of revival, unless someone goes down the aisle soon.

Additionally, it’s an all-or-nothing deal. Talk of piece-meal PAA annexation – some to Kirkland, some to Bothell – has the viability of talk of marrying part of a person.

According to a consultant’s study commissioned by Bothell (King County paid half), it can do today what Kirkland hasn’t been able to cobble together for eight years: make annexation work financially. With lower overhead and municipal debt (Bothell’s is reported to be $6 million, while Kirkland’s is $30 million), Bothell isn’t paying alimony to creditors the way Kirkland must. Bothell, unlike Kirkland, didn’t have a nearly $19 million budget deficit it had to bleed its way through to balance.

That Kirkland recently went through what can only be described as unseemly municipal angst in raising taxes and fees while cutting services puts it in a deep hole on annexation. How can anyone in her right mind expect another look-see to pencil out in favor? Really, it’s like trying to put together a financial plan based upon the expectancy of winning the Lotto, except those odds are probably shorter.

Bothell, on the other hand, seems to be doing just fine. Been there lately? Things are happening. The huge changes to the Highway 522 interchange that will allow more efficient access to the University of Washington – Bothell and Cascadia Community College campuses, which, when completed, will result in an influx of students and others into the city.

The circus that was the CiViK and Parkplace fiascos wouldn’t be tolerated in Bothell, a city that, year before last cut taxes. Bothell has room to grow and develop, while Kirkland is pretty much limited to re-development, trying to squeeze that last drop of blood from the turnip.

And according to a senior Bothell official, it would never consider cutting services to an area under consideration for annexation, while Kirkland entertained the idea.

What should be the prevailing considerations when considering annexation are taxes, the quality of government and the level of services. Whether you dine in one city versus another shouldn’t be the determining factor in deciding which one should have the power to tax you.

Let me make my thinking even clearer: Before I would tolerate living under Kirkland city government, which I regard as not much better than Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, I would move, which is exactly what I did. More on this in my final column, coming soon.