|
February 27, 2009
25 Comments
City of Renton Offers Official Response to Fairwood Incorporation Study
The City of Renton released an official Comment Letter to the State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County on Wednesday, February 25.
City of Renton Mayor Denis Law is the official author of the letter, but the letter is the City's official response to the City of Fairwood Draft Incorporation Study.
Fairwood Community News has asked for feedback on whether the meeting summary and responses to questions due out next week by the BRB/Consutants will also include responses to Mayor Law's questions and comments. Some of his comments below have received a first-pass response in an earlier interview with Consultant/Project Manager Randy Young.
Topics covered by Mayor Law include:
Population Growth: Law questions the growth in population numbers, which in turn has an impact on a City's revenue and differ than what the study indicates.
Public Safety: The jail service costs are unclear in the Study. Fire and Police Costs are also questioned.
Parks: Law says the continued maintenance of King County Parks by King County after incorporation "is ridiculous" and would be additional costs for the City of Fairwood.
Administrative Costs: Law lists several administrative costs that should have been detailed in the report.
Capital Investment: Capital costs based on King County data is insufficient for a city and should be reassessed for accuracy.
Comparative Tax Burden: Law has suggested that at this time, the City of Renton is now interested in working with the BRB to develop data that show a tax burden comparison between a new City of Fairwood versus annexation to the City of Renton.
Law concludes that "In revisiting the above study assumptions, one may question whether a new city's revenues would be great enough to cover its costs to provide even existing levels of service to its residents."
Download the Letter
Readers can download the letter by clicking the letter image to the right.
Responses to
"City of Renton Responds to
City of Fairwood Incorporation Study"
April 1 - 11:04 am
Erin Aboudara said: I don't disagree with very much of what Bryce has stated in his most recent post on the subject of remaining land availability outside the current UGB but I still favor the option of incorporation at this point. I think many people in Fairwood are just waiting for the Boundary Review Board decision to recommend for or against incorporation and that will lead many to a decision within the next few months. Let's not wring our hands and freak out yet, okay?! I am not saying that to Bryce Nelson--he's not doing that--but there are a few in the "Choose Renton" group are getting awfully twisted out of shape that we even possibly could vote for incorporation. They have not had much influence with Renton in the past during good economic times, yet we would suddenly be annexed to Renton NOW, in the worst recession in 25-30 years? REALLY?
It is unfortunate that the current recession has occurred now--very few economists seemed to indicate that the housing bubble would affect W. WA state very dramatically. We need to remember that ALL of King County, ALL of Washington and the U.S., is in this TOGETHER. Renton might not be able to afford to annex all of Fairwood at once (unless they raise everyone's taxes--that will go over REAL well!) because of the current economy. We may largely still remain unincorporated for awhile even if incorporation fails again at the ballot box.
I want to see Renton annex THEIR library system to KCLS FIRST if annexation becomes our only real opportunity to have some input in our community's future if incorporation fails again. This would not be an issue for some residents in Fairwood if we were talking about annexation to Kent, with the Panther Lake PAA, conversely. If we were annexing to Kent, I would be one of the people circulating the petition and getting people out to vote for it, etc. Kent does not charge me a higher fee to register my children in their recreation programs, for example, and they are part of KCLS, so very little would change.
March 30 - 8:19 pm
Bryce Nelson said: Hi Sam, While the urban growth boundary can theoretically be altered every 4 years, it has basically remained cast in stone since it was created in 1992, with no real alterations other than very minor adjustments here and there. Part of the county's policy is to put a buffer of permanent open space between the urban and rural growth areas along the present dividing line. That buffer makes it extremely unlikely that the line will ever change.
In theory, it could move. In theory, you and I could be the two next candidates for president of the United States. Neither is going to happen. While there is a theoretical possibility that it could move, governments can't operate on theoretical possibilities - they must operate within the constraints of reality. Politically, pushing the UGB east because Fairwood needs more money from real estate construction to remain solvent is a non-starter. No city has been able to do this, and neither would Fairwood, especially given that there is presently a buffer of permanent open space along a large chunk of the eastern edge of the boundary line here in Fairwood.
When you assert that it's possible Fairwood could go east, you should make sure to also tell people that no other city has been able to move the boundaries of the UGB in the way you describe since its creation in 1992. So when I say that there's no way that Fairwood would be able to go east, it's because all of the lengthy history of the UGB and the planning process tells us that's the case. In other words, because that's the reality of the situation.
You also seem to be advocating for a moratorium on multi-family housing, which is fine if that's your position, except that it would cause the city of Fairwood to be finically insolvent. You can't tout the Henderson & Young study on one hand -- which requires a significant amount of new housing for the city to be financially feasible -- and then on the other say that you're not going to allow new development. There are parcels in the area whose permits are vested with King County, so there's nothing Fairwood could do to keep apartments from being built on that land anyway.
With respect to the rest of your response about the RHA, I'm not entirely sure what to say in response to your claims that others are lying and you alone see the truth. If that's your position, that's not an argument that anyone can win with you, because they're not arguing against someone constrained by the facts.
March 30 - 10:33 am
Erin Aboudara said: Thank you, Sam Shirley! Yes, the remaining unincorporated KC land to our east and south that is not part of any King County Open Space (McGarvey) or another King County Park or Lake Youngs watershed area, when adjustments to the King County Comprehensive Plan are made every few years in accordance with the Growth Management Act, that land will eventually, within 20 years or so, be divided up between their nearest urban areas if they are not already part of any city's PAA. We are only talking about a few miles of land. This would be Kent, Maple Valley, Covington and either Fairwood or Renton (depending on how we vote to either incorporate or annex). King County does have the legal authority to impose that land on cities within its boundaries as long as it is a part of its Comprehensive Plan and those cities have to make adjustments to their comprehensive plans 20 years out into their respective futures anyway, under the GMA. The Urban Growth Boundary lines in King County have rarely been moved but since the Growth Management Act has only been the law since about 1991, there is room for adjustments to the boundaries when those lands zoned rural become more urban in character because of continued development. Zoning does change as the population of our region continues to increase.
March 28 - 11:03 pm
Sam Shirley said: Bryce, correcting your errors is becoming a full time job! The growth management act boundary line is open for adjustment every four years. your assertion that it is a permanent line cast in stone is simply another attempt by "Choose Renton" to mislead and confuse the citizens of Fairwood.
Sorry, I misssed the thread where you asked me about my assertions concerning the section 8 housing. Here is my response. To start, I have 21 years of training and experience dealing with people who are attempting to mislead me and hide their actions and/or intent. In this case everything points to Fairwood being the intended recipient of a new section 8 complex. Do I have a secret video of conspirators planning to turn Fairwood into the next "at risk" renton neighborhood? No. See if you can follow along.
I know that Fairwood has something Renton wants. They have said they want to annex Fairwood to get our tax surplus to use elsewhere(BRB meeting). I know that Renton is currently fixing up their downtown core. As these areas increase in value, rental prices go up. This displaces those people unable to pay higher prices. I know that under state law a municipality, like Renton, cannot officially oppose a ballot measure(like Fairwoods attempt to incorporate).
Fairwood's first incorporation effort was defeated with the assistance of The Affordable Housing Coalition and the Master builders Association of Washington (PDC). I asked myself what possible interest could those two organizations have in the defeat of the City of Fairwood? The Renton Housing Authority purchases acreage in Fairwood. Fairwood is not a city and the local citizens can take no action to prevent the construction of a section 8 apartment complex for the persons leaving Rentons now expensive downtown core. The Renton Housing Authority says that they are looking into providing more low income housing in Fairwood (Fairwood Flyer).
The citizens of Fairwood file a second notice of proposed incorporation, and it becomes apparent that Fairwood will vote again on incorporation. The Renton housing Authority now says that they meant to say "senior housing"(Fairwood Community News). The Renton Housing Authority does not even commit verbally to "senior housing". They are vague, saying things like they are "contemplating" senior housing. Even if they did, their statements now are not binding. They could promise, with one hand on the Bible, that would only build senior housing, then build a 500 unit section 8 apartment complex as soon as the second incorporation is defeated.
The only way Fairwood can prevent the construction of this section 8 complex is to incorporate into the City of Fairwood. The new City of Fairwood could put a moratorium on construction of new apartment complexes. If the citizens of fairwood feel that senior housing is desirable, we could work with the Renton Housing Authority to make that happen, with no threat of them changing their plans.
P.T Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. Renton is graciously offering to annex us so they can get our seventeen million dollar surplus (first five years). In exchange we get to give up any possibility of controling those assets, our zoning, our future growth, and the quality of our childrens education. We also get a 500 unit section 8 apartment complex that significantly changes the make up of our neighborhood.
Dont be a sucker.
March 28 - 1:34 pm
Jeff said: Fellow Fairwood residents, use your common sense. Do you really believe in this time of deep world wide recession that a City of Fairwood, with almost no business revenue, would be economically feasible? Don't let unrealistic studies, bad assumptions and erroneous forecasts put your family's future at risk!!!
Heed the warnings of current events. There are many companies, banks, states, cities and ordinary people bankrupt now because irrational passion took precedence over wise practical strategic decisions.
Don't let the Fairwood area be the next "Why did they do it" bankrupt news story.March 28 - 8:47 am
Bryce Nelson said: Erin -- that's exactly what I'm saying. When the growth management act was implemented, the urban growth boundary was created. You can see a map of it here:
http://your.kingcounty.gov/ddes/compplan/map_UGB.pdf
The urban growth boundary is the red line. Everything outside that red line (essentially to the east of it) can never be annexed by a city, and can never be incorporated into a new city. State law prohibits cities from incorporating or annexing territory outside of the urban growth boundary.
Fairwood's boundaries would be geographically hemmed in by Renton, Kent, and the UGB. There would be no territory available for Fairwood to annex, because it can't go east outside the UGB. Those areas will be zoned rural and will be King County's responsibility forever. I get that you were thinking beyond 10 years from now, and that's exactly what I'm talking about.
As part of the growth management act, state law would require Fairwood to accept a certain amount of population growth. Since the city can't expand outward, that means it would have to get more dense and go up. That means more apartments, condos, and tightly packed neighborhoods. If we annexed to Renton, we'd be part of a bigger city, where growth of that sort could be directed to areas where it fits. But if we incorporate, that growth is coming to your neighborhood.
March 27 - 4:33 pm
Erin Aboudara said: Bryce: Are you saying that EVERYTHING to the east of the current urban growth boundary will ALWAYS be unincorporated? How can that possibly be true? There are going to be new housing and retail and schools out there eventually. Are you saying that even properties that are already owned and developed that fall JUST OUTSIDE the boundary that exists TODAY, even with a Renton, WA 98058 address that is also outside the current Renton PAA, that it will ALWAYS AND FOREVER be unincorporated? I don't believe you, I'm sorry. :) King County is not going to want to continue to provide residential neighborhoods in such a narrow area of land just barely to our east police service, road service, etc. forever. I was not talking in terms of merely 10 years from now, I was thinking further into the future than that. I hope that clarifies what I was saying.
March 26 - 9:34 pm
Bryce Nelson said: A couple comments on recent postings. First off, the proposed Fairwood incorporation boundary runs up to the eastern edge of the urban growth boundary. State law prohibits cities from annexing areas outside of the urban growth boundary. So when Erin says that Fairwood could annex areas outside of the proposed boundaries, she's simply wrong. It could not, because it can't annex anything to the east. Fairwood would essentially never be able to expand its boundaries to grow. As a result, the state would require Fairwood to take on a larger and larger number of people -- requiring more and more dense development (i.e. apartments and tightly packed houses) in the area. By annexing into Renton, we could direct that development to areas where it is more appropriate, and keep Fairwood's character largely the same as it is now.
Secondly, Sam mentions again the Section 8 red herring. The executive director of the Renton Housing Authority has stated on this site that the RHA is not planning on building any Section 8 housing in the Fairwood area. When I asked Sam in another thread to provide some evidence to back up this assertion, he had no response. So when you read Sam posting here that the RHA is going to build Section 8 housing in the area, it's worth remembering that he has absolutely no evidence to back that statement up -- it's just his assertion, without any facts.
Finally, if Renton ends up with a general fund surplus as the result of annexing Fairwood, it would the result of a state sales tax credit designed to assist cities with annexing largely residential areas. This extra sales tax credit must be spent on the annexed area -- in other words, if Renton has a surplus, it has to pour that money right back into Fairwood. That's exactly what Renton would do when it would provide significantly police staffing of a city of Fairwood, resurface our roads more frequently, and provide parks and recreation and human services (which Fairwood would not).
I'd encourage everybody here to continue to get the facts. Because when you do, you'll quickly see that annexation is the best option to provide needed services to Fairwood while keeping the area from becoming overdeveloped.
March 24 - 11:33 pm
Sam Shirley said: Ron H, I read your input and I did just as you suggested. To be fair, I went and shopped, today, at the Safeway on NE 4th. I also drove around the area including the entire length of NE 4th. Please tell me that is not your vision for the future of Fairwood. I am sure there are some very nice people who live there, but I have to tell you that I like Fairwood better now, and I much prefer how Fairwood was 10 or 15 years ago. Ron, we can make Fairwood great again. Fairwood has a strong sense of community. That is something we cant afford to let slip away. Come away from the dark side, Ron! Support the City of Fairwood.
March 24 - 9:48 pm
Sam Shirley said: Beverly, you're right, it is a matter of money, and we will be better off as the City of Fairwood. Before you assume that we dont have the money we need, consider the following: The current study being done shows that Fairwood would have about 14 Million dollars in reserve after only 6 years! The study before this one was done by Burke and Associates, it is available online. its conclusion was that Fairwood has the money it needs to operate as its own city. The study prior to that was done by the Fairwood Task force. Its conclusions were that Fairwood was financially feasible as its own city. It is said that a city is financially feasible If its revenue exceeds it expenditure.(tax surplus) The City of Renton has said it expects a significant tax surplus if they annex Fairwood. They have also said they want to annex Fairwood so they can spend that tax surplus in other areas. The City of Fairwoods revenue stream will not be as severely affected by the current financial situation as Rentons. Fairwood will not rely on big ticket sales like the ones Renton is used to. (Cars for instance) And the fact that the QFC is gone really makes no impact on our neighborhood. The vast majority of people that shopped at QFC now shop at either Albertsons or Safeway. And we do have room to expand our business district if we choose. under current zoning the Fairwood shopping center could double its floorspace for rent. In addition,140th SE has 2 and a half miles of five lane road with small houses on acreage. At least some of this could possibly be looked at for future commercial growth. The bottom line is that no one will take better care of Fairwood than a Fairwood resident. We WILL keep our tax surplus here. Renton will not. We WILL prevent any more section 8 apartments from being built here. Renton will not. With local control we can control the future growth and make Fairwood great again. Renton can do nothing for us that we cannot do for ourselves.
With Renton, we have nothing to gain, and everything to loose. Protect your home's value, protect the quality of our childrens education, support the City of Fairwood!
March 22 - 5:19 pm
Erin Aboudara said: Your golf course houses are going to be worth big bucks in 5 more years! Before the current downturn, some houses were selling in the low $500,000s on or near the golf course. With all due respect to our residents who are getting older, how many of the older residents will still be living in their current golf course area homes in 10-15 years? As soon as the housing prices go up again (and they will eventually), I would expect that in the next 5-10 years, more of Fairwood's older population will be downsizing or moving to more ADA compliant communities. Please don't accuse me of being ageist: I worked in long term care for 7 years. I am just speaking to a general reality. I would like Fairwood to remain a nice community to raise one's minor children and to grow older as well.
Another thing that people seem to forget is this: there is land right at the top of the 140th Way SE hill on the east side of the road where the electricity lines run that will also likely be developed and some of it could be for great retail/restaurants/housing, etc. Gorgeous views! There are also lands just beyond the current Fairwood proposed boundary that will eventually become more developed. There could be more retail shopping centers out there; if we became a city we could annex some of that area in the future. For law enforcement purposes, with an ever-shrinking unincorporated KC area around the current Fairwood proposed boundary, it would be to the benefit of nearby neighborhoods to seek annexation from a City of Fairwood rather than wait for Kent or Maple Valley to annex them. I am just trying to encourage people to think long-term, not just 10 years out but 40 years out.
Neighborhoods just outside of Renton's PAA and Kent's PAA will still need the Sheriff's Office to patrol their communities until the Urban Growth Boundaries are moved. Kent will most likely be able to annex the Panther Lake PAA later this year, pending a vote maybe in Nov. 2009 (date still to be determined by Kent). We will likely no longer be sharing police services with some of those communities very soon.
March 21 - 11:18 am
Beverly said: It seems to me that the Fairwood area does not have enough room to attract new businesses and without new businesses _ how in the world will we be able to afford to go with the Fairwood City Plan?
QFC closed down and no other business has found it feasable to rent that property. The Fairwood area (thanks to Fairwood Golf Course) has a large number of retired and soon to be retired citizens who will not be able to afford the costs that will accumulate if Fairwood is designated a city.
It is a matter of $$ and in this economy, I believe it is unaffordable.
Thanks for the venue to allow us to explain our concerns.
March 20 - 1:48 pm
Kim Kuhl said: City of Renton proponents say the numbers are wrong but do not support their accusations with factual data. If they think they are right, then SHOW US THE NUMBERS!
March 19 - 9:48 am
Knitting? said: I think the mayor needs to stick to his Knitting. Renton has lots of problems. If Mr. Law want the support of people in Fairwood he needs to demonstrate his abilities as a leader and solve some of those problems. The Boundary Review Board cannot use his comments/rants as part of their deliberations in the incorporation process anyway!
March 12 - 12:04 am
Erin Aboudara said: I think Mayor Law just wants our tax base to help them pay for their new jail that they will operate with several other mid-sized King County cities, among their other projects. I have stated before on this web site that I am Renton City Council member Terri Briere's niece (my Mom's little sister) but I want our community to have a greater share of the say in what projects we may need in the future here in Fairwood. If we annex, we say goodbye to that for the most part. The people who would run for office here are likely to do so because they care about Fairwood and they love living here. I would consider running for City Council here someday but would not consider running for Renton City Council as my Aunt Terri has done. I was never educated there, never allowed them to educate my children, etc. They've spent the past ten years trying to clean up the mess of 40 years of mayors and councils not doing much of ANYTHING to improve the city and Boeing slowly reducing the work it does in Renton. We'd be nuts to want to get into the middle of that. They only began showing interest in Fairwood annexation 3 years ago--before, they said NO, several times (not just 1987-88, but in the early 1990's and in the early 2000's again--citizens from Fairwood neighborhoods requested annexation and it went nowhere). Suddenly, they need our money...what will they want to spend it on next, West Hill Annexation? That's the way it looks to me. I want a divorce from their PAA if they just want to spend our $2.1 billion assessed value. For those who doubt Fairwood feasibility, how do you explain Black Diamond? They would not be granted cityhood today most likely but they have their OWN police force--we are just trying to get CONTRACTED service from King County Sheriff's Office. It is not that expensive, folks!
March 9 - 2:04 am
Ron said: Lanb, I am not a lawyer, so you should probably not take my response too seriously. I agree with the first part of Erin's answer. Annexing to Renton is pretty much a one way decision that can't be reversed. What you can do is take a close look at Renton to see if it is the kind of place you would like to live. Visit the City web site. Look at some of the Council meetings available there. Come to a live meeting, it is really not that far to City Hall, but most meetings are pretty boring. Have a look at Kent, Maple Valley and Covington to see how Renton compares. Annexing to Renton is a choice that you can make with a very solid basis of information if you want to get it.
While Erin is technically right that it may be possible to un-incorporate a city, it is a practical impossibility. You would have to be fortunate enough to elect a majority of Council members who put the wellbeing of their citizens ahead of the ego gratification they get from being on the Council. I seriously doubt that any city in the country is fortunate enough to have four such people on their City Council, but while I am not a lawyer, I am a bit of a cynic, so I could be wrong. If Fairwood is incorporated and things go horribly wrong (like the national economy tanks and all government revenue sharply declines), you are more than likely to be stuck forever with lower service levels or higher taxes or both.
Where I am sure Erin is wrong is in regard to annexing part of Fairwood to Renton. The city is highly unlikely to exercise their option to sponsor an annexation of any part of Fairwood. They will wait for local citizen groups to start the annexation effort, and that process has already started. Nearly a year ago the some Fairwood residents asked Renton to accept a petition to annex the Red Mill area. Click Here for the Story.
Have a look at the story above for details. This area MAY be excluded from the incorporation area by the KC BRB after they hold public hearings on the Fairwood incorporation in two to four months (they aren't saying yet when the meetings will be scheduled). IF that happens, Red Mill could proceed through the 60% petition annexation process in as little as nine months and be part of Renton around the end of the year. The proponents have a pretty compelling case and if the BRB places any value on the democratically expressed desires of the residents and owners of property in that area, they will find it difficult to force them to remain part of Fairwood just so they can pay the new city's bills (I am biased about this issue so you should check my opinions).
There is another group, ChooseRenton, who has sponsored an annexation by election method annexation to Renton. Have a look at their site here: www.chooserenton.com. This annexation includes all of Fairwood outside of Red Mill. Renton has also accepted the annexation petition submitted by ChooseRenton and passed it to the KC BRB, but this annexation will have to wait until after the incorporation election which should be held sometime in the fall of this year. If incorporation fails, the ChooseRenton sponsored annexation election would proceed to an election in the spring or summer of 2010, with annexation to Renton happening sometime in 2011.
If the ChooseRenton annexation fails you are likely to be stuck in King County paying extra HOA dues so you can afford to buy the police services that the county has chosen not to provide you. I doubt that there will be anyone who would be willing to exert the considerable effort required to get Fairwood West and Fairwood Crest (both in the Renton Schools service area) annexed into Renton. The majority of the ChooseRenton folks live east of 140th so there would be no direct benefit to them for doing all of the work. Most of these people are very pragmatic about the annexation vs incorporation issue. They have no particular love of Renton, they just get that a new City of Fairwood is a pleasant fantasy that has the potential to become a real nightmare.
Your most predictable outcome for local governance is to ChooseRenton.
March 6 9:48 pm
Erin Aboudara said: I don't think the laws of the state will allow us to back out of annexation once it has been passed. We CAN back out of incorporation or ask to be removed from Renton's PAA but since the Choose Renton and Red Mill Annexation petitions have been accepted by Renton's City Council and Mayor Law (accepted LATE, I might add!), I would say that time has already come and gone. Vote to Incorporate or wait for annexation that may not actually come right away for all of Fairwood. Renton does not have to annex our entire area if it deems it too costly. It is highly possible that they may choose to only annex the areas that are currently served by the Renton School District bordering areas that were just recently annexed and leave the rest of us on the east side of 140th Ave SE high and dry.
This is just my opinion obviously, but I think that the citizens of West Hill/Skyway should request to be removed from Renton's PAA and request the city of Seattle to annex them. Only Seattle Police have the capacity to deal with that area's criminal activity. "Nickelsville" will not help the general area's image either. Same goes for White Center!
My parents owned a little house in the Highlands (Edmonds Ave NE) when I was a very young child. My grandma lived on Blaine just a short walk away. It is pretty much all rental houses and a few newer, rebuilt lots now. Very sad. Those of us who favor Fairwood incorporation simply want to hang onto our area's unique distinctives. We don't want to blend in with Renton. We want to keep the type of decline that has occurred in the Highlands, Kennydale and West Hill AWAY from our homes. This is why many of us who are younger (under 50) are still likely to support Fairwood Incorporation. We are paying A LOT OF MONEY for our houses because of the Growth Management Act and the high tech industries in the Seattle area and we are also very likely to be college graduates. It could be one of your neighbors who may be your next Fairwood City Council member. People who live HERE, not in Kennydale or the Highlands.
What happens to Renton's economy (or that of this entire region) if Boeing decides to close up shop in Renton? Nobody will ask that question. They are still very dependent on Boeing's business. Look at all those empty auto dealerships in Renton. That is a huge amount of auto sales tax revenue that is GONE and likely won't return. Just something to ponder...
March 6 - 8:33 pm
lanb said: Ron -
First off, I am undecided yet so i have some questions.
I guess the question that is being asked is - Should we choose Renton and hope they won't let fairwood become like the downtown renton safeway area or should we choose fairwood and be able to control to some extent how fairwood will be.
I have a choice/risk question for the readers.
Let us say we choose Renton now, can we ever change that in the future if we don't like the way fairwood is being governed - i.e. revote to incorporate.
On the other hand, If we choose to incorporate now and go bankrupt (a la AIG/Citigroup/GM etc.) what are our bailout options - Annex to renton ?
March 6 - 1:34 am
Ron H said: Sam, I like your "Safeway Survey" idea, but let's be fair. There is a nice Safeway in Renton at N 4th and Union in the east Highlands. This store is only a 6 mile drive from Fairwood and is in a neighborhood that is much closer to Fairwood both geographically and economically than the downtown Renton Safeway. I bet that it is even closer than the Maple Valley store on both counts.
The downtown Renton Safeway suffers not, from being in Renton, but from being too close to an under-policed area of unincorporated King County. The West Hill neighborhoods have been served by the KC Sheriff's Department pretty much forever. At one time, parts of this area were where the upper class Seattleites located their summer homes. In the 40's and 50's the area was developed as the WWII Boeing Boom drove growth south of Seattle. The government spent 2 billion 1942 dollars designing and building the Boeing B-29 in Renton and other plants, just as much as was spent on the Manhattan Project that built the A-bomb.
Many of the nicer homes in Renton were in the West Hill neighborhoods, while White Center and the Renton Highlands were where cheap government housing was thrown up for the laborers who built the Boeing planes and Paccar tanks that helped to win the war. 50 years ago the West Hill was a lot like Fairwood is today, a well kept, safe area where educated, hardworking families lived. All neighborhoods age and change. New homes are built elsewhere. New Boeing contracts, like the contract to build the F-1 stage of the Saturn V moon rocket drive a new round of high-tech, well paid jobs and occasionally, drive the development of entire neighborhoods, which in part is how we got development in the Fairwood area in the 60's and 70's.
Over time the relative value of West Hill homes decreased and the character of residents changed. I'm not certain, but it seems that the amount of money that King County was willing to spend on the Sheriff's Department declined. This in turn made it easier for people whose lifestyle choices do not include obeying the law to feel comfortable living in parts of the West Hill. These are the people who make you uncomfortable shopping in the downtown Renton Safeway. Your discomfort is a gift from the natural evolution of housing and the significant under policing resulting from the poor funding choices of a series liberal KC executives. I'm sure the KCSD deputies do the best they can with a force 50% smaller than is needed to do their jobs well, but the residents of the West Hill, Fairwood and all of King County deserve more police protection than they are getting. Why else would so many Fairwood HOAs feel the need to pay the KCSD for extra patrols? The Renton PD would never extort money from its citizens to get the protection they are already paying taxes for.
The best solution for the problems in the downtown Safeway and the Wal-Mart would be to get the West Hill neighborhoods annexed into Renton so the RPD can change the environment and make the lawbreaking residents uncomfortable enough to leave.
The best solution for Fairwood governance is to ChooseRenton.
March 3 - 10:04 am
Erin Aboudara said: Sam Shirley is correct when he comments on the Renton Safeway at Rainier Ave vs. the Four Corners Safeway in Maple Valley (or even the Kent Safeway at 132nd & Kent-Kangley Rd.!). I have been panhandled or stared at strangely by persons at the Rainier Ave Safeway gas station AT LEAST TWICE, so I no longer will fill my tank there--I go to the Kent-Kangley location or Maple Valley when I have Power Pump Rewards from Safeway, where I, as a woman with two young kids feel safer. I also will not shop at the Renton Wal-mart anymore because while the employees are very nice and helpful, some of their other customers are crazy and I don't want those folks around me or my kids.
I believe everyone in King County pays property taxes for King County parks. My mom lives in Windermere and pays both Seattle and King County Parks bonds. The Park bonds are not going to go away if we were to annex to Renton. King County at this point in time has no interest in letting its parks in Fairwood go, so I am not sure why Denis Law brings this up.
Would those of us in Fairwood who live in HOA communities be able to expect that our HOA's could have extra patrols from Renton Police officers (for a fee) as we currently do with King County Sheriff's Office deputies? Sam Shirley often reports of his patrols in Fairwood Greens and other neighborhoods at HOA meetings. Would Renton Police do such things for us? As if!!
March 2- 10:34 am
Sam Shirley said: The city of Renton has for years talked about the tax surplus they will have after they annex Fairwood. In fact they announced they want to annex Fairwood so they can use the tax surplus in their other neighborhoods (BRB meeting). Last month Renton claimed they expected a large tax surplus if they annex all of Fairwood (Renton Reporter). So why now is the Mayor coming out and denouncing the new study? Renton wants to confuse and mislead the citizens of Fairwood into voting this incorporation down. This latest study does not show anything surprising. The Fairwood task force study showed a tax surplus and the feasibility of the City of Fairwood. The Burke and Associates study, paid for by king county, showed a tax surplus and feasibility. This latest study shows a tax surplus and feasibility of the City of Fairwood. Wake up Fairwood residents! We can make Fairwood great again, but not by deferring our tax surplus and local control to others. Fairwood will go one of two directions in the near future. The latest study used the City of Maple Valley as our comparable city, so to make this choice an easy one, I have a simple challenge. The next time you go shopping, go to the Safeway on Rainier Avenue in Renton. The time after that go to the Safeway at four corners in Maple Valley. Then choose which more closely mirrors your vision for the future of Fairwood. The time has come for the City of Fairwood!
February 28, 2009 - 4:48 pm
Joe Kosty said: The City of Renton are bullies and obviously did not read into the study in depth as many such issues are covered. The city of Renton is not going to take my tax money like they want just to improve their downtown and other area projects, while ignoring our needs as citizens of Fairwood area. Forget it. Go Fairwood!
February 28, 2009 - 4:33 pm
Matt Meredith said: Aside from overestimating the revenue and underestimating the costs of Incorporating a City of Fairwood in a climate of great challenge for local government, the study presents a rosy scenario that should cause even the true zealots to wonder what cloud the study group is looking down from. Mayor Law has it right even if the truth hurts and illusions are punctured.
Leave a Comment:
Download the Letter by Clicking the Image Above