Opponents

By Bryce Nelson

For the second week of this conversation, we’re going to talk about local control.  Fairwood’s ability to control its own destiny would be limited, in part because of state law, in part because of finances, and in part because of politics.  And because of these three things, if we create a new city from scratch, we won’t really have the ability to exercise true local control. 

Every city in King County is subject to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA).  That act requires cities to accommodate for growth in multi-family housing, low-income housing, senior housing, economic development, and job creation.  Essentially, the GMA places restrictions on a city’s ability to freely govern itself – requiring that all cities are in compliance with guidelines established by the State. 

The GMA is designed to funnel development into areas that are considered “urban” in nature.  The general idea is to make urban areas (like Fairwood) more and more dense.  In particular, individual cities are required to take on a level of growth mandated by the State, whether they want to or not.  If a city refuses to take part in this planning process, they lose State funding.

So here’s how this would work in practice in Fairwood: the State tells Fairwood that it must take on growth in all sorts of housing.  That means that the city will be required by State law to allow more and more development, at higher and higher densities.  Eventually, when the city runs out of open land, Fairwood would have to start rezoning single-family neighborhoods to allow duplexes, triplexes, or other high density housing.  Don’t take my word for it – one of the authors of the incorporation feasibility study said as much at the Boundary Review Board hearings. 

That means that the areas of Fairwood that have larger lots will eventually be required to be re-zoned, so that these properties can be subdivided to allow more homes to be built.  When we run out of single family lots, we’ll have to start building more multi-family housing.  In the end, the character of the area will completely changed – not because we’d want to, but because we’d have to under State law. 

It’s not just State law that will require these drastic changes in Fairwood’s character.  The financial model for Fairwood created by incorporation proponents requires unrestrained growth for the city to have any chance at being financially feasible.  For the city to have enough revenue to survive, 174-190 new homes per year will have to be built.  And this level of construction will have to go on, and on, and on to give Fairwood necessary tax revenue. 

This development would not have to happen in Fairwood if we stay unincorporated or annex to another city, as we’d have a larger area to spread out the growth mandated by the State.  We also wouldn’t have the financial pressures of Fairwood that would necessitate such a massive amount of new development.  But if we incorporate, this growth will happen, and it will happen right here in our neighborhoods, changing them forever. 

Finally, there’s the political aspect of this discussion.  The single biggest financial contributor to the pro-incorporation campaign in 2006 and again this year is the King County Sheriff’s Guild.  That’s understandable – Fairwood is the last opportunity for the Sheriff’s Department to have a city contract for law enforcement services.  However, what it means is that that the decision for the City of Fairwood’s law enforcement provider has already been made – it’s the King County Sheriff’s Department.  Incorporation proponents plan to contract for most other services as well, most likely with King County. 

Contracting for services is fine, but it doesn’t give Fairwood local control over costs, hiring, and firing.  We’re stuck with what somebody else charges us and gives us.  If we don’t like the people provided by King County, we’re out of luck – they’d decide who we get, not us.  We wouldn’t have control over personnel, discipline, or even negotiations for salaries and benefits.  All of that would be decided for us by King County.  That’s no different than right now.  And that’s not local control.

In the end, legal, financial, and political pressures would greatly restrict Fairwood’s ability to exercise local control over its destiny.  Don’t vote for a city that would cause the character of the area to be drastically altered.  Don’t vote for a city that won’t give us the ability to control who works for us.  Vote against incorporation.  www.govoteno.org

Writer's Bio:

Bryce Nelson has lived in the Fairwood area since '89.  He grew up in Redmond and attended Pacific Lutheran University for undergrad and Seattle University for law school.  He's been a prosecutor with Pierce County for the last 6 1/2 years and is currently assigned to the Special Assault Unit prosecuting sex and domestic violence crimes.  His wife is a teacher at Nelsen Middle School in Renton, and they live in Woodside with their 16 month-old daughter, who he says "keeps us busy and always makes sure the inside of our house looks like a toy store exploded!"

REBUTTAL

Understandably, incorporation proponents believe that King County is a “distant bureaucracy” that isn’t doing a particularly good job for Fairwood.  Their solution?  Vote to incorporate, so we can continue to pay King County to provide services for Fairwood.  If what we’ve got now isn’t local control, then having King County provide services to the City of Fairwood isn’t local control either. 

As a contract city, Fairwood would not have direct control over its services, because it wouldn’t have direct control over hiring, firing, and discipline of the people that work for the city.  If costs of employees were skyrocketing from year to year, too bad – King County negotiates their salaries and benefits, not Fairwood.  If you didn’t like the people working at City Hall, you’d be out of luck – they’d work for King County, not Fairwood, and we’d have no ability to get rid of them and hire somebody else. 

Besides, do any of you reading this think that King County has been doing a particularly good job managing itself lately?  If you’re unhappy with the way King County is being run, then you should vote against incorporation.  When there’s a problem, you don’t fix it by doing the same thing all over again, just with a different name. 

But perhaps most importantly, the City of Fairwood would be required to drastically change the way it now looks and feels to comply with state law and incorporation proponents’ revenue assumptions.  Our area will be required to become more and more dense – and there’s nothing the city council or residents could do about it.  Being forced to accept overdevelopment of new homes, duplexes, and apartments in Fairwood is not local control.