Should White Center be annexed by Seattle? What do you think?

| West Seattle news | West Seattle politics | White Center

Though we don’t do a lot of open-ended discussion here on the main page – the WSB Forums always have lots of that going on – we’re just back from KUOW, representing partner site White Center Now in a discussion of the just-approved-by-voters North Highline South Annexation during “Weekday,” and toward the end of the program, host Steve Scher (iPhone photo at left) turned the discussion to, what’s next for the un-annexed area – most of White Center? A caller (not from West Seattle or WC) said he felt many neighborhood groups around Seattle are against it; Mayor Nickels had supported it (and we’re checking with the two finalists for his job regarding what they think), but the City Council voted 8-1 against endorsing an agreement with Burien and other agencies that would have given Seattle exclusive rights to consider the area through the end of 2011 — members said they weren’t necessarily against annexation, but weren’t so sure about the terms of that agreement. During this morning’s broadcast, Burien City Manager Mike Martin said his council hasn’t decided yet whether (and when) they want to pursue White Center. So what do you think – assuming that White Center has to become part of a city one way or another (which the county has made clear, as is the case with all unincorporated urban areas), should it become part of Seattle? Or Burien?

ivan August 27, 2009 (12:05 pm)

Residents of the northern part of North Highline will get to vote. No one else will. So for anyone else, the question is just an exercise.
–
Even so, it should be a no-brainer, and the answer should be Burien. All of NH, including the southern part, which already has voted to join Burien, would be 5 percent of Seattle, but almost 50 percent of Burien. That’s a lot more representational clout, and it counts.
–
From a Seattle point of view, why would any Seattle residents who are still waiting for a sidewalk on their street vote to annex more territory? So some developer can make a killing? What’s in it for those residents?
–
Advocates for Seattle are fond of pointing to all the benefits — social service and others — that would accrue to NH as a result of joining Seattle. But if those benefits were cut off — hello, libraries — NH would have a lot less leverage than if they were a part of Burien.
–
I’m sorry to see Nickels go, but I hope this annexation idea goes with him.

WSB August 27, 2009 (12:20 pm)

The exercise would be interesting anyway – because while Seattle residents wouldn’t have a say, their elected officials will have a say on whether to pursue it, among other reasons. Maybe it’s just sentimentalism, but it could be asked whether White Center seems like it should be part of West Seattle more than Burien (or not) … some of the area just north of the Roxbury border seems to self-identify as White Center, so if south-of-Roxbury becomes Burien eventually, will it feel like the “tearing asunder” to which Mike Martin alluded during the discussion, looking back to Burien’s incorporation? We are quite latecomers to coverage of this discussion but if anyone has an opinion to share, we thought we’d raise the question. P.S. The KUOW discussion, which also included Jerry Robison from “People for Burien” and Virgil Domaoan from White Center Community Development Association as well as some phone calls and an e-mail from Burien annexation opponent Mark Ufkes, is audio-archived in the right-sidebar links here:
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?current=WK1

WSB August 27, 2009 (2:33 pm)

Update on the link, from a KUOW producer (this is the permalink):
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=18257

transplantella August 27, 2009 (2:47 pm)

I like White Center the way it is.

Quirky, independent, unincorporated. Leave it alone.

ivan August 27, 2009 (3:59 pm)

Unincorporated is not an option. the Growth Management Act requires that residents vote to be annexed to one adjacent city or the other.

kstineback August 27, 2009 (6:26 pm)

they require that this happens by 2012 – conversations like this are happening in cities all over king county, next to unincorporated areas that are growing and have lots of service (fire, police, etc.) needs.

transplantella August 27, 2009 (8:10 pm)

Wow, nobody mentioned that the options for White Center were:

Annexation or
Annexation

…..That’s only one option.

Very sad that White Center will not be able to retain its independence due to the ‘Growth Management Act”.

I say the Growth Management Act needs revision, possibly excision.

Maybe some people don’t want yet another layer of suffocating government telling them what to do?

Alcina August 27, 2009 (8:36 pm)

ransplantella, counties aren’t designed, for lack of better a word, to provide urban services. They also lack certain taxing authority, such as being able to impose utility taxes, like cities can and do. That additional taxing authority provides cities with the revenue to be able to provide services to urban areas. King County tried to get the Legislature to change the law this year so they could impose utlity taxes, but that bill didn’t pass. Besides the Growth Management Act mentioned previously, King County simply cannot afford to continue to provide services to urban areas like White Center.

Al August 28, 2009 (9:24 am)

Could White Center incorporate on its own? Or is that a ridiculously involved process?

Sara August 28, 2009 (4:32 pm)

White Center should not be annexed to Seattle. Representation, a larger voice, and our families will be better served annexing to the City of Burien. Seattle City hasn’t recently even shown an interest, and now that Nickels is gone who drove the PAA to begin with, it is unlikely that they will show an interest.

Sorry, comment time is over.