![](https://westseattleblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/White-Center-Seattle-Standard-e-mail-view-e1433310230391.jpg)
(Looking southward over the heart of White Center. Photo by Long Bach Nguyen)
Tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, as reported here Monday, the issue of White Center/North Highline annexation comes up for another briefing before the City Council’s Education and Governance Committee. Last December, that committee voted to take a step that it stressed just kept the city’s options open for potentially seeking an annexation vote in time to use a state tax credit considered vital for covering some of the costs. Now, another step has to be taken to keep that option open, councilmembers will be told tomorrow. But another vote would be required to actually pursue a vote by residents of the potential annexation area, and if that vote happens, it might not be until after the November election. As a prelude to tomorrow’s briefing – we asked the nine candidates for City Council District 1 (West Seattle/South Park) whether, and why, they do or do not support annexing WC/NH. We sent the questions to their official e-mail addresses just before noon Monday, with a deadline of midnight. Seven candidates replied; we’ve published their responses in the order received and as received, unedited:
ARTURO ROBLES:
First would favor for the voters to have the option to express in voting what is their choice.
I will tell you that this is not a hard issue for me to give you my take.
I have always believed that there are far too many government subdivisions in most metro areas and that does not make for an efficient government and taxing system. We would realize efficiencies by consolidating the many functions of the local government into one.
Many jurisdictions around the country are even discussing the consolidation of services between the local county and city governments to realize some economies of scale. These are jurisdictions that are having budget problems and these measures are seen as responses to save while keeping governments effective and efficient.
You asked not good question.
In this case it does NOT matter what I think: I must act what the most of We the People, for theirs benefits will say me to do.
As long as it makes financial sense, Seattle should annex White Center and the rest of unincorporated North Highline. Currently, the costs of providing services to the area are greater than the revenue the area will generate. Further, annexation will bring with it substantial capital costs. If we annex the area, we have to take care of it, invest in its infrastructure and economic development. White Center cannot remain unincorporated for much longer. King County has no interest in continuing to pay for the area and the State’s Growth Management Act requires that some city or other annex it. Still, we should make sure the time is right and that we don’t take a significant loss on the deal. We need to work with King County to get the State Legislature to increase the tax incentive available to Seattle to offset the costs of annexation.
I support the annexation of White Center and the rest of unincorporated North Highline to Seattle. Seattle and White Center are linked in people’s daily lives–many of us dine, repair cars, go to McLendon’s, etc. in White Center. I am all too aware of the fact that the County is constrained when it comes to revenue options and has been forced to reduce services that people in White Center need – roads, parks, human services, and public safety. The county simply is not set up under state law and our tax structure to serve urban unincorporated areas. Cities can fund services with a balance of sales taxes, property taxes, B&O taxes, and utility taxes. Counties can’t levy the last two and tend to have weaker revenues from sales and property taxes due to the lack of major tax generators in unincorporated areas. A significant portion of White Center is in the city and it makes it difficult to do strategic urban planning for the area with split jurisdiction. White Center is already a vibrant business district with over 300 businesses, but could benefit from the planning expertise and business assistance that the city provides – the city has many programs the county can’t afford to assist businesses, provide human services, fund parks, and improve roads. West Seattle, South Park, and White Center would have a larger voice working together on issues such as environmental justice, food deserts and improving public safety and community policing. It is a big undertaking and I would ensure an open dialogue and outreach on all the issues related to annexation. Ultimately, I believe it is an issue of equity and worth the investment. A vibrant and diverse White Center belongs in the city of Seattle and will make both White Center and Seattle stronger together.
I am personally in favor of annexation. I live along the Delridge corridor, and so much of the political boundary separating White Center and unincorporated North Highline feels arbitrary, an imaginary line separating neighbors and similar neighborhoods. So I think it makes a lot of sense culturally and geographically. That said, annexation must also include full integration. It’s one thing to move a boundary line, but we can’t make this decision unless we commit to making these residents full-fledged, equal citizens of Seattle—entitled to the same services and consideration as the rest of the city, and not treated as a bonus property tax base with little power or voice.
I support the annexation of White Center and the rest of unincorporated North Highline. Annexations are always complex issues, often with intense emotions on both sides.
My reason for supporting this annexation is quite simple. Safety and Support.
The unincorporated area operates under a different set of rules which allows for unlawful activity on one side to slip across to the other side and be gone. The border between Seattle and White Center is a permeable one, where unlawful activity can cross a jurisdiction line and disappear. Development permits, licensing of liquor and marijuana establishments and even investments such as street lights, signage, social services, and police presence, all impact the behavior one experiences. Bringing White Center into Seattle will put everyone and every business under the same rules with a unified vision of safety.
There is also a significant tax base in the area that I fully expect to grow over time which will support these additional services.
The eastern area of North Highline provides another location for investment and development. With vision and a DPD willing to work to lure firms with larger numbers of employees, we could develop new jobs in the North Highline area. Imagine living and working without leaving the peninsula. Incorporating White Center into Seattle also brings some very well developed parks and open space areas, sorely needed in a growing city.
Therefore, it is in Seattle’s interest to bring developed areas right on our border under the same jurisdiction. Fortunately, I also believe annexation is good for the residents of these communities. We would be bringing greater control over crime and the umbrella of city services Seattle would provide gives greater stability to everyone that might be struggling. Seattle’s minimum wage rules also will help all employees in the White Center and North Highline areas.
Annexation should not occur without the approval of the residents. However, once our White Center and North Highline neighbors are offered the many benefits Seattle can provide, I am confident they will support joining our city.
It is not a simple issue. Supporters refer to annexation as a social justice issue. I agree; it absolutely is a social justice issue. If I was certain that Seattle could actually deliver on the promise of addressing the needs of the potential annexation areas, I would also agree that it was Seattle’s responsibility to annex these areas to address those needs. Yet, the challenge is that I am not certain Seattle could deliver on such a promise.
We have a long list of needs in existing Seattle neighborhoods and we already know that revenue generated by annexing North Highline & White Center is not sufficient to fund needed services and our attempt to do so might only further delay our ability to address the pressing demands of our existing underserved Seattle communities.
If voters approved annexation I would want to consider that position seriously. In addition, if we received additional revenue from the State sufficient to fund the services needed by a newly annexed North Highline and White Center, I would similarly reconsider.
I’m very sympathetic to the needs of these areas, but I believe that the needs of our existing Seattle neighborhoods are the first responsibility of our elected officials.
To date, we have not heard from Jody Rushmer and Phillip Tavel. Thanks to the candidates who did reply!
Your next chance to see and compare them side-by-side is Monday night, June 8th, 7 pm, at the Pigeon Point Neighborhood Council‘s forum in the Pathfinder K-8 cafeteria (1901 SW Genesee).
The primary election to shorten the list of contenders to two is on August 4th; you’ll get your ballot in mid-July.
| 24 COMMENTS