Kirkland City Council Should Not Ask Washington Legislators to Interfere with Contract Made with It's Citizens
100 Comments
R
Roberta Denman
4 years ago
The City of Kirkland is being underhanded! To try to side step a favorable vote of 76% to continue with Houghton Community Counsel as agreed to and previously legislated is preposterous, immoral and unethical. And frankly, unbelievable!!
J
Jane and Tom Vimont
4 years ago
HCC listens to the voice of the community, and works WITH KCC to solve issues. KCC should do likewise instead of ignoring the vote of the people.
S
STEVEN COREY
4 years ago
The city of Kirkland agreed to the terms to annex Houghton and they are ethically bound to adhere to them. Of course ethics in politics give way to self serving agendas.
S
Scott Mullet
4 years ago
Featured
Usually those involved in politics would be calling a 50 point vote margin victory a mandate. But the Kirkland city council sees a 50 point vote margin LOSS as their mandate to try and repeal the voters' will. Very disappointing.
K
Kellie Adams
4 years ago
Featured
HHC was established as a condition for annexation to the City of Kirkland in 1968. It seems quite ridiculous that we have to re-vote to keep it, let alone have our voices IGNORED (75% said to keep HCC) once we have voiced our desires to elected officials who are supposed to REPRESENT the people's desires/vote.
G
Guadalupe Reyes
4 years ago
The HCC has done a great job of representing our interests. It seems so un-American and contrary to democracy to have the HCC feel so much pressure to dismantle itself, especially after the recent overwhelming voter support!
M
Marc Conover
4 years ago
Amazing how underhanded this action is. Perhaps more oversite is needed in the future not less.
J
John Huether
4 years ago
A deals a deal -- stop trying to go behind the. backs of your constituents and weasel out of it.
R
Robb Dibble
4 years ago
Keep the Houghton Community Council!
A
Arlene Levy
4 years ago
How can you overturn your voters?
E
Eric Westendorf
4 years ago
The cancel culture right in our own backwards. KLCC is turning tricks to get its own way as Russia, China, and Nicaragua do! When in doubt just eliminate the opposition
M
Mark Still
4 years ago
This power grab in unconscionable. Let the vote of the people stand.
K
Kristine Isaacson
4 years ago
It is unfair to take away rights granted to the HCC and its residents.
M
Molly Working
4 years ago
The Houghton Community Council has acted very responsibly over many years as the check and balance to the Kirkland City Council's land use aspirations. We are very fortunate to have this elected group of volunteer local citizens to represent our community regarding the land use decisions for our area. Every voting exercise since the original agreement was made to create the HCC has been to continue the HCC. We cannot allow the Kirkland City Council and their friends in the state legislature to take away this legally established right for our neighborhood.
J
Jennifer Wilson
4 years ago
The Kirkland City Council members need to listen to those that voted them into office.
B
barbara D Waltz
4 years ago
Do not want voice of the community taken away. We voted at I believe 70% to keep the HCC
M
Marie Toedtli
4 years ago
The voters of Houghton have spoken.76% voted to keep the Houghton Community Council, 24% voted no. The State Legislature has more important issues to deal with. Sun setting the Houghton Community Council should not be a Legislative decision.
K
Kevin Beto
4 years ago
Leave it to the voters!
A
Anonymous
4 years ago
The City of Kirkland should start listening to HCC and provide information they need to approve Kirkland's proposals. Instead they refuse to provide important information (like full transportation plan) and then wring their hands when HCC cannot approve without the necessary data.
The Missing Middle Housing (aka "Inclusionary Housing") was introduced by Arthur Sullivan of ARCH and Houghton was told that they would be presented options. There would not be a one-size-fits-all according to Arthur. Then the city brings forward crazy scenerios that would put incompatible development in Single Family Homes. HCC was willing to accept a number of ways to increase density and affordability, but had to pass when they were offered the one size fits all - take it or leave it - proposition.
The huge incompatibilities with single family neighborhoods are likely to cause the city lots of challenges as owners throughout Kirkland are suprised when something totally out of character is permitted next to the largest purchase of their life (their single family home). There are other ways to achieve the city goals that are not irresponsible like this.
HCC was right to disapprove this wreckless, sloppy and irresponsible proposal.
Now the city council wants to irresponsibly attempt to have others interfere with prior contracts with its citizens. I fear this will be an ugly and litigious fight. Not a smart move.
K
Keith Kubik
4 years ago
I support the continuation of the Houghton Community Council. I urge the Kirkland City Council to cease any efforts to bring this issue to the Washington State Legislature.
The City of Kirkland is being underhanded! To try to side step a favorable vote of 76% to continue with Houghton Community Counsel as agreed to and previously legislated is preposterous, immoral and unethical. And frankly, unbelievable!!
HCC listens to the voice of the community, and works WITH KCC to solve issues. KCC should do likewise instead of ignoring the vote of the people.
The city of Kirkland agreed to the terms to annex Houghton and they are ethically bound to adhere to them. Of course ethics in politics give way to self serving agendas.
Usually those involved in politics would be calling a 50 point vote margin victory a mandate. But the Kirkland city council sees a 50 point vote margin LOSS as their mandate to try and repeal the voters' will. Very disappointing.
HHC was established as a condition for annexation to the City of Kirkland in 1968. It seems quite ridiculous that we have to re-vote to keep it, let alone have our voices IGNORED (75% said to keep HCC) once we have voiced our desires to elected officials who are supposed to REPRESENT the people's desires/vote.
The HCC has done a great job of representing our interests. It seems so un-American and contrary to democracy to have the HCC feel so much pressure to dismantle itself, especially after the recent overwhelming voter support!
Amazing how underhanded this action is. Perhaps more oversite is needed in the future not less.
A deals a deal -- stop trying to go behind the. backs of your constituents and weasel out of it.
Keep the Houghton Community Council!
How can you overturn your voters?
The cancel culture right in our own backwards. KLCC is turning tricks to get its own way as Russia, China, and Nicaragua do! When in doubt just eliminate the opposition
This power grab in unconscionable. Let the vote of the people stand.
It is unfair to take away rights granted to the HCC and its residents.
The Houghton Community Council has acted very responsibly over many years as the check and balance to the Kirkland City Council's land use aspirations. We are very fortunate to have this elected group of volunteer local citizens to represent our community regarding the land use decisions for our area. Every voting exercise since the original agreement was made to create the HCC has been to continue the HCC. We cannot allow the Kirkland City Council and their friends in the state legislature to take away this legally established right for our neighborhood.
The Kirkland City Council members need to listen to those that voted them into office.
Do not want voice of the community taken away. We voted at I believe 70% to keep the HCC
The voters of Houghton have spoken.76% voted to keep the Houghton Community Council, 24% voted no. The State Legislature has more important issues to deal with. Sun setting the Houghton Community Council should not be a Legislative decision.
Leave it to the voters!
The City of Kirkland should start listening to HCC and provide information they need to approve Kirkland's proposals. Instead they refuse to provide important information (like full transportation plan) and then wring their hands when HCC cannot approve without the necessary data. The Missing Middle Housing (aka "Inclusionary Housing") was introduced by Arthur Sullivan of ARCH and Houghton was told that they would be presented options. There would not be a one-size-fits-all according to Arthur. Then the city brings forward crazy scenerios that would put incompatible development in Single Family Homes. HCC was willing to accept a number of ways to increase density and affordability, but had to pass when they were offered the one size fits all - take it or leave it - proposition. The huge incompatibilities with single family neighborhoods are likely to cause the city lots of challenges as owners throughout Kirkland are suprised when something totally out of character is permitted next to the largest purchase of their life (their single family home). There are other ways to achieve the city goals that are not irresponsible like this. HCC was right to disapprove this wreckless, sloppy and irresponsible proposal. Now the city council wants to irresponsibly attempt to have others interfere with prior contracts with its citizens. I fear this will be an ugly and litigious fight. Not a smart move.
I support the continuation of the Houghton Community Council. I urge the Kirkland City Council to cease any efforts to bring this issue to the Washington State Legislature.