Burien Little Theatre’s current production, a 1950s musical comedy adaptation of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” will end its run this weekend. Shows are Friday and Saturday at 8 p.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m.
So who cares? Why support the arts in Burien anyway? Isn’t just a way for a few people to feel good about themselves? Why help? Why now?
Well as it turns out, arts are good for business! Arts are good for Burien! Attached is a copy of an article in the most recent edition (March 2010) of The Business Report, a newspaper serving business interests in South King County.
The article, “Arts Represents a Boon to the Local Economy,” describes some of the economic benefits arts organizations provide to South King County. Three arts organizations mentioned by name in the article are the Federal Way Symphony, Burien Little Theatre and the Seattle Opera Scenic Studios. The latter is located in Renton.
Click image to see larger version.
As the article notes, a 2005 study by Americans for the Arts showed that nonprofit arts and culture organizations generate $166.2 billion in economic activity in a year. The ArtsFund 2003 King County Economic Impact Study reported that county-wide arts and culture were responsible for $208 million in sales, $113.4 million in labor income and $8 million in tax revenues.
As also noted in the attached article, not only does Burien Little Theatre buy locally whenever possible, 77.6 percent of BLT’s patrons go out and eat or drink before or after seeing one of Burien Little Theatre’s performances. It is about an even split between those that eat or drink before the show compared to those who eat and drink after the performance. This is business for local restaurants and bars that would not occur without the performances at Burien Little Theatre. Additionally, for many years Burien Little Theatre has partnered with the Mark Restaurant and Bar in Burien for a dinner and a show package, where patrons can combine both dinner and a performance for a reduced rate. This has been very successful.
Not mentioned in the article is Burien Little Theatre’s recently joining with the local child care service The Jungle Gym to provide child care during one of the evening performances during a run, so parents can enjoy a night out and have their children entertained, too. Once again arts helping local business, while also helping harried parents catch a little time for themselves.
Unlike sports patrons who go to a game and eat at the event, patrons at Burien Little Theatre eat at local restaurants before or after the performance. Additionally, on any given evening after a production anywhere from 10 to 40 cast members, friends and well wishers descend upon a local bar, often the Mark, to talk about the show and the next project they have going. Speaking from personal experience, money is spent, food is eaten and liquids consumed at these spontaneous arts-related events.
Not only do Burien Little Theatre’s patrons help the local economy by eating and drinking before and after the performances, Burien Little Theatre itself spends money in the local economy. Live theater takes many things: first of all theater takes a lot of space that Burien Little Theatre rents from the City and a local School District. Theatre also needs countless items to present a live production: from paint to props, from shoes to sandpaper, and everything in between. Theater must create an entire world to tell its story. To do that, Burien Little Theatre spends tens of thousands of dollars every season. Whenever possible Burien Little Theatre spends that money locally. Whether it is Ace Hardware, Fred Meyer, McLendon in White Center or Value Village and Salvation Army, Burien Little Theatre looks first to the local community to buy everything it needs to mount a production and run a nonprofit business.
Burien Little Theatre is suffering from loss of space in the near term and the long term. Approaching is the loss of the green house, which is the office and costume storage space Burien Little Theatre has rented from Burien Parks and Recreation for years. Burien Little Theatre is also facing a much bigger jump in its rent than just to cover inflation. In the long term there have been, and continues to be, discussions of Burien Little Theatre losing its performance space so the City of Burien can replace its new Community Center (the old library space) with another new Community Center located where Burien Little Theatre has performed for the last 30 years.
In a City like Burien, with strong leadership, the arts, including Burien Little Theatre, can flourish and help lead the way out of tough economic times for all of the people in Burien. The attached article and the studies mentioned within it answer the question, “Why help the arts?” The arts are a proven economic engine, one that is much needed right now.
So what can you do to help? First, go see a performance. Decide for yourself whether the local arts are worth supporting. Burien Little Theatre is not your parents’ community theatre. It is part of the suburban fringe movement, bringing to Burien bold, fun, high-quality productions of works you cannot get on a DVD or anywhere else. Check it out, enjoy yourself and support the arts at the same time.
Throughout time immemorial the arts have had patrons. Those patrons were in a financial position to help the arts thrive and grow in a way that was bigger than just ticket sales. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “There are more things in the cost of production, Horatio, than are covered by your ticket price.”
If you are blessed enough to be in a financial position where you can give some support to the local arts community, please be generous. Help the local arts grow. Because, as the local arts community grows, the local economy will grow even in these tough economic times.
Eric Dickman, Artistic Director
Maggie Larrick, Managing Director
Burien Little Theatre
Within the next few weeks, the City of Burien will annex this lake into the city. The lake’s health problems, in large part, come from its public access. A couple times per month, citizen scientists visit Arbor Lake to perform visual assessments of the environmental and physical conditions around the lake. The reports from those visits are not good. Currently, King County has a clean-up crew at Arbor Lake seven days per week. The crew reports that there is litter (bottles, cans, paper, plastics, paint cans, used condoms, needles, etc.), biological wastes (poop, vomit), damage to the park equipment and gang tagging daily to clean up. They worry that Burien will not have the financial resources to provide this seven day a week routine just to maintain the lake and surrounding area at its current level. The worst damage happens to the lake on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. This is a time at which Burien typically does not contract for park clean up.
Photo courtesy Arbor Lake area resident Colleen West.
A number of the neighbors around Arbor Lake say that they would never consider swimming in the lake because the water quality is so poor. Several drainage pipes empty into the lake and there is a lot of non-point pollution entering the lake. Arbor Lake is obviously infested with fecal coliform bacteria (E.coli) because of the amount of poop that is around the lake at times. Remember E.coli is that stuff that sickened and killed people who ate infected food. The major cause of this E.coli is not from birds. It is from humans and dogs pooping in and around the lake. During the summer, the lake has major infestations of invasive weeds that choke out the oxygen in the lake and make the water impossible to sustain any fish. At that time, the water is not healthy for the birds to use either.
Photo courtesy Arbor Lake area resident Colleen West.
The Native Plant society has attempted to help the lake by planting some native plants but clearly a great deal more needs to be done to help this small lake get back on the road to recovery. Most of the homes on the east side of the lake are heavily gated to protect the owners from public intrusion into their homes and property. No Trespassing signs are everywhere. The road running along the west side of the lake has had to be blockaded due to car racing and crimes. The King County Sheriff frequently has to visit the lake. Like Lake Hicks, Arbor Lake has fared poorly with public access. The City of Burien will be picking up a big financial bill, if it plans to care for and restore Arbor Lake.
Photo courtesy Arbor Lake area resident Colleen West.
What Burien really needs to provide for citizens is a swimming pool where they can learn to swim and enjoy the pleasure of water exercise. Most small lakes do not do well (water health wise) having heavy public access. Arbor Lake and Hicks Lake have not been able to meet the demands that the greater public has on them and perhaps that is not their real ecological purpose. These fragile bodies of freshwater are not sketchy line drawings on paper, art work, public swimming pools or public garbage cans. They are living, functioning natural systems that deserve respect, understanding, protection and care. Do not plan on having your kids swim in Arbor Lake soon for both your kids’ and the lake’s health.
– Chestine Edgar
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
As a resident of the Shorewood community, I strongly object to having an “Adult Entertainment” zone bordering our Shorewood neighborhood, including two public schools (Cascade and Evergreen) and a private Montessori school, as well as the White Center King County Library. I have contacted Joan McGilton, mayor of Burien, for an explanation, but she did not seem to be clear on the designation and suggested I contact Mike Martin for clarification.
If the Highline Times story is accurate, then I want to know why this particular area was selected and why we need an Adult Entertainment zone in Burien in the first place. Is there any other area in Burien that is currently zoned Adult Entertainment? Does this mean that topless barista coffee stands and “deju vu nightclubs” will be allowed to operate in this two block area? I sincerely hope this is not the case and would appreciate clarification on this zoning change as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Moormeier
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
From the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, we received this letter (posted also on their blog) regarding Wednesday night’s (Feb. 24th) “Part 150″ airport noise workshop put on by the Port of Seattle:
Congratulations to those who attended last night’s kick-off workshop for Sea-Tac Airport’s Part 150 study!
Despite a restrictive format, the public delivered a loud & clear message spelling out major issues that concern us all.
After an initial presentation, the attendees (estimated at about 200) crowded around the whiteboards in 15 break-out groups.
We heard over & over that the attendees do not believe that the FAA’s 65 DNL noise assessment has anything to do with noise as it is actually experienced.
We heard over & over that single-event noise –not averages — is what intrudes on people’s lives.
Sharp questions were raised about the five-year planning horizon: the study needs to look long-term.
And what will the Airport look like, what will it sound like, at its maximum?
At the concluding, wrap-up session, there was widespread spontaneous applause for comments that the region needs two more airports, & for the suggestion that if the present noise cannot be fixed, the airport should be moved.
Less-controversial comments included pleas for more noise insulation, more buy-outs, more sellers’ assistance programs.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
Perhaps his misunderstanding of what are the priorities for the Shoreline Master Program stem from the fact that he did not attend the 50% of the four critical writing meetings. And the last meeting he attended, he came unprepared without his document that was to be discussed. He was unaware of the functioning rules of the committee and did not know how to take citizen input at the meetings. Perhaps this is why citizens did not get heard at this level. These issues of attendance, not bringing your homework to the meeting and not knowing the operating rules are of importance when you are acting as the chair of the committee, as Brian was supposed to be doing.
Additionally, had Brian read the Appendices to the draft document he was reviewing, he would be able to answer the question he posed in the blog article, “How to create public access to Lake Burien without impacting property owners around the lake?” The consultants to the study noted that there is visual access to the lake from several streets. These points could be further enhanced by the city to provide visual public access points to the lake. Whether the city will pursue them is another question and the real one that he should be addressing as a councilmember. The City of Burien has a number of beautiful public access points to the city’s shorelines which they currently do not secure or protect adequately. Jim Branson has written a number of blogs about this problem with the city not being willing to spend any money on enforcement and protection of shorelines and parks. The city has a legal obligation to protect them under the Shoreline Master Program.
Lastly, the Ruth Dykeman Children’s Center is a wonderful asset to the state, community, children and families. It requires high security for its clients. The last thing that they need is a public park next to them. This will breach their security. Brian knows that the Center has not put their land up for sale as of yet and they have clearly stated they do not want a public access next door to them. During the same time that the City of Burien issued a public statement that it was not seeking a public access to Lake Burien, behind closed doors, Brian directed the city manager to contact the Ruth Dykeman Children’s Center to again try to buy their land. Ruth Dykeman repeated they were not interested. But still again in this latest article, Brian makes a public issue of wanting to buy their land again. This demonstrates a complete lack of respect for private property rights and does not follow the concept of transparent government practices. This councilmember needs to do his homework and brush up on the etiquette of good manners with regard to the property of others.
- Chestine Edgar
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
I asked at a local pet store, and they wouldn’t tell me.
According to the Humane Society, we should be skeptical of any claims that they don’t come from puppy mills (link here).
According to the American Kennel Club, you should buy a dog directly from the breeder, so you can inspect their premises and ask questions, instead of buying from a pet store (link here).
Better yet, you can get a mutt from the pound for one-tenth of the cost and save a life. Most pet stores agree that selling puppies and kittens is not the right thing to do. The City of West Hollywood recently passed a law banning this practice (read the LA Times story here; link to the ordinance here as a PDF file).
Sign the petition and ask the City of Burien to take the lead in animal welfare:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-pet-store-puppies
- Jim Branson
So…what do YOU think? Should Burien outlaw the selling of puppies in local pet stores? Please take our Poll, or leave a Comment below…
Loading ...[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
Working at Sea-Tac for 35 years, I have firsthand knowledge of airport operations and STITA Taxi. Knowing STITA’s reputation, I thought they would surely be chosen for the new contract for the taxi concession. I was astonished to hear the Port’s decision. The structure of the RFP caused a bidding war, and the Port plans to award the contract to the highest bidder, Yellow Cab. How could they base their decision purely on money and not reputation and quality of service?
Shuttle Express and STITA operate within a few feet of each other so I know their operations and service level. STITA taxi owners maintain their vehicles and have invested in a green fleet, all while making a living wage. And, STITA provides good service, much better than any other taxi service in Seattle.
As a competitor, it would be to my advantage to say nothing and compete against a lesser provider. But I can’t watch this play out without saying something about the Port’s injustice to STITA, and more importantly to you, the traveling public. I have no issue with the Port opening the concession to competitive bid, but its selection based on who will pay the most money rather than service and safety is wrong.
Jim Sherrell is the Owner of Shuttle Express.
More money for the Port may sound good, but in reality the over-inflated fees that Yellow agreed to pay the Port are way off base. There is no way Yellow can use the minuscule taxi fees to fund reservations, dispatch, accounting, marketing, safe vehicles, insurance, advertising AND also pay the Port an exorbitant fee to use the taxi curb. What expenses will the Yellow taxi drivers have to cut to still be able to put bread on the table? Will you feel safe when you climb into that taxi knowing they cannot meet their financial obligations and still make a living?
So why would the Port prioritize getting more money above safety, service and other important factors? What seems obvious is the Port wants more money. Who is eventually going to pay the Port more money? Sure, first it will be the poor taxi drivers. Next, the taxi drivers will ask regulators to allow increased fees. In the end, YOU, the traveling public will be paying the difference with higher taxi fares.
Now ask yourself, is the Port operating in the interest of the traveling public, or is it merely trying to squeeze more money from taxi drivers and you, the passengers?
Will the publicly elected Port of Seattle Commissioners recognize this flawed RFP bid for what it is and correct this radical mistake? My experience during the last thirty-plus years tells me that when the Port Commissioners know the facts and hear from their voters, they will make the correct decision to award the RFP fairly, based on service and safety for the traveling public rather than strictly money from fees.
It’s up to you, the traveling public, to let the Commissioners know your feelings on the issue to have it corrected: www.portseattle.org.
- Jim Sherrell
Owner, Shuttle Express(Jim Sherrell is the owner of Shuttle Express, serving the Seattle region since 1979)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
According to this new schedule, the last Burien Park and Ride express bus service into Seattle, leaves at 9:18 am. No express bus service will be offered again until 1:10 pm. This leaves a 4-hour commute time frame that gives riders the only options of going through West Seattle, or taking the Link. Both are very time consuming.
Contact the King County Department of Transportation and the Burien City Council with your concerns.
Metro Bus Route Changes – Service revisions begin this Saturday, February 6.
Some midday trip eliminations on the 121, but two new a.m. and two new p.m. peak-period trips have been added.
Northbound trips leaving the Burien Transit Center at 9:58 am, 10:26 am and 1:09 pm, southbound trips leaving 3rd Ave & Pike St at 9:17 am and 1:36 pm, and the southbound trip leaving 7th Ave & Blanchard St at 12:17 pm will be discontinued.
Northbound Route 121 to downtown Seattle will have two new peak-period trips arriving at 3rd Ave & Pike St about 7:35 and 8:30 am. Southbound Route 121 to Burien will also have two new peak-period trips leaving 7th Ave & Blanchard St about 3:39 and 4:27 pm. WSDOT is funding these additional peak-period trips on Route 121 to keep people, businesses and the economy moving during Alaskan Way Viaduct construction. Visit
www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/viaductMore service change information: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/scvchange.html
- Meg Van Wyk
Burien Park and Ride patron
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
The largest owner of shoreline property is the City of Burien, and city managers have chosen a hands-off approach to managing over 170 acres of shoreline parks.
One remedy for this would be a Park Ranger system—something that will never happen unless Burien citizens ask for it.
The first four goals of the Shoreline Master Program are:
- The Shoreline Master Program shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes.
- Regulation and management of Burien’s shorelines should be guided by ongoing and comprehensive science.
- The City should be proactive in managing activities within the shoreline jurisdiction.
- Implement an adaptive management approach to respond to changes and to ensure continued effectiveness.
The requirement of “no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes” is the same requirement we have always had since the Shoreline Management Act was passed 38 years ago. During those years, I have walked along the beach at least several thousand times, and I have witnessed gradual and continuing degradation. While I have not seen new bulkheads, and few if any new houses have been built near the shore in the last few decades, I have seen an increase in off-leash dogs, graffiti, vandalism, and trash. These types of shoreline degradation come from public parks with no enforcement of laws or park rules. The City has not been “proactive in managing activities within the shoreline jurisdiction.” They have been entirely inactive.
Every day, I witness people walking their dogs to the park, usually on a leash, and when they get to the sign that says “Obey Leash and Scoop Laws,” that’s when they let their dogs off leash. They usually don’t grab any blue bags from the dispenser. At Seattle beaches, it is a $500 fine to have your dog at the beach at all, so people drive to Burien to let their dogs run free, where they know the rules will never be enforced. I have three dogs, I live next to a Burien park, and I drive to Grandview or Westcrest to let my dogs run free, legally and safely. Since Burien’s incorporation in 1993, I’ll bet that not one single citation or arrest has ever been made for off-leash dogs, vandalism, graffiti, littering, or fires in Burien’s shoreline parks. If anyone from the City can provide documentation that proves me wrong, I would like to see it. I know that on my several thousand visits to the beach I have witnessed tens of thousands of violations of the rules, and never once have I seen any sort of enforcement officer asking anyone to change their ways. It is a small minority of park visitors that disregard the rules, but these same people come back day after day, inflicting damage on shorelines owned by all of us.
What would it cost for Burien to have a Park Ranger system? It might cost about $300,000 a year, or it might cost as little as $40,000 a year if the City hired a volunteer coordinator and implemented a volunteer Park Ranger system like the City of Kirkland has. With either a volunteer system or paid professionals, the emphasis could be on education and encouragement rather than strict enforcement and punishment. If the regular park abusers knew that someone was watching, and that enforcement was even a possibility, most of them would change their ways. Whatever the cost of a Park Ranger system, it has to be measured against the cost of having no enforcement at all. This daily abuse of our public spaces by a handful of miscreants costs all of us real money. The environmental degradation they cause is not some abstract concept. I can’t give you an exact dollar amount of the damage because government has not amassed the “ongoing and comprehensive science” the Shoreline Management Act requires. I do know that Burien citizens have suffered millions of dollars of lost property value. Many studies have shown that property values decrease up to 15% in areas with graffiti and vandalism, such as is currently allowed in our parks. Burien homes and businesses are worth billions of dollars, collectively, and even a 1% loss of property value would total millions of dollars. Not having a Park Ranger costs all of us real money. If the citizens of Burien require their government to comply with the Shoreline Management Act and “be proactive in managing activities within the shoreline jurisdiction,” then the environment and the citizens will benefit.
As a member of the ad hoc Shoreline Advisory Committee, I have attended about a dozen meetings over the last two years. It is my impression that the process of developing the Shoreline Master Program is merely a formality, a process the City is required to go through. No one in government or on the Shoreline Advisory Committee believes that the final document will actually result in “No net loss” as required by law. All this document will do is to create a new set of rules that gather dust on a shelf somewhere, ignored like the old rules have been for decades. Only when the citizens of Burien take this seriously and demand environmental protection will real change happen on our beaches. Please attend one of the upcoming meetings and ask that the City begin to enforce environmental regulation, for the benefit of us all.
- Jim Branson
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
Greetings,
Please cease any discussions with King County in regards to transferring any ownership or easement rights in Puget Sound Park prior to the annexation of the park area into the City of Burien. The proposed action is akin to buying (Burien as buyer) a car (Puget Sound Park), having the dealer (King County) sell all four tires to a third party (KCLS) prior to delivery and offering the original buyer the price of one tire! If not illegal, it is certainly morally bankrupt on the part of the dealer. Any third party would also be morally if not legally culpable for taking possession of property that rightfully belongs to the original buyer.
The possibility of purchasing the rights offered by King County to the Puget Sound Park should be negotiated in an open manner with input from the affected communities. With the upcoming vote on the Library levy lid, KCLS can ill afford to alienate voters in White Center, Boulevard Park and Burien.
Sincerely,
Douglas and Maria Sykes
Burien
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
More than half of District 8 lies outside West Seattle: Vashon/Maury, North Highline, Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila, Normandy Park. District 8 has been represented by a Seattle resident since nigh on to forever. As a consequence, unincorporated area and suburban city issues have not received the attention they deserve. Seattle has plenty of representatives on the council; we need someone to represent the rest of us.
Zach is an able and respected legislator in one of the most diverse districts in the county. Once you get out of West Seattle, diversity zooms and community issues become complicated by the mix of jurisdictions. Zach understands that complexity and how to get to mutual solutions. His viewpoint will be more representative of the mix of District 8 residents.
Zach is moderate and progressive, working well with those around him and establishing effective partnerships. Zach will represent the diversity of social, economic and political actors in a dynamic council district. The county councilmembers should choose Zach to represent us.
- Stephen Lamphear
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
King County apparently wants to sell Puget Sound Park without public comment or notice. They had proposed selling it for low income housing during the summer. This was stopped (?) by public outrage over the sale of a park.
Now the word is that they have a sale pending.. This is wrong on so many levels. The worst part is that a park should NEVER be sold without public comment and debate.
If this sale was not pending the Burien City Council would have approved annexation of this area on March 2, 2010. That approval is now on hold. Many people of the community welcome any holding up of the annexation of North Highline. Could these people be behind the sale of this park? I hope not and I think not.
In the election to be annexed into Burien the control over their area as an issue by the voters, this sale is an example of the high handed tactics of King County Government, without regard for the people effected.
I recognize that the purchase of land by a government from a private party needs to negotiate in private or the cost will go up. But the disposal of government land needs to be transparent and open or people will wonder about undue enrichment of a government official.
If another government agency is the purchaser then this backroom dealing is terrible, and such behavior by two levels of government should not be tolerated.
- Ed Dacy
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review, we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
It went down because it was wrong-headed.
Regardless of the resounding defeat, the city council still has the power to impose a $20 annual license fee without voter approval. Will the council defy the voters to impose this fee anyway?
And don’t forget, any neighborhood in need of improvements can form a Local Improvement District (LID) to assess itself for street improvements (the city will help with that). Broad improvements are obviously a responsibility of the larger community (check your City Light bill for the costs of undergrounding utilities in the First Avenue improvement area).
I believe the residents, voters and taxpayers (not always the same people) of Burien want a shiny, people friendly community. I believe Burien voters and taxpayers (often the same people) are not selfish, stingy, or mean-spirited. I believe the taxpayers (including those most able to pay) of Burien appreciate their obligation to the greater good of the community. We are not all about ourselves.
Later this year, the city council may be talking about a possible general property tax increase in 2010. Perhaps it was thoughtless to schedule that discussion with a revenue increase lurking on the current ballot. Having lost the current measure, the council should take some time to reconnect with the community. With 3 of 4 council seats uncontested in this election, there is a disconnect.
I am confident the people of Burien are supportive of maintaining quality public services; provided the council is clear about the need, has implemented noticeable and substantive cost-reduction and efficiency strategies, and sticks to the basics like the rest of us.
Everyone who lives in Burien is our neighbor and we are our brother’s keeper. We should all pitch in to make sure we have the community we want. Please get out and sweep the streets to keep the drains clear. Thank you.
- Stephen Lamphear
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review (for libel, etc.), we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
On October 29, 2009; The Seattle Times ran a story on the $25 Burien Vehicle Tax/Proposition 1 that is currently on the November ballot. When the reporter asked why a vehicle tax was being used, the mayor of Burien (McGilton) said that “A property tax wasn’t considered out of respect for Burien’s relatively conservative voters, less affluent than in levy happy Seattle”. However, eight days prior to that story, McGilton and the city had done the opposite and sent a news release to the local newspapers and the B-town Blog announcing a Public Hearing on Nov. 9th to solicit public comments on a proposed, increased property tax (of up to 1%) for Burien. Before voting on Tuesday, November 3rd, every citizen in Burien should question what the heck is really going on.
When I attended the July City of Burien Council Meeting/Public Hearing on the $25 Burien Vehicle Tax/Proposition 1 (for sidewalks and bike paths), I didn’t plan on writing the statement against the $25 Burien Vehicle Tax/Proposition 1. However when no information was presented to the public about: the project costs, the amount to be collected from this tax, what other grants/sources could help with the projects, how much these project streets were actually used, I was frustrated. There were no sketches/diagrams of what the finished work might look like. The City quoted statistics from a 2008 Burien Citizen Survey that were inaccurate.
Citizens asked questions. The City didn’t answer. After the Public Hearing, the Council immediately voted to put the Vehicle Tax on the November ballot. In depressed economic times, the City was asking citizens to rubber stamp a new tax.
The City stated at the Hearing the tax will last two years. That is not true. Under the rules for Transportation Benefit Districts, the tax remains in place until the project is completed and paid for. The City does not have the authority to promise otherwise.
The City had not surveyed the use patterns of the project areas. Both 8th Ave and South 136th have light use by both pedestrians and bikes. Only 13% of the respondents to the 2008 Burien Citizen Survey who live in these areas thought there was a need to improve sidewalks and bike paths.
Some of the endorsers/supporters of the tax can’t answer basic questions about the tax. Many of the endorsers do not live in Burien and will not be paying the tax. The campaign signs are being funded by a legislator from Vashon Island and her aide. In the Seattle Times article, McGilton referred to this vehicle tax as a “good test case”. So, what’s up?
Joe Fitzgibbons suggested on the Transportation Choices Coalition website that this is a trial balloon to see if Burien can get residents to vote for this type of a tax. Other cities in the state are watching to see if they can use the same strategy to get new taxes from their residents. I’m not happy to be part of this trial balloon experiment. What am I being tested for? Is it to see if the City of Burien can get a $25 Vehicle Tax and then impose a property tax increase as well on its citizens?
Burien is one of the highest taxed cities in King County. I strongly urge the citizens of Burien to vote “NO” against Proposition 1/$25 Burien Vehicle Tax or other new taxes until Burien improves how it presents the need for new taxes to its citizens.
- Chestine Edgar
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review (for libel, etc.), we'll most likely post it. Otherwise, feel free to leave a Comment below...]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following Letter to the Editor was received via email from K. Scott Kimerer, Chairman of King County Police Chiefs on Wednesday Oct. 21st:]
In King County, there are over 35 police departments, the Sheriff, plus our state, federal, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Together, we are collectively sworn to protect over 1.8 million citizens. We meet monthly as partners in this effort to address the most pressing public safety issues facing our communities. At our October meeting, the King County Police Chiefs Association discussed the impacts that Initiative 1033 could have on our ability to provide basic police services.
Current economic conditions have already created serious budget cuts to police departments and diminished our ability to serve. The financial analysis of Initiative 1033 presents the real possibility that police protection could be significantly impacted as cities and counties address significant cuts in the funds to provide basic services. We are already seeing a reduction in police officer hiring. The Washington Criminal Justice Training Center has had a 30% reduction in enrollment this year at the academy.
82% of the cities in King County have a population of fewer than 50,000. It is likely that they will be hit the hardest as these cities must carefully manage precious financial resources to provide all of the needed services.
Like any service, police protection and access to justice in general has a threshold where further budget reductions will have measurable, negative impacts on the citizens. The King County Police Chief’s Association feels it is our responsibility to inform and to offer our perspective on the potential impact to public safety that I-1033 may have. We encourage citizens to be informed and ask their city governments, review their City Council meetings, or go to their city website to see what is being said regarding the effect I-1033 would have on their ability to provide police and other critical services that create our quality of life and safety.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us your "Letter to the Editor" by clicking here. Be sure to include your real name and a way to contact you, and, pending our review (for libel, etc.), we'll most likely post it.]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: We're now publishing "Letters to the Editor," and encourage all Readers to email us their opinions or thoughts (another option of course is to Comment below each story). Below is a letter from longtime Burien-area resident and former city councilmember Stephen Lamphear:]
Dear Editor –
The city of Burien is proposing a new $25 yearly vehicle license fee. Looking at your Voters Pamphlet, you won’t find this proposal connected to the city of Burien. In fact, you have to thumb all the way to page 100 — end of the Voters Pamphlet — to find it. You will not find the word Burien anywhere in the ballot title. Instead, you will find Transportation Benefit District No.1, Proposition No.1 — yet this is strictly a city revenue proposal. A stealth move if ever I saw one.
For two reasons I cannot support this measure.
First of all, the $25 license fee is a regressive tax that, like utility taxes, hits our working families and lower income people the hardest. Since this is a “fee” — not an excise tax — it is not even deductible on federal income taxes.
If these bicycle and sidewalk improvements are necessary at a time of broad personal economic hardship, there are fairer ways to raise the money. The most obvious, fairer way to raise public money is a voter-approved special property tax levy. At least property taxes are deductible on federal income taxes and more directly affect people of means — also, it calls a duck a duck.
Secondly, having the Transit Benefit District boardmembers the same as the city council is merely “left pocket, right pocket”. I might support a TBD if we were also electing independent commissioners, as is being done for the proposed Des Moines Pool District. I’d rather have independent input on special projects and taxes. However, the interlocking board of directors/councilmembers makes this little more than a work-around for the city council to raise taxes without their name on the price tag: “The council didn’t raise taxes, the TBD did it.”
While, I can afford the $25 for this ill-conceived proposal to improve the community, the working family down the street with 4 cars (everyone works) will have to pony up $100 — money they can ill-afford and not deduct on income taxes. Businesses will also pay this fee and pass it on in higher prices.
Yes, we totally need safe streets: safe for children to walk to school, safe for bicycles. This is not the way to do it. Vote NO on Transportation Benefit District No.1, Proposition No.1. When doing the right thing, you also have to do the thing right.
Stephen Lamphear
North Shorewood
(Stephen Lamphear is a longtime Burien resident, former City Councilmember and frequent Contributor to The B-Town Blog. Read more of his writing here.)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Have something you'd like to say? Then email us a Letter to the Editor by clicking here, and pending our review (for libel, etc.), we'll most likely post it.]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a Guest Editorial by Joe Fitzgibbon, Planning Commissioner for the City of Burien:]
by The residents of Burien will have the opportunity this November to vote YES for investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For the price of a half tank of gas, we can make our city safer for our kids and families walking and biking.
As The B-Town Blog has previously reported, a YES vote on the Transportation Benefit District and the proposed $25 vehicle license fee will enable the City of Burien build bicycle lanes, provide safer connections to schools, and repair inadequate sidewalks to increase the mobility of our seniors. I hope you will join me in voting YES to approve this levy to make our city safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Over 400 Burien residents helped shape what we want our city to look like through the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans. All agreed that our city would be a better place if people could easily get around on two feet or two wheels. Since then, the city has completed some projects, but our progress has slowed because of the competing demands on the city budget — roads, parks, and public safety.
A YES vote on the Sidewalks and Bikes Levy will enable the city to keep moving ahead with some of the highest priority projects from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Master Plan–specifically, improvements to S and SW 136th St and 8th Ave S.
This is a great time for us to tackle these improvements. Construction projects are coming in under budget because demand for residential construction has declined. It is likely that we won’t ever be able to build these projects more cheaply than we are able to right now.
The benefits of better pedestrian and bike infrastructure are numerous and include improved home value, making students safer, and saving school districts money that can instead be used for teaching. It can save you money too. It reduces emissions and makes our air cleaner. It encourages healthy and active lifestyles.
Opponents suggest the cost of improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety is too high and this is not the right time to make our streets safer for walkers and bikers like students at Kennedy High School and Cedarhurst Elementary.
I disagree. The cost of this investment is less than seven cents a day, per vehicle. We must not sacrifice the safety of our children and our quality of life here in Burien.
And our community partners all agree; organizations including the American Heart Association, Washington Conservation Voters, and the 34th District Democrats have all endorsed the Sidewalks and Bikes Levy.
If you have any questions, please email me at safesidewalksnow@gmail.com. Let’s vote YES for a healthier and safer Burien!
(Joe Fitzgibbon is helping lead the Safe Sidewalks Now campaign and is the chair of the Burien Planning Commission).
[EDITOR'S NOTE: We welcome all viewpoints, and will print those that do not contain libel and that pass our standards. All we ask is that Contributors use their real names, not lie or libel/slander anyone. Please email your opinion/letter to the editor by clicking here.]
An Editorial by Jim Branson
At Monday’s City Council meeting, several prominent Burien citizens spoke up for City Manager Mike Martin, saying he has done a good job and he deserves another chance. They said he shouldn’t be judged before the facts were known.
Former Council Member Jack Block Jr. said he (Block) had the disease of alcoholism, he had sought treatment for it, and it did not stop him from being a contributing member of society as long as he took the right steps.
One difference between Mr. Block and Mr. Martin is the admission of having a problem.
Mr. Martin has had plenty of chances to come forward and explain what happened.
The Seattle Times reports:
“Martin’s breath strongly smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred and he said he had consumed a couple of glasses of wine and two beers, a deputy wrote in a report.”
That is something that needs explaining. If Mr. Martin wants to protect himself from paying the legal consequences for his actions, he was smart to refuse the sobriety test and the breathalyzer. If Mr. Martin is serious about serving the City of Burien, he could have, while he had the microphone at Monday’s meeting, said he was sorry. He could have given a minimal explanation of what led up to the accident. If he shouldn’t be judged before the facts are known, then why doesn’t he tell us the facts? At a minimum, if he couldn’t discuss the matter for legal reasons, he could have apologized to the Council and to the City for putting Burien citizens at risk, whatever the reason or circumstances. He could have outlined his plan to make sure nothing like that ever happened again.
Ideally, he could have offered his resignation and let the Council decide whether they would accept it at that point or discuss it further.
Instead, he went on with his report as if his DUI arrest weren’t the burning issue on everyone’s mind. Yes, the City does have many other important matters to discuss, but first we need to know if the person we rely on most for our public safety and fiscal well-being is someone we can really trust.
It is not only in the City’s best interests for Mr. Martin to explain himself; it is ultimately in his best interests. If he has a drinking problem, he needs to seek treatment before he kills himself or someone else. If he hopes to have a future in Burien, where he has purchased a home, he needs to resolve this quickly and openly. If he hopes to ever have another meaningful job after leaving this one, it would be in his best interests to address the matter directly, without equivocation.
The City Council tip-toed around the issue, adjourning to executive session to discuss “a personnel issue,” as if everyone didn’t already know they were going to talk about Mr. Martin’s DUI. What do they need to discuss in private that they couldn’t discuss in public? A negotiation or a settlement? How to spin this incident for the least damage to Burien’s image? The way to handle it with the least damage for all would be to discuss it openly and honestly. Although Mr. Martin has passed up many opportunities to speak, he can, at any time, explain to the Citizens of Burien what exactly happened and why he should or should not continue as Burien’s City Manager. The longer he waits, the more he and the City Council discuss how to deal with the situation instead of actually dealing with it, the more it looks like he, and they, have something to hide.
The way to deal with the Mr. Martin’s accident is to tell the truth. He doesn’t need a lawyer for that.
If he can’t tell us the truth, he has no business being our City Manager.
So, what do YOU think Mike Martin should do? Please answer our poll:
Loading ...[EDITOR'S NOTE: Jim Branson is a longtime area resident and outspoken activist. Previously, he wrote an editorial on "Earth Hour" that received quite a few Comments from Readers.
What do you think of his opinion on Mike Martin? Please Comment below.
Also if you have an opinion about a local issue, or a "Letter to the Editor" you'd like us to post, please email us.]
