Helpers assist the Bascos in moving out of the Karuna Arts Yoga location Friday, Feb. 3. Photo by Scott Schaefer.

Karuna Arts Yoga has occupied the building on the corner of Ambaum Blvd. and SW 152nd in Olde Burien for 7 years and Anne Basco the owner has successfully taught a wide range of students from the novice to advanced. She has also conducted in-depth programs that have produced many new teachers who now teach at the studio and who have carried the skills taught by Anne to studios around the area and beyond.

Johnny Basco opened The Tag Zone 2 years ago and has built a thriving business that has attracted children and their parents to Old Burien.

The studio is now moving to a new location in Des Moines, on the corner of 6th Ave SW and S. 223rd (605 South 223rd Street). The building has been extensively remodeled, turning it from a boat showroom into a 1st class yoga facility with 2 studios and reception area, bathrooms and changing rooms. The Tag Zone is in the same building but in its own separate and private space.

This weekend Feb 4-5th, the Bascos are hosting an Open House, with tours of The Tag Zone as well as free yoga classes. Saturday at Noon the Mayor of Des Moines will be cutting a ribbon to celebrate the opening of two new businesses in Des Moines. Definitely a celebration in these lean times.

I hope this may be of interest to you and your Readers as the moving of the studio will leave a big hole at the entrance to Olde Burien but will be filling a hole in the business core of Des Moines.

Thanks for your kind attention,
Avril Steele
Yoga teacher at Karuna Arts

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Both sons of my neighbor came over to apologize for the actions of their friend, “Mr. Chainsaw”. They assured me that they had not given him permission to cut the wood on my property, and they were angry that he had lied and reflected poorly on them.

One son called Mr. Chainsaw over to my house. He stood at my front door and apologized. He also agreed to come do storm damage cleanup and hauling for a couple of days, under my supervision and with one of the neighbors, to make amends and as compensation for the loss in value of the cypress he had cut up. In addition, he returned the two huge rounds of wood that he had cut off the 6 foot log.

Here’s her original Letter, first posted on Jan. 22:

The fee quoted by the arborist to remove the tree was enough to make anyone’s jaw drop onto the snowy ground. But it was mid-afternoon and getting dark. I had a tree on my roof and needed to get it off. And I was still on stun.

“Fine. Get the tree off the roof.” And that’s all he did for the price, taking full advantage of a bad situation. Removal and cleanup would have been an added fee. The urgency of my situation formed dollar signs in the eyes of the arborist.

The second tree, at the road, was brought down at no charge by Seattle City Light because of the danger it posed to the neighborhood’s lines. The crew was courteous and generous, welcome attitudes after the arborist’s pushy greed the day before. The 100 ft. trunk was cut into manageable pieces and dropped into a pile on the side of my property. The base of the trunk was left at a 6 ft. length, and lay in my lower parking area. I figured that all of this could be dealt with in a day or two, after the snow and ice melted.

The next afternoon, I was talking to a local artist that offered to buy that 6 ft. length of cypress for a commercial project she was working on. We measured it, and brainstormed about potential ways to integrate the wood into her project. She’d come by in a day or two, with a truck and some help, to pick up the heavy piece of wood.

An hour later, now dark, I heard a chainsaw droning on and on. I thought, “who in the world is using a chainsaw this late?” Then I realized the sound seemed to be coming from where the cypress log lay.

I flew out the door and to the road and won’t repeat the expletives that came out of my mouth. The cypress trunk was now only 4 feet long. Mr. Chainsaw was standing on my property, under the street lamp, making firewood out of my wood that had been destined for an art piece. Technically, doesn’t this amount to trespassing and attempted theft?

Mr. Chainsaw said that my neighbors across the street had told him he could cut and take it. Really? Couldn’t he (shouldn’t he) have come knocking on my door to ask politely, “Excuse me, but will you be using the wood from your tree that came down? May I cut it and take it?”

And, what were my neighbors thinking in granting permission that they had no right to grant?

We have all heard reports of post-disaster looting and artificially-high rates for repair and cleanup. It seems to me that after we’ve all endured snow, ice, power outages, downed trees, property damage, loss of work, etc., we should more readily offer generosity, respect… and lawfulness. An urgent situation does not grant license to forego courtesy and propriety! We will not be united through greed and opportunism.

My experience due to the downing of my trees gave me a glimpse into a “darkside” viewpoint. Fortunately, that glimpse was contrasted by the many offers of help, and by a plate of fresh-baked cookies brought over by my elder neighbors, an enduring sweet spot in the middle of a sour-tasting time.

– Maureen Hoffmann

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

A recent article in the Highline Times illustrates how little we as humans really understand of nature and salmon recovery: http://www.highlinetimes.com/2012/01/09/news/csi-highline-investigation-uncovers-more-salmon-s. This year Miller Creek has shown a remarkable amount of salmon returning to the creek.  There are far more fish returning than the Port of Seattle, the Cities of Normandy Park and Burien and the citizens of the area ever expected to count. When the third runway was under dispute, the Port of Seattle claimed that there were no fish in Miller Creek and therefore claimed there was nothing worthy of protection in the creek. Only through the constant efforts and insistence of the two groups-Trout Unlimited and CASE-was the Port forced to do a study on the fish populations in the creek. When the scientists came out to do an electric shock treatment on the creek, they found that Miller Creek was a creek that had fish population worthy of saving. Of course those of us who have lived around the creek-citizen scientists-knew this from their own personal observations.

While more fish are returning to the creek than ever expected, there are still some big problems for the fish. 40% of the fish are dying before they can spawn due to polluted storm water.For sure Burien needs to improve its Storm Water management system. Burien has known this for a long time but simply has not allocated the adequate funding to do the job correctly-to keep the waters clean. As individual citizens we can still do our part to help in the recovery of Miller Creek and the entire Sound. Please follow these simple practices in your own neighborhood and help to keep the fish that manage to make it back to the creek alive and spawning in Miller Creek.

HOW TO MINIMIZING SURFACE AND STORM WATER RUNOFF:

• Preserve plantings next to streams, lakes, wetlands and the Sound.  Plant trees and shrubs native to the Northwest whenever possible.
• Control pet access to streams and lakes.  Pet wastes-poop-degrade water quality.
• Maintain your vehicle regularly.  Leaking substances from vehicles contains toxic metals and are a major source of water pollution.
• Wash your vehicles on the grass, over dirt or at a commercial car wash.  Keep suds out of streams, lakes and the Sound.
• Recycle your motor oil at the nearest gas station.  Don’t dump it down the storm drain or pour it on the ground.
• Sweep your walks and driveway instead of hosing them down.  Dirt, gravel and debris from these paved surfaces contain contaminants that pollute water.
• Reduce the use of chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers.  If you fertilize your lawn, use a fertilizer with the lowest numbers available.  Try to use a fertilizer with a zero as the middle number-example 3-0-3.  The middle number is the amount Phosphorus in the fertilizer and it is this element that causes toxic algae problems in the shorelines.  By the year 2014, this element will be outlawed in fertilizers.
• Maintain your septic tank.

Sincerely,
Linda Plein

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

WOW who writes this stuff for the City of Burien website. Currently on the website under annexation of north Highline this statement is made in the last paragraph, “…Financially feasible, and even provide additional resources to the City above the costs of annexation, since Burien would receive up to $5 million a year for ten years …”.

Amazing how wrong our City staff can be! Let me quote Washington state law RCW 82.14.415(6), “All revenues collected under this section SHALL be used SOLELY to provide, maintain, and operate municipal services FOR THE ANNEXATION AREA.”

How does the above quoted state law allow Burien (or any other City) to “provide additional resources to the City ABOVE the costs of annexation”? If the City writer cared to learn more he/she might try reading RCW 82.14.415(7) which further details what the annexing City MUST do with these Sales Tax Credits and what to do if the Credits actually exceed the costs of providing services in the area.

Okay now to give the City staffer a math lesson. It is NOT POSSIBLE for the City of Burien to receive anything near $5 million. Not even possible to receive near $1 million. Why? Because the above state law specifically details the formula upon which any City receives this Tax credit. The credit is based upon the state’s Sales Tax collected in the annexing City not as reported in the BERK Report based upon the City Sales tax.

Manager Mike Martin has already stated that Burien, “has received a total of $584,000 to date to help the city provide services in the NORTH Burien annexed area” referring to the Area X north highline. That amount is nowhere near $5 million as referred to in the website. Even if Burien annexes Area Y and again based upon sales tax formula the City MIGHT be able to get an additional $200,000 since the sales tax would then include those collected in Burien to INCLUDE Area Y (White Center business area). Burien does not have a snowballs chance to collected “up to $5 million” EVER. Note the City of Auburn received its first annexation check in 2008 for $1.25 million. Auburn has a enormous retail and commercial sales tax base compared to Burien. How could anyone speak of getting “up to $5 million” when it not even a remote possibility? Unless it is written to purposefully deceive, such a statement is grossly incompetent.

Who writes this stuff for the City? How could these significant errors get past the City Manager and the Council?

- Chuck Rangel
Burien

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

On January 9th I attended a Boundary Review Board meeting at Cascade Middle School to listen to people make their cases either for or against a Burien annexation of what is known as “Unincorporated King County Area Y.”  Only one thing was really clear when I left this meeting: I am concerned about how this annexation is being approached.

To be clear right off the bat, I have not decided if I am for or against annexation of North Highline yet and I had hoped that these meetings would help me decide. What I experienced at this meeting was a lot of noise and what I am starting to believe is willful ignorance towards the facts.

Person after person got up at the meeting and talked about how the City of Burien was trying to pull a fast one on everyone or how the BERK report was a scam or incomplete or how we don’t want “those people” or “all that crime” in Burien. What stood out to me was how many of these people had no factual evidence to support their claims and most had no background in what they talking about. I was amazed at how many people spoke with such authority on matters such as finances, city planning, urban development, crime, and the morality of Burien City Council Members when most, if not all of the speakers had no platform or experience from which to speak from with such expertise.

A number of speakers were allowed to speak for longer than 3 minutes because they claimed to represent groups of citizens concerned about annexation. In these extended speeches I heard a number of outright factual errors about finances, education, and crime. The City of Burien and the King County Sheriffs Department have provided plenty of information about these topics on their website but for some reason these speakers “facts” and figures were no where close to what the City of Burien and the King County Sheriffs Department have provided. That tells me that these speakers are either patriotic Americans who are standing up against our deceptive local government or people who don’t care about facts, only care about what they want to be true, and don’t care how much they have to stretch the truth to get what they want. I think the latter is probably the most likely.

One of these speakers, the wife of newly elected Burien City Council Member Bob Edgar, Chestine Edgar, went as far as to claim that the region (Burien and White Center) are “over saturated with libraries.” Mrs. Edgar, I want you to know that I disagree with your support of the two Burien libraries being closed and believe that you are stretching the truth if not outright lying* when speak against annexation.

*EDITOR’S NOTE: We spoke with Ms. Edgar shortly after this letter was published, and she states that she did not make the statement Mr. McCumber quoted her as saying. Also, we encourage future Letter Writers to defer using accusatory, slanderous language.

I was also extremely concerned about Burien City Council Member Lucy Krakowiak’s actions at the meeting last night. When it came to speaking about Burien libraries being closed, she chose to not speak her opinion about the issue as it may be a conflict of interest because she is both a City Council Member and a member of the King County Library Board. Last night Krakowiak showed no hesitation to speak her opinion about annexation. I perceived her actions at the meeting last night to be very hypocritical and again made me wonder if she understands her elected role.

I still do not know if I will support or oppose the annexation of the unincorporated area, but I do know that the decision should be made out of reasonableness and factual evidence.

- Mike McCumber – Burien

[Have something you'd like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

I don’t know how to post this, so hope you can help me.

I would like to give a ‘shout out’ of praise to Burien Bark.  Today I visited Nickelsville (our local homeless camp) with some food and saw how low they were on wood chips and gravel…essentials for keeping the mud at bay.

I came home and called Burien Bark and asked if they would be willing to donate some wood chips and gravel. Without so much as a one second pause, Jeff of Burien Bark said ‘absolutely’. They will go Monday the 9th to deliver Wood Chips, observe  what kind of gravel they are using and turn around and deliver that, too.  Jeff also said he would be on the look out for ‘pallets’ which the camp uses to elevate their tents from the muddy surfaces.

I have used Burien Bark for 10 years and I love their sense of family and ’community’.  Jeff mentioned that when the camp was in Burien a while back that he delivered some gravel to them, simply upon seeing their needs.

Support Burien Bark!

- Adelle Comfort

PS: Nickelsville has many needs, some of which we can fill from ‘extra’ items we have at home. If people think they have items that can help the homeless, please let them know they can contact me at adelle1016@comcast.net. I am just one person trying to help, but will do my best to respond to all efforts on their behalf.

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Please exercise your fiduciary responsibility before proceeding any further down the road to financial disaster that annexation of Area Y will ensure (see below and attached).

Members of the Burien City Council –

Yesterday, I received a document from the King County Assessor’s Office regarding Area Y/White Center/North Highline.

While it was only a preliminary draft, it shows Area Y as decreasing in taxable land value by $126,295,650 for the year 2012. This is significantly lower than Berk or the City of Burien projected the value of the land to be in the report and the application. Of course, this means less monies coming into Burien should they annex the area. The Assessor’s office anticipates that the Fire District will receive $189,443 dollars less next year to operate in Area Y. Area Y land values dropped by 17% and remember that Berk projected in its report that land values would continue to rise by 2% annually in the area-that is a difference of 19% from the report to the reality of the situation. I am still waiting to hear the approx. amount less of total dollars this will bring in to operate the area in 2012.

You will recall the the Assessor’s office notified Burien that the City will receive approx. $467,000+ less monies to operate the City in 2012 due to the declining land values in Burien-the core area of the City dropped by 8.+% and the newly annexed area dropped by 12 to 17%. Again Berk assumed that values in the city would increase by 2% in Burien.

Clearly, the City will receive a significantly lower amount of revenues than anticipated. The assumptions about revenues in the Berk report draft are no longer valid and will not be valid for a number of years-if ever. This is a point that will be made about the Draft Berk Report and the assumptions for revenues that the report is based upon-to the Boundary Review Board.

Please see attached the document from King County .

Also, I received a letter that clearly states that the Highline School District would receive more monies for the north end schools, if Area Y were to annex to Seattle.

Sincerely
John and Linda Poitras

Here is a screenshot of the spreadsheet referenced in this letter; you can also download a PDF here and an .xls here.

Click image to see larger version.

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Are there two Buriens?

The simple answer is Yes and No. It really depends on the context of how you ask the question. There is certainly a perception of “East” versus “West” of Ambaum Boulevard in Burien, but I won’t be looking at that directly. I wanted to look at this question in regards to the most recent election (November 8th, 2011).

First some asterisks of note. I didn’t split the 34th precincts between east and west of Ambaum. So, in relation to East versus West in the 34th pre-annexation scenario, that hasn’t been analyzed. I also did not include any under-votes (blank), over-votes, or write-in candidates. The vote count per race was not uniform so I totaled the three races and averaged out the vote count.

In the following scenarios, there were no changes in who won the overall election. In this regard, there is only one Burien.

The scenarios are: Voting in the 11th. Voting in the 33rd. Voting in the 34th. North Burien voting. 34th pre-annexation voting. Burien voting removing Pre-annexation 34th. Burien voting removing North Burien.

• There are 22,405 registered voters in Burien. Of those, 11,283 or 50.36% voted.
• There are 7,545 registered voters in the 11th. Of those, 2,703 or 38.82% votes were counted.
• There are 3,285 registered voters in the 33rd. Of those, 1,243 or 37.83% votes were counted.
• There are 11,575 registered voters in the 34th. Of those, 5,589 or 48.28% votes were counted.
• There are about 7,108 North Burien registered voters. Of those, about 2,578 or 36.26% votes were counted.
• There are about 9,353 34th pre-annexation voters. Of those, 4,610 or 49.28% votes were counted.
• There are about 13,052 Burien voters, removing pre-annexation 34th. Of those, about 4,925 or 37.73% votes were counted.
• There are about 15,297 Burien voters, removing North Burien. Of those, about 6,957 or 45.47% votes were counted.

Where one might argue that there is a divided Burien is in how many, in each scenario, vote. First, the 34th district represents a little more than half of Burien’s registered voters. Adding to the argument is that about half of these registered voters voted. Combining the 11th and 33rd legislative districts yields just under half of Burien’s registered voters. Yet, only about one third voted. The theoretical voting power, in a West Versus East of an Ambaum Boulevard scenario, is about equal in Burien. In practice there is a self-imposed difference.

Another view where you might see a divided Burien would be in the race for Position 6 in relation to the 34th pre-annexation vote. All of the other scenarios closely matched the general election numbers. In this scenario, however, Robison defeated Wagner by just 23 votes (2,294 to 2,271 out of 9,353 voters). The rest of Burien elected Robison over Wagner at much higher rates (2819 to 2089 out of 13,052 voters).

Also, the “rest” of Burien (about 60% of registered voters) out-voted the pre-annexation 34th by just 343 total votes.

Some perceive the “West of Ambaum” crowd as noisy, but they also vote. They are about 40% of the city and it is their voice that is heard since they take the time to vote.

Where any politician can get in trouble is representing the interests of the voter, over the interests of the citizens. This slippery slope runs both ways when a politician represents the interests of the citizen over the interests of the voter.

I did this analysis to try and unite our community, and to call attention to our self-imposed inequities in how we vote. I would love it if every citizen voted. It’d be nice to have 100% or near 100% voter turnout. Our representative government works best when everyone participates.

Thank you,
Joey Martinez

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

Kudos to Ralph Nichols for another great article. This time reporting on the Governor’s proposal to cut annexation sales tax credit (read that story here). It provides all readers with an insight into the real workings and financing of an annexation. It also elicits further questions.

For example, Ralph writes, “this credit allows cities… to retain 0.2 percent of the state’s sales tax generated in the city…” This seems to differ from the Berk Report which states that the basis for the credit is the “city” sales tax collected not the state’s sales tax. This is important only in the sense that the City of Burien paid for the Berk report (or at least I am presuming it did) and there is a serious question about the Report’s findings.

A short while later, quoting City Manager Martin Ralph writes, “for the first North Highline annexation the city has received a total of $584,000 to date …” The obvious question then becomes ‘well what about the $5 million?’ To date generally means from beginning (April 1, 2010) to now (date). So, if for more than a year, the city has received $584,000 where are all the discussions about $5million per year coming from? What is the factual basis for that hope of $5 million per year? Remember, both the first annexation area and the proposed annexation area are over the 10,000 population mark needed to attach to the credit.

Another question has to do with a quote (Nichols, Sept 20, 2011) from the City Finance Director Kim Krause in which she said that the “south” north Highline “has paid for itself”. If that is accurate then how does Burien qualify for the $584,000 it received from the tax credit? It is my understanding that the credit is only available if the costs of servicing the area annexed are greater than the revenues generated from the area. State law provides, “The revenues from the tax … may not exceed that which the city deems necessary to generate revenue equal to the difference between the city’s cost to provide, maintain … services.” RCW 82.14.415(7). I sense a bit of a contradiction or confusion about this. This needs to be clarified by someone in power.

So I guess what I am asking is, when are the real financial facts about annexation going to be forth coming and what will the city council do to acquire these facts?

Again a great job by Ralph in getting out some of these inconsistencies.

- Chuck Rangel

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]

A Public hearing before the boundary review board is scheduled for January 9th and 10th.

Some issues to consider— include the budget reduction…$400,000 below last year with $100,000 allocated to annexation (b town blog 11/16):

Costs too high:

1. Infrastructure support, capital improvements, human services, public safety concerns
2. Items missing from budget
3. State Sales tax credit in jeopardy
4. Fire district costs (new aid car, retirement account service) plus previous agreement from 1st annexation

Violates the GMA:

1) RCW 36.70A.020(1) Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.

• Due to Burien’s lowering their budget by several hundred thousand dollars and cutting costs for police services, without the sales tax credit, Burien would be unable to provide adequate police services to the area providing they would have to increase their contract with King County to $3 million dollars.
• Fire district needs have not been budgeted into the Berk report as the need for a new aid car and servicing the retirement account wasn’t made apparent to the council until after completion of the Berk report. These items have not been budgeted and no public disclosure of documentation provided by the City showing how the city can budget these needs has been provided.
• Again, budget cuts have been made and there is no evidence revenue will increase enough in the future or be collected beyond projected revenues from the area Y to cover these newly discovered costs.

2) RCW 36.70A.020(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.

• For the above reasons, and the following indicate the established service levels cannot be maintained.
• Fire and police services may not be affordable for Burien and potentially will not remain at current levels.
• Street repair, surface water management, curbs, gutters represent 34 (Berk) to 77 (Seattle) million in infrastructure needs that have not been budgeted by the Berk report and are missing from the yearly budget of service needs.
• Human service needs, court costs, prosecution, jail, etc., in this area with a higher crime rate and statistics than present Burien needs have not been properly considered. There is a gap of 1.5 million between the Seattle report on annexation and the Berk report. Additionally with the recent Burien budget cut made to police services, it is indicated the level will drop rather than increase as needed.
• Without the sales tax credit there is no way Burien can afford to annex and even with the credit there are serious doubts.
• Service levels for parks have been understated in Berk and one park is missing from their analysis.

The City of Burien does not have the right to make future promises for levels of services that currently do not exist in the city, issues that are not currently in city master plans and it cannot propagandize why residents in Area Y should vote to join the City of Burien. Also, the city does not have the right to hire PR firms do any of underlined and highlighted above mentioned items. Meetings in Area Y must strictly be limited to be only informational in nature. Additionally, the Burien City manager does not have the authority to go to the Unincorporated North Highline Council and promise items and services to the citizens of Area Y that are not publicly known to the current citizens of Burien.

Citizens have a right to speak for or against the application for annexation on Area Y but are encouraged to keep their presentations to factual issues and the requirements of the application process. The repetitive comments that “we are just nice people in Area Y” may make some people feel good but are not relevant to this process. Citizens opposed to annexation should make their comments based to why annexation is not feasible based on service levels, income sources of the city, requirements for increased services that are needed in Area Y but seem to have no funding source, lack of funds to sustain Area Y in the future, future sustainability of the City of Burien should this annexation occur, issues with funding and sustainability of the special districts, history of the area for growth and development to generate income or special considerations for services based on the historic and current population needs of the area.

Best Regards,
John and Linda Poitras

[Have something you'd like to share with our Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we'll most likely publish it.]