by Jack Mayne The Burien City Council sided with the city staff and rejected a Planning Commission decision and approved a downzoning of the Lake Burien area. The Monday (Dec. 15) meeting also finished some portions of the cityâ€™s Comprehensive Plan about its guidance on affordable housing and a criticism of moving a planned hearing on the controversial â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance. It also dropped on a 4 â€“ 3 Burienâ€™s Comprehensive Plan the Potential Annex Area (PAA) that would have permitted the city under state law to pursue the annexation despite residents of the North Highline Unincorporated Area. (See separate story) Lake Burien â€˜downzonedâ€™ The Lake Burien zoning change has been floating around and before both the Burien Planning Commission and the City Council for years. The problem on Monday was whether or not to accept the recommendation of the Burien Planning Commission, which had unanimously denied the Lake Burien Neighborhood request to change the neighborhood designation from Moderate Density Single-Family Residential to Low Density Single Family Residential. The approved request changes the area minimum lot size from a 7,200 to a 12,000 square-feet. Relatively few properties will be affected. Resident David Andrews said three members of the Burien City Council lived in the Lake Burien neighborhood and there are eight other properties adjoining theirs. Six of those were sub-dividable but would not now after the Council approved the change. Citing conflict of interest, he urged those Councilmembers to recuse themselves. All Council members voted on the measure He said he was opposed to the change that affects about 135 properties and the change would make 59 of the properties â€œnon conforming,â€ which affects the property own â€œtremendously if he was to remodel â€¦â€ Since property on both sides of the Lake Burien plot are at 7,200 there is â€œno need to changeâ€ the lot size. Resident Melinda Andrews told the Council the Planning Commission â€œdid their due diligenceâ€ studied and researched and â€œunanimously voted no.â€ â€œI do not even understand how the City Council can even, in good conscience, can consider not voting no on this,â€ she told the councilmembers. Randy Ingersoll said any resident who lives on Lake Burien should not be voting on this â€œbecause it is a very bad conflict of interestâ€ whether the person is for or against the proposal. He said he would not have been able to build the house he did a few years ago if the downzoning were approved. Lee Moyer said the people proposing the downzone are seeking to prevent public access to the lake. â€œIf a lot owner can sell to a developer, a civic minded owner can sell to the city for a park,â€ he said. â€œThe ecology flag seems to be one of convenience and distraction rather than mission and motivation. It certainly looks better than the flag that says â€˜keep the public off our public lakeâ€™,â€ Moyer said. The zone change â€œhas met all the criteria to be approved and passed,â€ said Chestine Edgar. â€œIt has been recommended by the city staff and has been requested by the majority of residents in the area being discussed. For those reasons the Lake Burien neighborhood is requesting that the Council vote to approve this request.â€ Later, Greg Anderson questioned the idea that the majority of lake residents support the change in zoning. He said he called some Lake Burien neighbors who had signed a letter but that it did not mention a downzone, nor were they aware that was being suggested. Chestine Edgar said it was clear there would be a zone change â€“ â€œthere was no deception.â€ She said the percentage size of houses would not change, just the impervious surfaces. Chestine Edgar said the suggestion of some that the three Councilmembers who live on the lake recuse themselves because the â€œfairness doctrineâ€ only applies in quasi-judicial situations and not to updating the Comprehensive plan, at issue at the Monday meeting. Joey Martinez, a Burien Planning Commission member and a planning commissioner who voted against the proposed Lake Burien downzone told the Council they should honor that vote and reject the rezoning. During final discussion on the rezone proposal, Councilmember Robison said the change impact had a â€œreally minimal public benefitâ€ but a large change for the opponents of the change. He felt areas such as Gregory Heights and Seahurst bring potentially greater problems for the lake. â€œI cannot support this amendmentâ€ to change the zoning, Robison said. Councilmember Lauren Berkowitz said she agreed with Robison and added the weight of the Planning Commissionâ€™s vote against the issue should be considered. â€œI find that it is unusual that there is a 7 â€“ 0 unanimous Planning Commission decision and the (city) staff finds the exact opposite. If we are not going to consider their advice and give it great deference then I am not sure why we have a Planning Commission. â€œI do not support this motion, I do not think it is about environment â€“ I donâ€™t think it is the best way to protect the environment. I do think it is importance to our planning commission.â€ Councilmember Nancy Tosta, a former member of the Planning Commission who has heard much on the Lake Burien situation in the past, said she had come to a different view. The two reasons she would support the downzone was to control impervious surfaces that could result in damage to the lake, and to support low density which makes a city a better place. No other members commented and the final vote, effectively approving the lower density zone was passed 5â€“2, with Robison and Berkowitz voting against. â€˜Trespassâ€™ ordinance discussion moved to January Normally, confirming the Council agenda is a routine unanimous vote, but not Monday night (Dec. 15) in Burien. Councilmember Lauren Berkowitz objected. Several people who did not get the word on the change of plans showed up to talk about Ordinance #606,Â which has garnered criticism from many groups and individuals outside as well as inside the city. â€œI know I donâ€™t have the votes, but I object to the removal of Ordinance 606 from the agenda, especially since it was done behind closed doors and not at an open meeting. I think thatâ€™s improper and also and I think it is also a critical problem for people who are being trespassed during the coldest months of the year.â€ Ordinance 606, is the much criticized legislation passed earlier in the year that authorizes police to â€œtrespassâ€ people who may physically offend the majority of citizens at a public place. The Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has called the measure unconstitutional and requested the Council rescind the â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance. The original long-range agenda had it slated for public comment and discussion at this meeting but that was changed to permit required on the biennial budget and comprehensive plan that had to be done by Jan. 1. The Council then voted 6-1 to confirm the agenda with Berkowitz the lone opponent. During the open commentary portion where citizens can address subjects not on the business agenda, former Council candidate Joey Martinez said the hoped when the trespass ordinance did come up for reconsideration that the Council would repeal it. â€œIt is not good for our community â€“ pushing people off that we feel are undesirables is unacceptable in my opinion and that is exactly what it does,â€ Martinez said. During discussion on housing, Councilmember Loren Berkowitz said she did not understand â€œâ€™supporting housing for middle and upper incomes but just existing policies for low income levels will ensure a community that welcomes everyoneâ€™ â€“ that seems to be putting the focus on a different place from the rest of the amendments we that just gone through.â€ She moved to remove â€œthe part about supporting housing and just leave it with â€˜insure a community which welcomes everyoneâ€™â€ Councilmember Debi Wagner replied that she wanted the reference to middle and upper incomes was â€œbecause we have an abundance of low and moderate income levels housing right now â€“ we have an overabundance,â€ Wagner said. â€œI was trying to craft something that had an emphasis on other levels because I think we have left them out. Weâ€™ve had a lot of discussion about â€¦ the low and the moderate and nothing about the middle and upper.â€ In the end, the Council voted unanimously to have a policy that it intends to support housing for all income levels.]]>
I’ve post this before but it seems to fit here too.
People can not be taxed or controlled on their own property- They have to give it away to the state FIRST. Once they have done that then taxes can be assessed. This is done by deceit & hiding the agreement in the mortgage papers.
Itâ€™s called â€œsplit titleâ€ â€“ One â€œownerâ€ is the legal owner & the other is an â€œequitable owner.
The evidence of the split title is an address ( #6 http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/address)
Before civil confiscation of property, homes were know by names like the â€œHermitageâ€, â€œMount Vernonâ€ & â€œMonticelloâ€. Jackson, Washington & Jefferson knew better than to give away their homes by way of maritime addressing.
In modern times the shadow of the fraud can be seen in places like RCW 65.12.220 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=65.12.220) â€œâ€¦ shall be deemed an agreement running with the land and binding upon the applicantâ€¦â€
“…AN AGREEMENT RUNNING WITH THE LAND…” !!!
If you have an address you are a tenant in possession â€“ nothing more.
Cognitive dissonance is profoundly difficult to overcome. This is just not the view illustrated in popular media.
This process all functions as part of a democracy ( “No person shall”) – Not a republic (“Of the people, by the people, for the people”)
Know the difference?
Such an elitist minded group! Way to continue to keep a public lake, private. I say it’s time to elect some council members who are willing to excuse themselves from voting on issues that could pose a conflict of interest.
How about addressing some real issues that affect the city as a whole? Like the children who are becoming addicted to drugs in the homeless camp near the skate park? How about doing something to shut it down so adult drug dealers can’t so easily prey on children who are using the skate park for it’s original purpose? How about consider ordinances that encourage our police officers to enforce public safety?
Our city council is an elitist laughing stock!
If you want to talk about recusing themselves then you should point out that in the most important vote in the history of Burien (the annexation of white center vote). Jerry Robison, who had multiple conflicts of interest and even though it was requested by residents that he do so ,he refused to recuse himself on that vote (4 to 3 for annexation) where he voted against best interest of Buriens residents and cost the city hundreds of thousands in wasted tax dollars.
Help us organize!
The CITY OF BURIEN is company- a corporation and has it’s business quality rated at DUN & BRADSTREET; https://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=City%20Of%20Burien&state=WA&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop
Any time they like, the citizens of Burien can pool their money and buy a lot on Lake Burien. 20,000 people could chip in $100 a piece, buy a home or a lot for a million dollars, spend a million converting it to a park, and then donate it to the city. You could do a Kickstarter, and no one would have to pay anything if you didn’t hit the target. If the public is so desperate for access to the lake, paying $100 per interested person seems pretty cheap for a lifetime of access.
False. With the current makeup of the council (3 in this just downzoned neighborhood) EVEN IF all of that were done I HIGHLY doubt they would accept the gift.
Beside, what you propose would be even cheaper per person if the cost were spread out to all Burien residents AND matched by the King County Parks and recreation Levy voters passed last year.
Heck, there’s even a little lot on the southeast corner appraised at $13,000. Any one individual could just snap that lot up and donate it for use as a park. There’s your access. Parcel 192304-9180
The deed on the parcel you identified has language to the effect that it will not be used for public access.
Clearly, the “yes” votes by council members that own property on the lake represents a conflict of interest regardless of the type of vote (advisory, binding, quasi-judicial, or otherwise). Iâ€™m dismayed that those council members did not recuse themselves, and I certainly hope that the City Attorney advised them to do so.
I have no personal interest in the vote result, but care deeply about ethics and fairness. I hope that those council members with a conflict recognize the damage that theyâ€™ve done to the cityâ€™s reputation, and their own. By choosing to vote, regardless of their position on the issue, theyâ€™ve demonstrated that they will sacrifice their integrity in favor of their personal agenda. Iâ€™m sure that there were good reasons for the Planning Commission to oppose the rezone and for the City staff to support it, but the ultimate decision should have rested with those council members who had no conflict.
There are plenty of towns across the nation where a small number of people get to make the rules for their own benefit, via council positions. Itâ€™s a shame that Burien, trying so hard to grow up and be a real city, continues to behave so shamefully.
Unfortunately for most people in Burien, integrity and social justice have been replaced on the Burien City Council with self-interest and catering to the privileged few.
I can understand if you live in White Center why you would be upset that the new council is being run with the best interests of Burien residents in mind. This means that the North Highline Council no longer has the political influence it used to have on the Burien city council when annexation was being pushed down the throats of the citizens of Burien by your allies on the former city council.
How does down zoning the area around Lake Burien help any Burien resident who does already own property there? It doesn’t. This decision was made on behalf of the privileged few by people who should have recused themselves from voting.
To say you have no personal interest in the vote and then post uninformed comments on the blog about the vote to me seems like you are taking it personally. The reason the current planning commission voted against it is because they are full of pro annexation anti-lake Burien commissioners who represent the same special interests that the former city council was unduly influenced by. The only people opposed to this vote are developers and members of the old guard that refuse to accept the reality of a more democratic city council.
#False again. The current city council appointed 3 new commissioners and reappointed one commissioner. Two of those commissioners are neighbors and LIVE ON Lake Burien.
Is that the planning commission you speak of? You’re saying two commissioners who live in lake Burien are anti-lake?
Come on Joey.
Jim Clingan rules the planning commission with an iron fist with the help of his cadre of homies like you who are pro-annexation and hate anyone who lives in the Lake Burien area just on principle because the main pushback against the annexation of white center came from the Lake Burien area. It really appears that the current commission only listens to whom they want to listen to. In my opinion we need some fresh blood on the planning commission so we can get past all this which won’t happen until the old guard is out.
Seriously John? Clingan rules the planning commission with an iron fist? Do you actually believe that or just trying to see if it’ll stick?
Revisionist history is not your strong suit…
Others have asked good questions and I wish to especially give Arthur Jenkins a digital hi-5.
That’s funny, Mr. Poitras. The commissioners came to their own conclusions without any coaching from me. As for new blood being needed on the commission, three new commissioners were appointed in March, 2014. Two 4 year commissioners were not re-appointed, I believe, because they voted against the first attempt to rezone around the lake in 2010. The three new commissioners, two of them live on the lake, came to their own conclusions, which resulted in a 7-0 vote against the rezone.
These details may not fit your narrative, Mr. Poitras. But I’m reasonably certain they won’t stop your rant. Merry Christmas!
I couldn’t have said it better myself. No matter what the vote, the fact that three Council Members acted in their own self interest, against the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Many others agree.
I hope these three realize that their very involvement has opened the door to numerous appeals. Anyone who realizes that these folks have lowered their neighbors’ property value while increasing their own (limiting what your neighbors can do so your own property is more ‘private’) could easily challenge this and make quite a case doing so.
Sad, very sad.
I believe the only hypocrisy here is the smoke and mirrors caused by excessive lawyering with which both Jerry Robison and his ally Loren Berkowitz waste council time with.
Keep in mind this comment is coming from a very vocal supporter of the attempt to annex white center by Burien. That is the only hypocrisy that is apparent here to me.
What sad is that most of these comments are being made by people that don’t even live in Burien.
Lake Burien is owned by the state. We all have an interest in the lake and the right to participate in the discussion.
John, please base your allegations on facts.
I worked for Jerry Robison for a few months, on a part-time basis, but that was years ago. His commitment to community and willingness to help people, regardless of where they live (even Seattle), have earned my respect.
To my knowledge, NHUAC is the only community organization in North Highline that advertises its meetings and welcomes participation from the entire community.
I did support annexing to Burien. However, it has become clear to me in the 2 years since North Highline voted against annexing to Burien that neither Burien or Seattle are good options. Both encourage economic and racial segregation. North Highline/White Center have more than enough of both. Staying unincorporated is our best option.
Lake Burien is owned by the state. We all have an interest in the lake and the right to participate in the discussion. Monday’s vote is an example of the segregation I mentioned earlier.
Freedom of speech is a right available to all of us. Please try to tell the truth.
It gets very tiring to read comments from bloggers that havenâ€™t watched and followed the Council meetings or havenâ€™t bothered to look up the details of the law they are supposedly quoting. So the law being discussed is RCW 42.36. Look it up and read it.
As to Lee Moyer; his buddy Jerry Robison didnâ€™t contribute a lot up in North Highline. There was no exchange of property but Jerry did serve as the lawyer for the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council (their Board strongly discouraged minority citizen membership), filed and signed their documents with the State, paid their fees, coached them on how to get Burien to put annexation on the ballot, coached them on how to run meetings to get people convinced to vote for the Annexation of Area X and appeared on the radio with Mike Martin who referred to Jerry as the father of the North Highline Annexation. Check the historical files of the White Center Now Blog for minutes of the North Highline Unincorporated meetings.
If Jerry were a better lawyer he would have just referred to the RCW 42.36 when citizens asked him to recuse himself. And it was citizens at a Council meeting and not the current Deputy Mayor who asked Jerry to recuse himself. Check the Council meeting on that Annexation X Council vote. And while Ralph Nichols published a story that the Deputy Mayor asked for the recusal of Robison, the tape shows that to be untrue.
Always approach with caution information and advice from bloggers who claim to be protecting the environment but then tell you to go out and poop on public beaches.
Then there is Ms. Giba (Legal Assistant for Jerry Robison) who lives in North Highline but comments on the B-Town Blog. As a leader of the pro-annexation pac and the North Highline Council retributive comments from her in response to the council removing the annexation of white center from the cites agenda were predictable.
I live in Burien. Have for 15 years.
We get it – you don’t like JR or other North Highline people. You’re entitled to that opinion. North Highline is NOT the focus of this story. THIS story is about three Council members who are property owners voting in THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST.
You are bringing up JR as a red herring. If you’re miffed about anything North Highline, fine. If he had some sort of conflict of interest, then Yes, that is wrong. THIS story is about a DIRECT conflict of interest. At the very least two wrongs don’t make a right, but in my opinion, JR’s conflict was NOTHING compared to the one in this vote on Monday.
Again, you are free to have and express your opinions on North Highline and there are plenty of stories on that topic. THIS is not one of them.
Last point – Lake Burien is PUBLIC and therefore belongs to ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. So people who live “outside of Burien” have a claim to it, too. Even if you don’t like them 🙂
You are incorrect. Read the law. This area should have been coded low density in the first place. If you don’t understand that then you do not understand the issue.
So I assume you would support a tax increase to maintain the ecological integrity of the lake? Currently the taxpayers that live on this very small ecologically fragile lake pay for that privilege. If public access negatively affected the ecolgy of the lake Burien taxpayers at large would foot that bill. Folks that live in unincorporated north highline in this event would pay nothing. I for one do not live on the lake and I have no interest in paying for its maintenance!
Weren’t their residences known BEFORE the recent vote and if so why the hell did you vote for them when this”access to the lake B.S”. has been an ongoing issue since I started reading this blog anyways and is such a big factor
Anybody that voted for them and knew that have an answer?
Jack Maynes, please answer Arthur Jenkins’ first question. Who are they?
The only red herrings here are those from the pro annexation whiners and the former supporters of Mike Martin, like Joey Martinez, Jim Clingan and the members of the NHUAC which were basically a PAC to push annexation down the throats of Burien residents.
The reality is that most of you either could care less about the truth and what the law says than trying to score political points. This is the REALITY>>>The appearance of fairness doctrine is applied only in cases of a quasi-judicial proceeding. The amendment was not a quasi-judicial matter. The law clearly states it is not applicable to comprehensive plan updates and this proceeding, far from having any criteria for recusal, was a correction where the map and text were in disagreement. As such, it is a required correction. Additionally, the doctrine itself is designed to make sure that decisions officials make do not directly benefit them or others they have direct involvement with. In this case, there is no personal benefit, nobody gains anything since all parties can only do the same as what is done now with their property for placing impervious surfaces. This is meant to protect water quality of the lake and is a normal and usual practice among cities in Washington to protect critical areas. For those who wish to divide their properties, they have had 15 years to do so and it should be readily apparent they had no desire to do so or could not for various reasons or would have done it by now. This decision also has nothing to do with public access and never has. That is a totally separate issue and the amendment will not deter creation of a public park.
The article by Mr. Mayne leaves on the table at a few important question that should have been answered.
1. Exactly who are the three Councilmembers who own lakefront property and voted for the rezone? Doesn’t the voting public have a right to know so they can vote accordingly in the next election? These are elected public officials – why can’t we learn their names? It’s ether very shabby reporting on the writer’s part, or someone’s trying to protect them.
For a Councilmember to vote on a measure that directly affects the value of his or her property — and personal wealth – is the very definition of conflict of interest. At the very least, there is an appearance of conflict of interest which public officials must avoid.
2. Councilmember Berkowitz in an understatement called it “unusual” that the City administration go against a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation. Exactly why would the administration change course from previous Lake Burien downzone attempts and suddenly back their proposal?
It might have something to do with politics — the new City Manager wanting to play it save and get on right side of the most powerful group in the City. We saw what happened to those City Managers (see Mike Martin) who got on the wrong side of the Lake Burien cartel.
Berkowitz is right when when she questions why they should even have a Planning Commission, when their hard work and conscientiousness on the high profile issues such as the Lake Burien rezone is tossed out the window by Councilmembers whose main interest is personal gain.
Your conclusions are incorrect. Read the law.
Berkowitz is dead wrong and so are you. You sound like her campaign manager!
Born and raised in Burien and so glad to have moved on.
Such an identity crisis on so many levels in the community. And so sad.
Perhaps CVS can drain and pave the lake then build a distribution center.
Fourth runway maybe?
How about a massive city park open to all?
Local land use decisions.
Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local land use decisions shall be limited to the quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies as defined in this section. Quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies are those actions of the legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of adjustment, or boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested case proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do not include the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amendment that is of area-wide significance.
[1982 c 229 Â§ 1.] It really pays to read the law before commenting.
The contents of the Burien Comp Plan from 1997 -2013 Page 5-30 that states what land use and zoning the city should have been following from 1997 to present for the Lake Burien Neighborhood, ” The Plan also reduces densities in important basins. Most notably, the areas immediately abutting Lake Burien are reduced from 6 units per acre to 3 units per acre.” Thanks to the Council members who finally voted to have the City follow the Com Plan that has been written and remained in place since 1997. Since 1999, the City had not been following its own Comp Plan. Thanks to these Council members for deciding to make the City follow its own written rules. It really pays to read the Comp Plan before commenting.
Interesting that an accounting of the law with no commentary whatsoever gets bad ratings.
This is proof in itself that the majority of the commenters on this posting have no interest whatsoever in what the law says or how that relates to the council decision.
The main purpose of these posters is to muddy the waters and conceal the truth of the matter.
PLEASE PEOPLE READ THIS>
You may have been misinformed about the reality of the impact of the councils decision:
This is the TRUTH put into layman’s language> Please read this before commenting further.
The appearance of fairness doctrine is applied only in cases of a quasi-judicial proceeding. The amendment was not a quasi-judicial matter. The law clearly states it is not applicable to comprehensive plan updates and this proceeding, far from having any criteria for recusal, was a correction where the map and text were in disagreement. As such, it is a required correction. Additionally, the doctrine itself is designed to make sure that decisions officials make do not directly benefit them or others they have direct involvement with. In this case, there is no personal benefit, nobody gains anything since all parties can only do the same as what is done now with their property for placing impervious surfaces. This is meant to protect water quality of the lake and is a normal and usual practice among cities in Washington to protect critical areas. For those who wish to divide their properties, they have had 15 years to do so and it should be readily apparent they had no desire to do so or could not for various reasons or would have done it by now. This decision also has nothing to do with public access and never has. That is a totally separate issue and the amendment will not deter creation of a public park.
John, interesting that you felt the need to capitalize the word TRUTH. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance….
Dazzle em with bull crap..Right?
Yes, that’s pretty much what I was thinking. 🙂
I can understand why the word TRUTH offends you. Its a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.
John, you need to read my post again. I didn’t say anything about being offended by the word TRUTH. Please try to stick to the facts.
The writer continues to put up smokescreens. If this were just a simple change in the Comp Plan to make the map and text consistent, and it should have been done long ago, why have past Councils and Planning Commissions not approved it? Why did the current Planning Commission vote unanimously against it? These are not stupid people.
A vote on changing the Comp Plan may be exempt from the fairness doctrine when it affects a large area, but this action directly impacts only a handful of properties, including those of three Councilmembers. It surely passes then duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck…
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duckâ€¦”
Shoot it and put it on the dinner table?
Art there is a big difference from being stupid and making decisions based on a political agenda regardless of what the law says..
Its like legislating from the bench. Decide how you are going to vote and then find reasons to justify your decision. Its par for the course in politics, SCOTUS does it all the time.
I went to the last council meeting of the year and re-watched it to be sure…
When the downzone of the lake came up for a vote the three council members in this neigborhood said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Not one syllable uttered… Nothing but crickets. Too cowardly to defend a decision made November 2013 when they won the majority. The PAA removal was a political payback to their buddy ufkes nothing more. The annexation fight by these people was nothing but a smoke screen to win over the council and try to sneak this downzone under the radar. That has clearly failed.
Their silence says alot to me and the voters of Burien.
The reality is that some of you either could care less about the truth and what the law says and are using this as a red herring to score political points. The appearance of fairness doctrine is applied only in cases of a quasi-judicial proceeding. The amendment was not a quasi-judicial matter. The law clearly states it is not applicable to comprehensive plan updates and this proceeding, far from having any criteria for recusal, was a correction where the map and text were in disagreement. As such, it is a required correction. Additionally, the doctrine itself is designed to make sure that decisions officials make do not directly benefit them or others they have direct involvement with. In this case, there is no personal benefit, nobody gains anything since all parties can only do the same as what is done now with their property for placing impervious surfaces. This is meant to protect water quality of the lake and is a normal and usual practice among cities in Washington to protect critical areas. For those who wish to divide their properties, they have had 15 years to do so and it should be readily apparent they had no desire to do so or could not for various reasons or would have done it by now. This decision also has nothing to do with public access and never has.
Some of you refuse to accept this including the planning commission. Maybe Mr Clingan would like to explain why his planning commission voted in apparent ignorance of what the law says.
More misinformation. There is not special “lake tax”. The people on the lake are taxed at exactly the same rate as everyone else in the City of Burien. Some pay high taxes because they live in houses of higher value. Many others pay lower taxes because they are seniors.
Again, there is NO special Lake Tax. How does that keep coming up?
Apparently you know nothing of the home owners association on the lake. Its not free.
Do you mean the nonprofit group that is voluntary to join? Yeah, I’m sure its not free but it’s also not required. Lets revisit Linda’s original comment:
“So I assume you would support a tax increase to maintain the ecological integrity of the lake? Currently the taxpayers that live on this very small ecologically fragile lake pay for that privilege.”
You and Linda just keep on with the misinformation. Many ecological clubs and nonprofits exist in the Puget Sound area. Joining one of those is a FAR CRY from a mandatory tax.
Until you produce a property tax statement showing a special “lake tax” your words are just blowing in the wind..
I have purposely stayed off the blog and out of any politics in Burien since I was removed from the planning commission. Let me first say that I am not writing this being spiteful. I am writing this, however, because Jim Clingon was attacked on this blog. I served 4 years on the planning commission in which Jim Clingon was the chair. Jim is one of the most dedicated volunteers this city has. His knowledge of the workings of the commission is unmatched by anybody in this city. Jim never attempted to sway my vote in any capacity. Anybody that know him or has served with him knows Jim is a man of integrity.
It’s been brought up that two of us on the commission who had served 4 years were not reappointed. We were replaced by two people who are from the “lake”. Are we surprised? Of course not. It does not take a genius to see who this council is controlled by and what their end game is. Downsizing of the lake came up every year and if it was brought before a council with any integrity it would not have passed. The council can now run this city exactly how some people want it to be run.
I recently talked to some members of the Renton City Council and when they heard I was from Burien they had quite a chuckle about our city council.
Eventually the citizens of Burien will catch on to what this council is all about and hopefully it will not be too late to change. Until then I will just sit back and watch Burien go downhill little by little.
Thank you for your time.
Spoken like a true blue pro annexation advocate and former mike martin supporter. Another council member wannabe getting his licks in. I stand by my former statement about the planning commission and their record speaks for itself. Mike Martin is no the longer city manager (hank god for that) and the majority of your cronies on the council got thrown out of office .
A guess a little sour grapes is in order.
Or maybe this your way of announcing your candidacy for city council?
John, where did you go to law school? Are you licensed to practice law?
The same law school you went to except I actually listened in class and read the pertinent material instead of pretending to understand or concealing my lack of knowledge using smoke mirrors and personal attacks like you and your gang.
So, John (Poirus or Poitrus or ?), in other words: you never went to law school. You seem to have trouble telling the truth. I am glad I could help you in this one small instance.
Disregard this guy and his personal attacks. Like Jim Clingan, you also have a reputation in Burien as a stand up guy. Don’t worry about the few trolls buzzing around here.
I see Mr. Poiras got his computer fixed!
Historically several previous Councils have ignored, greatly revised or flat out voted against their advisory boards. Some more recent examples of this are;
1. the Council voting against the Art Commission’s selection of “the Screw”
2. the Council ignoring the Art Commission on the request to make downtown an arts district
3. the Council voting against the Shoreline Master plan which was one of the biggest messes that had ever been sent on to them from the Planning Commission. It took them four years to try to straighten on that mess- which the current Chair of the Planning Commission dumped in their lap.
4.the Council voted against the Economic Development Advisory Group on the issue of annexation and also removed the Chair of that group because some members of the Council wanted the Annexation of Area Y so much-even though the majority of citizens in Burien and Area Y didn’t want it
It is clear from reading this blog that Art and Arthur Jenkins are the same blogger and he most probably does not live in Burien, never watches the Council meetings about Burien and he knows nothing about Burien just like Council Member Lauren B. She seems
to think that the Council has never rejected or ignored a vote of the Planning Commission.
Previously she never attended Council meetings, advisory boards meetings, wrote letters to the Council on issues she claims she had/has a passion about, or came to public hearings that I can recall watching. She came into office by using smear campaign tactics.Only 11% of her campaign funding came from Burien residents and she still does not know the citizens she represents. She was funded by outside money and interests.
Please read the law, the Comp Plan or the ordinance before you comment on this blog.
Comments are closed.