King County Proposition 1 disturbs me for its attempt to rush it for the Nov. 7 general election. What bothers me?

I, and many other voters, just knew about this proposition when we received our voter's pamphlet. I just got mine (last week).

This proposition proposes to sell or exchange public land that is owned by the county since 1910. We all know that the county is hurting financially, but when public land is gone, it is gone. Some of the parcels of land are on South Lake Union, in the Duwamish, and one is a park. When this is gone, there is no more of this public land.

Is there not a public process cited in the county charter that states that before a vote, the public must have information more than a few weeks ahead to make an informed decision? Or is this a way for the county council to think, that with a crowded ballot voters would pass it so that the council could have some money to help with the deficit, or to open the door for development on our former public land.

Why aren't the writers of this Proposition 1 following Section V? Was this an oversight or was it purposeful? Section V says that "the following individuals are appointed to serve on the voter's pamphlet committees, each committee to write a statement for or against the proposed annexation ballot measure."

The "for" and "against" statements are blank as is a list of the committee. Where are the names of the following individuals that are supposed to be listed? Is it legal to not follow what the council approved on Aug. 31, 2006?

I would hope this very capable council would take a good look at this proposition, considering a possibility for legal suits relating to Section V and (get) information to the public farther ahead than three weeks before the general election. After all, King County has owned these properties since 1910. So why the rush not to get it on the very overcrowded general election ballot?

Alexandra Pye

Admiral