I am writing this informal letter to you . . . regarding the annexation of the North Highline community for several reasons. I do this as a resident of the North Highline area and not as a representative of any group or concern. I have lived in Boulevard Park now for almost five years and have enjoyed my home and my neighborhood immensely.

Yes, I even like the airplanes that fly overhead.

The recent discussion about annexation however has left me with a negative impression about the way that this entire process is being conducted. I have outlined a few of my concerns in the (points) listed below. From my 13 years experience as a consultant with firms that have specialized in community planning, infrastructure planning, and community relations, it is my opinion that this process has been conducted poorly, is marred with rumor and innuendos and should be started anew to some degree so that a real meaningful discussion can be engaged with the cities that would annex and the people who would be annexed.

Here are some of my thoughts:

The official notification of community meetings arrived in my and my neighbors' mailboxes on Nov. 18. This was two days after the first scheduled meeting and three days before the following meeting. For something as critical as this decision, one would think that the persons and agencies (King County) responsible for coordinating these meetings and conducting the community relations would have allowed for a more timely notification.

Where is the public record of the decisions regarding this annexation being kept for those groups that are advocating for any of the options? I can't find any reference or record on the King County internet site.

There are meeting minutes from other groups who are working through the same process in their respective Potential Annexation Area. My only source of information for many months has been The Highline Times. Annexation has been a subject that we have been talking about for some time, but there is a general feeling that many of the recent developments have been as a result of behind-the-scenes dealings by a group of personally motivated individuals with only their own interests at heart.

The recent letter to the Highline Times by C. Taylor expressed this sentiment very succinctly. How can we trust these people when they have such strong potential biases?

What are the motivations for pushing the unincorporated areas to be annexed? I don't believe that each resident that will be voting on this issue understands King County has an annexation initiative in place as mandated by the state's Growth Management Act. Annexation will occur - it is only a matter of time. This reality makes the arguments for staying an unincorporated area futile. Making this point known to all who are affected would steer them towards some decision. We can't stay unincorporated forever.

Why hasn't anyone come up with an idea of incorporating into our own city? Where is that idea at? Did it get killed right off the bat? Surely someone has to have thought about it. If not, I am going to bring it up at the next meeting.

We have heard from both sides what the costs will be for us as residents regarding our property taxes. What we haven't heard is how our area will be treated with respect to capital improvements for infrastructure for both cities, what schools our children will be shepherded to or if/how Seattle would assume ownership of any of the schools in the area that is annexed, and how our population would be represented in the respective governments of both cities.

I have heard ideas mentioned, but I want to see concrete plans. As wards of King County, I believe that our Potential Annexation Area has been adequately served by the county with regards to infrastructure that they provide. Our water and sewer districts have done a good job in providing those services, and our other utilities are up to par with other areas of the same demographic.

Our law enforcement services and fire services seem to be doing their jobs - I have never been a victim of a property or violent crime in Boulevard Park and my house has not burned to the ground (trivial yes, but my reality). The same can be said for my neighborhood.

I do believe that there are many more improvements that can be made to our streets, schools, services and open spaces, but will our needs be assessed by those who would annex us and reprioritized with their countless other projects, some of which their current constituents have been waiting patiently for (some for decades - South Park is a great example), or will they be put at the bottom of the list so that we can join the South Parks and Rainier Valleys and White Centers on the bottom of the totem pole and be passed over for years while viaducts and aquariums and biotechnology hubs and floating bridges and stadiums receive all of the tax dollars?

Someone has had to have crunched the numbers. Burien and Seattle have talented planners, economists, and engineers that would have done some sort of economic analysis as to what impact this annexation would have on their current overall systems. Where are the numbers? What are the projections for growth in this area after we are annexed?

I want to know what Burien and Seattle will do for this area to make sure it doesn't become another neighborhood that is left at the outskirts to starve like so many others have. No one wants to be the red headed stepchild to anybody. We have to have something that Seattle or Burien wants. What is it? Are they doing this for charity? Doubtful.

I totally agree with the comment that was made regarding the effect that a city name has on property value. My address is Seattle. I am sure that my house would not be as valued if it were identified as being in Burien. Nothing wrong with Burien - but I think that is a fact. And I also agree with the comment in you Nov 23 issue that are assessed values could go up if we are incorporated, thereby raising the amount of taxes we would pay.

What sort of covenants can we put on the city that annexes us? I am looking into this, but if you have any ideas, please, publish them for all to consider.

I don't want to be on any cities Growth Management Act plan for annexation until I have all of the information. Burien has no right to put us on their Growth Management Act without a consent of the citizenry by a vote. Tukwila has shown no interest to date, but maybe they will if the debate stays open. Seattle could pull out of the race and leave us without a choice that we may not want.

Yes, I am picking on Seattle. I left Seattle after eight years and moved to Boulevard Park five years ago so that I could be close to where I work but unencumbered by a government that is inefficient, expensive and often ineffective. I love Seattle and still work and play there.

Burien has its own woes - it is trying to grow into something that is may not be able to accept - another Bellevue Square or Alderwood Shopping Center recreated in the middle of Burien will kill any of the "small town" kitsch that we read about in your newspaper.

If the citizens of Burien don't want us added to their city, they should be allowed to vote on that issue. We should be allowed to determine a new group of people who are negotiating and representing our view for annexation. I have never received any kind of mailer or email or phone call or personal notice that such groups were forming for this purpose.

The next meeting will be an interesting meeting. I am working to get all of my neighbors to go to this meeting and hear the plans and demand details if their questions and concerns are not answered. This issue needs to be brought out in plain view for our community. It will affect us just as much if not more as the Third Runway ever will, and yet it's barely being talked about.

Thank you for your time and your excellent reporting. I hope to see more on this issue in your paper. I am still struggling to learn more about this process and the decisions that have been made to date.

Court Harris

Boulevard Park