As an advocate for North Highline annexation to Seattle, I would like to respond to several recent headlines in the January 31 edition of your newspaper.

On the front page, Ralph Nichols discussed House Bill 1139, which proposes to more equitably distribute state sales tax proceeds to cities that annex adjacent neighborhoods, to offset the costs of annexation and spur compliance with the state's Growth Management Act. The article describes Burien's attempt to increase its share of the proceeds, despite the inadequate services it is poised to deliver, should it succeed in annexing North Highline.

There is a reason that the legislation would deliver more funding to Seattle. If North Highline is annexed to Seattle, our residents gain immediate access to hundreds of programs, professional staff, commissions, initiatives, grants, small business support, technical assistance and planning services, through offices that range from Housing to Civil Rights, from Youth to Senior Services. The Department of Neighborhoods alone delivers dozens of funding and economic development opportunities that would directly benefit North Highline.

Burien promises nothing more than the "status quo," and it's questionable that even that level of service will be viable as Burien doubles its population and channels its already strained resources toward its new Town Center. The sales tax credit isn't the same for the two cities of Seattle and Burien, because the capacity for service delivery is incomparable.

In the "Comment" section, Mr. Nichols also reminded us that, as King County residents living outside the City of Seattle, we are unable to vote on the viaduct's replacement options, even though that project will heavily impact the residents of North Highline.

Presently, we are, in effect, without a voice. If North Highline were annexed by Seattle, we WOULD be able to vote on these major urban issues, such as the replacement of the viaduct, that affect us so significantly.

In the "Letters" section, a writer complained about a neighbor who had destroyed a grove of large, well-established trees in a critical area, in order to enhance his view. The writer sought redress through Burien, but learned that it offers no provisions to "fine or penalize the property owner for destroying significant trees in any location, not to mention a critical area." NOT the kind of environmental protections I'm looking for.

If the writer were a resident of the City of Seattle, he would benefit from appropriate enforcement, and also have access to a Heritage Tree Program, Urban Forestry Services, the City Arborist, the Seattle Tree Inventory, Seattle Parks and Recreation Conservation Resource Program, and the Tree Steward Program-an unbelievable wealth of knowledge and personnel, working together to protect and enhance these valuable natural resources.

Each week, when reading the Times/News, I am reminded that, for these and a thousand other reasons, Seattle is the smarter annexation choice.

Peggy Weiss

White Center