They have clarified what happened regarding the “Garden Way” negotiations. They have done a great service by simply dispelling confusion.

Woodinville is fortunate to have this caliber of leaders within our community. These two letters demonstrate what honesty in the public forum truly is. “Openness” does not have to trump diplomacy. It needn’t resort to name calling or blaming, even in politics!

In contrast, what has emerged since last year’s Woodinville City Council elections is not openness. Even in the talk show world, there is a vast difference between the “openness” that takes place on “Oprah” vs. “Jerry Springer.”

The 2005 Woodinville City Council campaign was tainted with mistruth and distortion. People on all sides are still having arguments based on campaign distortions, rather than facts. Our local government is still dealing with the aftershocks.

One of the aftershocks is that some council-members continue to bog Woodinville down in the fight against Brightwater.

I’m not saying that Woodinville shouldn’t care about Brightwater. I am not calling for Woodinville to be isolationist. But the efforts of some BW opponents are terribly misguided. Further, they are beginning to look like efforts to pull the City of Woodinville off course.

To give some background about how this pertains to the recent campaign, I want to quote part of a previous letter that I wrote to the WW.

The letter was not published, but the following points remain timely:

The city council is not all-powerful. Some of the candidates who have not previously sat on council are making statements that seem to imply a lack of understanding of the legal power of a city council. Some of these statements may make those candidates appear bold and decisive. The problem is that they are quite misleading. They present a promise of power that simply doesn’t exist. Do we want leaders who mislead us?

We are misled further by Laurie Roskind in her letter to the Weekly on 1/30/06. It comes under the heading, “Brightwater” and is titled, "Direct vote needed.”
To quote directly from Roskind’s letter: “Placement of a new plant here in Woodinville was easy with little or no real public opposition.”

This is terribly false. The sitting council did fight hard to keep Brightwater out of Woodinville. King County wanted to place Brightwater on the site that is now housing.

This housing is sited right beside NE N Woodinville Way on the approximately southern side of the road. NE N Woodinville Way is the extension of the Woodinville-Duvall Road that travels “straight” west toward Rt. 9 and SR 522 after the original Woodinville-Duvall Road curves around southwest towards downtown Woodinville.

You can plainly see the housing development as you drive by. If you travel into the development, you will see that it is also home to the Greenbrier Heights Senior Residence, a community center and a public trail through a sensitive area.

The sign at the entrance to the trail reads, “This area preserved by Camwest Development in cooperation with the City of Woodinville.”

This site is within the City of Woodinville. This is the site that King County wanted for Brightwater. They were stopped from using it- by the City of Woodinville. The current Brightwater site is not in Woodinville.

Unfortunately, one of the councilmembers who took part in the fight to keep Brightwater out of Woodinville, Bob Miller, was voted out in the last election.

These are the facts: Woodinville City Council did fight BrightWater. Brightwater is not in Woodinville.

Both of these facts have been stated numerous times in the Woodinville Weekly. Yet Roskind’s current statement repeats the same mistruths that plagued the campaign, “Placement of a new plant here in Woodinville was easy with little or no real public opposition.”

Ms. Roskind goes on to say that, “Price-Stecker-Roskind-Tountas ran on opposing Brightwater. The election was devastating and overwhelming supporting that position by our city residents.”

I would like to propose an alternative interpretation of the election results. The majority of the voters may not have realized that the council did fight Brightwater, and that BW is not in Woodinville. It would be difficult not to make that mistake. Even the wife of a councilmember is still making that mistake.

As far as a citizen initiative or “vote,” such a process will be costly; it will reduce our cities budget (of both time and money) for improving roads, parks, public safety, policing and oversight of future construction in Woodinville. Again, looks like an effort to pull Woodinville off course.

But Roskind disagrees. She says that, ”The City of Woodinville easily has the resources to fight this project and put an end to the waste created by King County and protect our community from Brightwater.”

Since she is the wife of a councilmember, she can easily present to the public exactly where she thinks city money would be taken from (police? roads? parks? storm water management?) in order to finance this fight. But, presentation of proposed budget cuts would be best left to the council-members who are spearheading the initiative.

This leads to a glaring omission on the part of those who would drag Woodinville back into Brightwater.

Councilman Roskind, Councilman Price and Deputy Mayor Stecker still have not answered this question:

Exactly how is the City of Woodinville going to fight Brightwater?

Not only how do we pay for it, but also, what are our specific legal grounds?

This question has been asked of them many times. Why haven’t they answered it? We need answers before the real public debate can begin.