Letters to the Editor - April 9, 2012

  • Written by Readers


Hello, Councilmember Les Rubstello:

At a recent council meeting, you indicated your willingness to review the factual content of Resolution #414.

Please comment.

Resolution #414 indicates the proposed annexation areas will be used to promote “Agritourism” while the 2010 docket states the northern area will be used for medical buildings.

Can you tell me what best describes the city’s intent with respect to zoning and permitted uses in the annexation area?

If the northern portion of the annexation area will be used for medical buildings, and the northern portion represents 14 out of the 17 properties, doesn’t the resolution present a false sense of what the real intent of the city is?

I might note that I was originally baffled about Lucy DeYoung’s very vocal interest in annexation.

But a review of the 2010 docket request indicating the northern 14 properties would be used [for] medical buildings and reviewing Lucy’s history of significant support of Evergreen Hospital, offered the connection.

During a recent public records inspection at Woodinville City Hall, I noted that there is virtually no public input with respect to Resolution #414.

I located some very limited support by the affected property owners and some curious documents from a local real estate agent who represents some of the property owners but essentially no public input of any kind.

Do you think the public has been properly informed about the annexation issue?

In an article in The Woodinville Patch, Councilmember Paulette Bauman stated “…My support for resolution #414 was simply to encourage King County Council to look at the proposed annexation.

“Ultimately they will decide the Urban Growth Boundary.”

Is Resolution #414 just a request for KC [to] look at the proposed areas, or does the resolution serve as notice that Woodinville intends to annex the area in the event that King County adjusts the UGB to include those properties?

Isn’t it KC that will decide on the UGB, and Woodinville that decides on annexation? Can we make sure that Paulette understands what the resolution means?

Although accepting campaign contributions is not illegal, many people feel very uncomfortable knowing that a significant portion of your campaign funding came from a person now described in Woodinville public records as a representative of property owners seeking annexation. Resolution #414 will be a financial windfall for your principal contributor.

When you prevented Mayor Talmas from openly questioning the factual content of Resolution #414 with your “Out of order” interruptions, you caused people to question whether you were more interested in providing the public with truthful information or furthering the financial gain of your contributors.

I don’t want to ignore the fact that you apologized.

But I do want to tell you that many people lost faith in your ability to vote without bias on this particular annexation issue.

In conclusion, I call you to task, Mr. Rubstello. Address the issue of the factual content of Resolution #414.

Describe the city’s actual intent. Correct Resolution #414 to accurately reflect the purpose of the resolution so that council members know what they signed. Make a personal determination if your campaign contributions, together with your attempt at silencing another council member’s request for presenting a resolution based on facts and decide if there is the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest with respect to your vote on annexation.

Thank you,

Dale Knapinski, Woodinville


Over the April 1st weekend as I was driving off Hollywood Hill, I saw some very disturbing signs that stated: “Stop Valley Construction” and “Stop DeYoung.”

Stop DeYoung from what:

1. Giving better than a quarter of a million dollars to the Evergreen Hospital Foundation

2.  Buying the Old DeYoung house for $500,000 and then donating it to the Woodinville Heritage Society

3. Donating thousands of dollars to see that Wilmot Park became a reality

4. Setting up an endowment for the Woodinville Cemetery that takes care of its maintenance.

5. Donating thousands to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

6. Donating thousands of hours in service to this community

7. So many others I can’t remember them all

So whoever was responsible for the signs must be a “Newbee” (someone who has only been here 20 years or less!) And whoever you are, quit polluting the landscape with plastic signs!

If you see a DeYoung around town why don’t you tell them thank you for all they’ve done for this community.

Roger Rettig, Hollywood Hill

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter