By Geoffrey C. Kelly, Federal Way resident:
Several recent letters and articles in your newspaper have touched on several of my “hot button” issues and I would like to comment.
• City Center Access study: H. David Kaplan’s letter (May 20) pretty well sums it up, but as a former member of the phase one Public Stakeholder Team, I have a slightly different perspective. All was not all peace and harmony in this endeavor and when invited to continue with phase two, I declined. We citizen stakeholders were brought into the study environment well after the city’s retained consultant and Core Team had already extensively reviewed what they thought were the pertinent options.
Although not required as a Public Stakeholder Team member, I attended as an observer of many Core Team meetings and I left with two thoughts: 1) He who has the money calls the shots, and 2) whatever transit wants, it will get.
As for our work as citizen stakeholders, I do not remember the unanimity Mr. Kaplan alludes to. I presume Maryanne Zukowski (the city traffic engineer) would have notes, but as far as the Public Stakeholder Team, I remember a final vote that was less than unanimous. Perhaps notable is that council member Dini Duclos and I were not totally alone in voting no in the minority at a key vote.
• Photo cop: The seatbelt locked and my torso moved forward against the now-locked shoulder strap as my associate jabbed the brakes, slowing us down 15 miles an hour or so. “What was ‘that’ all about?” I asked as we neared the vacant intersection in the remote German town. “That” was a yellow square box about 18 inches wide and tall, about 10 inches deep with a glass-covered hole in the middle — pointing right at our oncoming vehicle. My associate explained what we know today as “photo cop” only with the added twist that instead of actually putting cameras in all the boxes, city managers put up the boxes and rotate a limited number of cameras amongst them. I believe this to be our future. David Koenig’s letter (May 20) is right on the mark. The camel’s hind end is very much under our tent flap and very much smells.
• Celebration Park: Happy birthday! We are eating cake and giving you the bill — pay up as you leave town. Yes, collectively, we all should probably give the Celebration Park issue a rest. What I would have preferred seeing was a $12.5 million investment in neighborhood parks, rather than a large central facility that essentially everyone has to get into a car to drive to. But it really is too late. Most of the suitable land is developed or about to be so as we near buildout. But I still resent the manner in which Celebration Park was accomplished.
The park was acquired by issuing bonds that at the time were to be repaid by a one-fourth of 1 percent sales (excise) tax levied on the sales price of local real estate. Later, development costs were again funded by bonds to be repaid by utility taxes. And then there are more of the same to build and continually fund the money-losing community center building on the southwest boundary of the park.
What bothers me? 1) City managers seem to ignore the interest expenses in advising taxpayers as to what their spending really costs. 2) In the case of the utility tax, it is my perception that the city utility tax is also applied to the state utility tax buried in your utility bill — a tax on a tax. Admittedly, this is peanuts, but a peanut here and a peanut there amounts to real money. 3) The park acquisition cost was paid for long ago. Did the one-fourth of 1 percent excise tax “go away?”
Yes, while Celebration Park may be the long-term investment that keeps on giving, it is also the investment that keeps on taking, and taking, and taking. As real estate prices climb, the city’s take just gets bigger and bigger. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out of town.
