Currently, the Seattle City Council is weighing whether or not to incorporate White Center, and several other currently unincorporated southern neighborhoods, into the city. This isn’t a new discussion—it’s been raised and tabled for over a decade. But the debate is finally going to reach a head on March 28, when the city council votes, ultimately, on whether White Center residents should have the option of becoming Seattleites*. (The alternative is to let Burien scoop up the chunk of currently unincorporated land and its residents.)
So should the 20,000 people of White Center become Seattle residents?
Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin says yes—White Center residents deserve better fire and police services, among other things. Mayor Mike McGinn says no—Seattle can’t afford the costs of annexation at this time.
While I admire Conlin’s fine taste in neighborhoods, Seattle should pass on White Center and allow it to become part of Burien.
No one is debating the merits of White Center, or other neighborhoods in the annex zone. They can’t be debated because White Center is undeniably kick ass: It’s diverse, the markets are great, the people are friendly (EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM), and some of them—the ones lobbying City Hall—really want to become Seattle residents.
But here’s the problem: Seattle doesn’t have the money to incorporate White Center and its surrounding neighborhoods. And, frankly, those residents would have more political power in Burien, where they’d makeup 50 percent of the Burien’s population, as opposed to five percent of Seattle’s population. There, residents would be a lobbying power to be reckoned with. Seattle can’t offer them that. All we can offer them is bottom-barrel access to services we’re already cutting left and right.
You might be wondering why the hell this is being debated at all (or again. and again. and again). I’ll get into the wonky details—and the estimated millions that White Center would annually cost Seattle—after the jump.
*The long and short of it is, if the council voted for annexation to move forward, unincorporated residents would then vote in November on whether or not to allow Seattle to incorporate them.
Here’s the quick back story: The state Growth Management mandates that cities deliver urban services—like fire, police, etc. So unincorporated neighborhoods like White Center are forced to either latch onto a city or become their own. The problem is, most unincorporated neighborhoods are too poor to be autonomous. So last year, the cities of Seattle and Burien reached a gentlemen’s agreement to divvy up a large, unincorporated area known as the Highline into northern and southern halves. Burien promptly incorporated the southern half and Seattle once again dithered on whether or not to incorporate the northern half (which includes White Center). The gentlemen’s agreement basically stated that if Seattle didn’t act before 2012, Burien would then have a crack at the northern half.
So for the past few months, Seattle city officials have been analyzing the costs associated with taking on this new population—basically balancing the revenues that White Center would bring in versus the one-time and ongoing costs of incorporation. And the numbers don’t look good.
According to the city’s budget office, in the best case scenario—meaning White Center would provide the highest revenue and cost Seattle the least amount possible—annexation would cost Seattle $1.8 million annually to maintain. In the worst case scenario, which assumes less revenue assumed and higher costs, the area would cost the city $16.8 million annually (after a one-time annexation cost of $91.3 million to pave crumbling streets, get the area’s fire and police response services up to snuff, etc.).
Holy shit! you’re thinking. That’s a lot of money!
Indeed. It’s more than Seattle has right now—or will have in the near future—to spend on new residents.
Is annexation meant to be a question only of money? Really, I’m asking – I have no idea. I vaguely understand the concept of cost v. benefits, but also have reason to find suspect any argument that doesn’t include non-monetary aspects of both.
@1, I focus on the money because I don’t believe any other credible argument can be made (or, I guess, I wouldn’t feel comfortable making another one–like arguing against a neighborhood because of its demographics or lack of quality BBQ). White Center is great. They deserve all of the resources that come with being part of a bigger city. Seattle just can’t afford it right now.
One easy solution – White Center has two card rooms. Incorporate it, legalize card rooms throughout Seattle, and that money would cover even the worst case scenario of how much incorporation would cost. Not only that, but, as White Center develops and gets more dense, which it will, Seattle will get another kick ass neighborhood that will end up more than paying for itself. Not to mention all of the other benefits of have a larger urban population, our influence in state politics, etc, etc.
Thanks, @2. I should have phrased it better. I went off internetting and found a blurb answering my “what’s the question?” question at the end of a publicola article they put up yesterday:
http://publicola.com/2011/03/01/annexing…
the part of white center that burien did not annex is already part of seattle. has been for the entire time i’ve been living there & i would imagine that it was for many decades before i showed up. now technically speaking, we are unincorporated & part of no city. but if you live there, it is part of seattle. it is culturally continuous. the white center strip serves just as many people from seattle as it does from white center. and, imo, THAT is what should guide the decision. not money. since when are cities in the business of making money? cities are in the business of providing services & organization for communities. white center is part of the seattle community. make it official.
Conlin should move to White Center and run for Mayor there.
And take his insane Tunnel of Doom plans with him!
Why would poorer, smaller Burien have an easier time absorbing White Center than Seattle?
@8, that is a good question.
I’ve just found there’s a blog that tried to cover yesterday’s hearing in kind of a blow-by-blow fashion:
http://whitecenternow.com/2011/03/01/hap…
“Is annexation meant to be a question only of money?”
Yes. Why would it be anything else?
“They deserve all of the resources that come with being part of a bigger city.”
Why?
White Center is a divided community, part of it north of Roxbury in the City of Seattle, and part south of Roxbury in unincorporated King County.
Seems to me the community would be better off undivided, under one jurisdiction. And because half of it is already in Seattle, that tilts towards Seattle’s annexation.
Plus, the “feel” of the community just south of Roxbury is more urban than suburban. The farther south you go, the wider the streets become and the more suburban it becomes.
Burien already annexed the suburban part of White Center; Seattle should take the urban part.
I disagree. I think White Center deserves to be treated as a legitimate part of the real entity here, which is Seattle. Burien doesn’t have $91 million either; so White Center will continue to live without services. And incorporating White Center makes Seattle larger and thus more powerful, which is good for Seattle.
From what I know the zoning laws in Burien are more liberal in developing one’s land- so large garages, workshops, cottages and guest houses, which are tightly controlled and very limited in Seattle could increase property values in White Center if applied there.
Curiously banks do not consider these out-buildings when they appraise foreclosures in Burien where one can find incredible values if you’re into sport vehicles, art studios, shop space, rental incomes etc…
I predicted in a thread about this a few weeks back that Seattle would end up with White Center because Burien can’t/won’t afford it, and I was called uninformed. But I still think I’m right.
If I were a resident of the area, I’d choose Seattle in a heartbeat. Burien’s city government seems to have delusions of grandeur. (I could be meaner about Burien, but I’m sure there are some nice people who live there, so I’ll abstain)
I grew up in the north-of-Roxbury portion of White Center, and we always considered ourselves part of Seattle. The part that made sense for annexation to Burien has already been annexed. And Burien has their own fiscal problems in plenty.
I agree with Fnarf. I was just in White Center a few nights ago, drinking at the new bar Company(which is awesome, btw), and I got into to a conversation with some people about this issue. It seems undeniable to me that when it comes to cities, size does matter. Incorporating another neighborhood, especially one as weird, unique and interesting as White Center, would pay off handsomely in the long run for both Seattle and White Center. What White Center needs more than anything though is, of course, better public transportation options.
@15: north of roxbury IS seattle.
The principal question is whether the residents of White Center loathe the Third Runway. That’s the only reason Burien exists. It incorporated itself as a city in 1993 to oppose the Third Runway.
I live in the unincorporated area (Top Hat), and would prefer Burien for the following reasons.
1. Political power. As half of Burien, we could have it. As 5% of Seattle, fuggedaboudit. Burien City Council meetings are held evenings, when working people are able to attend them. We’ve seen where the interests of Georgetown and South Park stand with respect to those of just about anywhere north of the ship canal. No thanks.
2. Libraries. If Seattle annexes us, kiss the Boulevard Park and White Center libraries goodbye. KCLS has stalled on making improvements to the White Center Library (to have been funded by a bond issue PASSED IN 2004) out of fear that there will be too many users living within Seattle city limits and outside of the library taxing district. KCLS didn’t close for a few weeks in 2009, unlike SPL, because it gets its funding from a library taxation district–a fairly predictable funding source. SPL managers aren’t doofusses–they’re just stuck with being thrown into the budgetary piranha tank every year to fight for whatever scraps they can get. For that reason, annexation would very likely lead to slashing hours and services at Greenbridge as well.
3. Water and sewer. Libraries aren’t the only public goods that are more cheaply and efficiently funded by special purpose taxation districts. Rates for both water and sewer services would skyrocket with annexation to Seattle.
Neither city can afford to annex right now, absent some major aid from the state, which is not forthcoming.
White Center…don’t be fooled. If you are annexed into Seattle you won’t get better services than you would from Burien. A little history lesson for you – much of Southeast Seattle was annexed into Seattle OVER 100 YEARS AGO and we’re still waiting for sidewalks. We have muddy trenches where sidewalks should be. Instead, our little children are forced to walk in the middle of the streets.
Southeast Seattle is nothing but a mass of broken promises, too many subsidized housing units and no respect or jobs for the people that live in those subsidized units. Don’t let your community become overrun with City-funded “non” profits, which has proven to be a very profitable industry for the countless directors and employees that draw salaries off the taxpayers backs. Stay free. You are far better off without Seattle’s meddling in your affairs.
White Center has the best gloryholes around (Your Choice Video). Any annexation that would be bad for them would be bad annexation.