INTERLAKE SPORTING ASSOCIATION
The closest 200yd rifle,
pistol, archery and paintball range,
mixed-use sporting facility and nature preserve to Seattle and
Bellevue
ROSE HILL ANNEXATION
NEWS as of Feb 2010
Here's a list of what you can do, if you wish to change how political decisions are made.
Annexation and resulting likely removal of our County operating permit is immanent. We need your help NOW, to keep Interlake open. Don't wait; act today.
Context:
(2006) The City of Redmond has enacted an Ordinance (linked below) making the licensing and operation of ISA, or any private shooting facility, nearly impossible. This was done with knowledge and intent on the part of those who run Redmond, and in anticipation of annexing all of Rose Hill, and us. This ordinance does not apply to ISA at this time, as we are in un-incorporated King County. It will only apply to us when we are annexed into Redmond. Virtually the same Ordinance was adopted recently by Gig Harbor to kill the Gig Harbor Sportsman's Club range. They are succeeding in this effort.
King County has accepted Redmond's petition for annexation of Rose Hill (PHASE 1), and also petitioned for the annexation of all of Rose Hill, including ISA (PHASE 2) at the same time. The County has claimed jurisdiction. The repeal of the State Supreme Court decision last year, allowing the petition method of annexation, has made this action possible without any public vote at all. The residents of the affected area defeated the last annexation attempt by official public vote in September 2002, but this is of no interest to our politicians, administrators and public servants.
The only land-use zoning classification in King County which allows outdoor firing ranges is is one of the 'rural' ones. This used to be common, but today only exists mostly on sections of timber company property, who don't benefit from logging or earth grading to establish a firing range, and State and Federal land. Most of the privately held acceptably zoned properties are either 'no shooting' zones, by special County or local ordinance, or are too small. Much of the older forest zones have been reclassified to various urban uses. That means that Interlake, and most other King County ranges, have had their zoning changed and are now a 'non-conforming land use'. This rezoning from forest uses to residential or commercial on the County 'approved' list of land uses is one of the 'behind the scenes' ways the County has intentionally blocked new ranges, and is intentionally removing existing ones. This also means that loss of an operating permit for one moment may lead to permanent closure of any range. All such land-uses (all outdoor firing ranges in the County) have the same risk of permanent closure. The lack of land with acceptable zoning and predictable availability of permits means that relocation of any range, within the existing population service area, is impossible without direct political support. All our politicians, and neighboring ones, were asked to help. Two listened, none have agreed to take any positive action, and none have helped.
Record of actions and events:
Feburary 2010; We have been informed by Redmond that the City Council will consider the annexation at their regular meeting on 2 March. We presume it will be voted in. We have regularly communicated with Redmond Planning Department, and believe Redmond will issue us an operating permit sometime soon.
December 2009; We have been informed by Redmond that they intend to pursue Annexation of 'part' of North Rose Hill, starting this month. Finalization is expect in March/April 2010. Specific events will include an initial vote by the City Council to proceed, presentation and request for Annexation to the BRB, BRB vote, and final City Council vote to formally Annex the area. We will publish dates when we learn them.
August 2009; Firstly, on a Statewide level, thanks to the State Governor who signed SB 5808 into law, we citizens no longer need to worry about all the bother of having to vote. The Governor has done it all for us. No vote is required anymore for annexations; it's just an administrative matter. Absolutely stunning, though not completely surprising, that not even a bleat was heard from all the media. Totalitarianism is here; all is being lost. Do read www.referendum72.org, please, for more details.
Secondly, in North Rose Hill, developments have occurred. The annexation effort by the City of Redmond is progressing slowly, although we have been told that the city will likely not formally attempt to annex the area until more 'yes' signatures are received, in an appropriate effort to alienate as few people as possible. This is with knowledge, of course, that the new State annexation law has removed the requirement for landowner consent. Thank you, Redmond, for not abandoning the existing petition effort and simply forcing annexation, despite the new legal ability to do so.
Regarding the ordinance on firing ranges; since early 2009, Interlake has engaged with Redmond in direct efforts to correct the problems with the existing ordinance, #2120. We have had many email and telephone communications, 3 meetings with Redmond Planning Department staff, and have provided 4 complete revisions of this ordinance for consideration as replacements for the existing ordinance. The last version was considered acceptable by Redmond Planning, and is scheduled to be voted on in the regular City Council meeting on 1 Sept 2009. This proposed ordinance is certainly not 'good'; quite the opposite. It is, however, significantly better than what exists now. Do consider that in the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, Redmond was the FIRST municipality that instituted an ordinance to 'regulate (ie; prohibit)' firing ranges, followed only by Gig Harbor. Clearly, no ordinance is actually needed for public safety, as no other city (except GH) has one. This ordinance is strongly desired by Redmond politicians, apparently for other purposes, entirely.
Several Redmond politicians have met and communicated multiple times with us, as well, and have strongly encouraged us to have faith in their internal processes, to believe absolutely everything we've been told by them, and to promote the local annexation, very aggressively. We've been strongly asked by them to remove ALL of what you've read here, and all 'negative references' to Redmond. We've been criticized for being 'insulting' by providing this history, with the implication that the vote might not go well for us if we continue to refer to the past and provide this information for you. Remember the famous Bismarck quote about 'laws and sausages' ?
We absolutely appreciate the willingness of the current Redmond administration to engage with us in this effort to correct a historic error, and to improve the historically highly toxic business environment within Redmond for our 60+ year-old little non-profit. Of course, Redmond officials have NEVER offered to compensate Interlake for over 20 years of damage, but only to make incremental adjustments for a potentially improved future. Redmond REFUSED to 'grandfather' Interlake into the city, with annexation, but to require a full 'application'. Redmond also REFUSED to renounce it's current legal authority to force landowners to connect to a sewer system, with the predictable result of forcing many landowners to sell their land at reduced prices, or go deeply in debt. Interlake and all our members and facility users are highly optimistic that we can arrange a workable business environment for the future, and sincerely would like nothing better than to have the pure faith we've been asked to have, and to communicate to you, dear reader.
'Little steps for little feet' has always been the most practical operative perspective, for much in life. Interlake has endured and survived over 20 years of 'really bad things' at the hands of a near-by city, requiring the expenditure of over $200k in defensive legal fees, the near-destruction of our operation, and many thousands of hours of effort by multiple people. We sincerely hope the next 20 years are much better in every way, and that Interlake will grow and thrive within the city of Redmond. We have, and are, doing all we know to build that future, together with Redmond officials. Only the future will tell whether we've been successful, and therefore whether the faith we've been asked to have, and to communicate to you, was reasonable. We'll see what happens, and as always, learn from hindsight.
We ABSOLUTELY have faith. We also help train the highest value personal protection teams and private security personnel on the planet. They exist for very clear reasons. Rationality and understanding of the world is our business, not fantasy.
June 09; Limited meetings and discussions have occurred with officials of Redmond. The last communication we've received from the Redmond Planning department, at the start of June, stated that the smaller proposed annexation area had 52% of the land value voting 'yes'. The larger area is not directly relevant, as it's accepted that the BRB will attempt to draw any annexation boundary around the entire neighborhood, as they have committed to do by official statement in the past. No commitments from Redmond, only vague statements about accommodating us and the other neighbors, completely. This is a very dark time.
19 February 09; ANNEXATION NOTE -
The only required public meeting on Annexation is scheduled to be held on Thursday,
19 February, from 630 to 8pm, at the Rose Hill Junior High School, located at 13505
NE 75th St, Redmond, WA, 98052. This meeting seems to not be advertised on the
Redmond website, so it's very hard to learn about. All are welcome, but remember
that everything that is said is on the legal record. Please do not speak about
ISA without coordinating with us, but please do come as a show of interest in
opposition to the forced annexation.
Post meeting: No surprises. The meeting was a sales pitch by Redmond
officials, who seemed to outnumber the neighbors in attendance. No promises were
made. The fact that sewers will not be provided freely, upon request, yet
ultimately may be imposed along with a $40k bill per property, like it or not,
was glossed over. Also glossed over was the minor detail that emergency services
will not change (supplied by Kirkland, as they are closer), yet the price will
go up. More of this was said and not said; same old story.
2 February 09; Annexation petitions were received by residential owners. Efforts to prevent annexation actions from being taken have failed. The only way to stay in the County at this point is for the required number of signatures to not be obtained. The only required public meeting is set for 19 February at 630 pm. See the City of Redmond website for location. Be there and be heard.
16 February 09; King County, supported by Redmond, tried to get the state law regarding annexation to be changed, from 60% required down to 51%, and with absolutely no public input or vote. We testified before the State legislative committee, with the result that the bill was killed for the session. We're sure it will be back next year; your government just looking out for you. Right.
January 09; We have had discussions with 2 City Council people, who have promised fairness, have stated that all legal existing land uses should be allowed, have stated that ISA should continue un-interrupted operations, and have stated that no one will be forced to connect to a sewer without cause. They have stated that they would work to ensure that ISA is accommodated, if annexed. This was said by politicians, but maybe they are different from the norm; let's see!
20 January 09; The Redmond City Council voted unanimously to proceed with annexation of all of the remaining King County island of 'Sprinkle', at about 850pm. The island of 'Silver Spurs' is expected to be 'written in' by the BRB later on, of course; the owners there are not legally required to be informed, it seems. The official planning report stated that the action was requested by 'the people in the neighborhood' ( that seems to mean the 5 people out of 150 who are real estate speculators), and that the existing Redmond ordinance designed to kill ISA (16 pages of regulations) was 'about the same' as the existing King County ordinance (4 pages). The Council people all nodded and smiled. Think about that and you be the judge. The meeting was adjourned at 905pm.
November 2008; Here we go, again. A new annexation effort has been initiated by Redmond, as allowed by the State Supreme Court having reversed it's prior decision. There is a new administration and mostly a new City Council in Redmond, so a small chance exists that reason may prevail. We will do all we can to provide historic information to the new council people and the new mayor, and to lobby in favor of proper treatment of all landowners and residents. As it currently stands, though, Redmond has the authority to force any landowner in newly annexed areas to connect to sewers at any time of the City's choosing, at a cost of $5k to $25k, per zoned or permitted facility. That means some people may be forced to pay multiple $20k bills, all at once. Also, no existing land use is 'grandfathered', so say good-bye to your RV, trailer, boat, if stored in sight of the road. Interlake, of course, would be killed. So far, no change at all from the past dark days.
5 December 07; We have been informed by neighbors that Redmond is preparing a new annexation effort, to be deployed soon. The relationship between Redmond and the BRB remains, as does the pressure from real estate developers on the Redmond City Council to 'make Rose Hill safe and available for development'. We'll publish the details when we have them.
13 June 06; Mr. Aramburu, our attorney, presented a well thought-through set of data to the State Supreme Court. The justices repeatedly interrupted him and did not allow him to complete most of his points. He emphasized that this case concerns the concept of citizen agreement to government, rights of those governed, the performance of a completely unregulated, unelected bureaucracy (the BRB), etc. The opposing side (Redmond, King County, BRB) said they have the right to do whatever they want, and that even "a 10,000% expansion in area to be annexed, against the will of the citizens" (a question from one of the Justices), is allowed. WOW; and this comes from OUR civil servants. The decision will come eventually, and we will place a link to it here, so check back. Despite state-wide advertising to all KC ranges, WAC, NRA and others, and pleas for other groups and individuals to show their support by joining us, we saw only 2 people attending who were not ISA members. Situation normal. WE WON!
May 06; We have been informed that our case will be heard by the Washington State Supreme Court on 13 June 2006, in Olympia, at the Temple of Justice on the Capitol Campus. This will be case number 78578-3. It will be the first case of the day, with the Court convening at 0900 hrs. The case hearing should take about 1 hour. We request that all interested parties attend, as there is always the chance that the justices will notice that citizens actually care about the issue if there are many people in attendance, and that this may cause them to consider the consequences of their decisions more carefully. Please do attend if possible, and please inform all you know who might be willing to attend, as well.
This case has statewide significance, as the issue at hand is the legality of annexation against the public will, in general, and the ability of the annexing municipalities to levy taxes on their newly purchased subjects and property. Again, this case affects EVERYONE in the State. The subject may be dry, but it affects EVERYONE'S finances. If North Rose Hill is annexed into Redmond, taxes and fees will be increased to pay Redmond for old debts having nothing to do with the area being acquired, as well as for future expenses also having nothing to do with the local area. That's the joy and security of being in a collective; everyone pays and no one has any ability to change it. If this is what you want, then do nothing. If you want to retain even a little of your existing control over your finances, then show your support by attending the presentation.
July 05; we have appealed the prior legal decision. The issue is currently in litigation, waiting for a court date which could be in mid-2006. There is nothing legal we can do in the mean time, but YOU can influence your politicians and help us and all ranges and shooters through that method. If these people that you hired aren't doing exactly what you want, then throw the rascals out!
17 June 05; the judge has produced a decision about our case. This decision was to affirm the prior decision of the BRB, which was to direct Redmond to annex all of Rose Hill, or none of it. Additional actions on the part of ISA and local residents are being considered. The deadline to file an appeal of this decision is believed to be 14 July. Please attend any of our scheduled meetings for a full discussion about the significance of this decision and to participate in the process of deciding what ISA should do next. The next meeting will be the normal monthly general and board meeting on 6 July at 1930 hrs.
On 9 June 05 the trial was held in King County Superior Court. The case number is 04-2-34106-0. The trial was in the form of a hearing before Judge Robinson, argued by our attorney against 3 other attorneys; one each from the BRB, King County and Redmond. This trial was in the form of a hearing of appeal, so no new testimony or evidence was offered by either side. Both sides offered perspectives, the past record and points of law. Attendees on our side were Hirschler, Raymond and Jaeger; they may be individually asked about details. Our attorney, Mr. J. R. Aramburu, did a good job. The hearing lasted from 1330 hrs to 1536 hrs. The judge said that a verdict would be presented sometime near the end of the week of 17 June. This result will be posted here as soon as it's available. Speculation about the next steps is pointless at this time; come to the next ISA general meeting on 6 July for a full presentation and discussion.
In October 04 A group from the neighborhood has legally contested the unlawful action of the BRB, and the trial is set for June 2005. No actions are anticipated until then; we are operating normally. Please enquire for details. We need your help and the threat is waiting
On 27 September 04 the BRB met and voted 6 to 4 to allow annexation of ALL of Rose Hill, 'phase 1' and 'phase 2' areas, into Redmond. There was no discussion or debate among BRB members, save a little about typos and semantics in their 20+ page document. A 30-day 'protest' period started on 28 Sept, at the end of which the annexation will be allowed unless legally challenged. The BRB ringleaders stated that they thought it was in everyone's best interest for them to force the unwilling County residents into Redmond, as 'they knew what was best for us'. It's difficult not to vomit when observing these people actually smile while destroying peoples lives, investments, and parts of our democratic process.
On 23 August 04 the BRB had a second special meeting on Rose Hill annexation. The meeting started at 1900 hrs, and 20 individuals and groups testified, including the City of Redmond, which pleaded for 'Phase 1' only, and King County, which asked for 'Phase 1', 'Phase 2', and anything that might cost the County more than 2 cents to be annexed, immediately. Factually false information was presented about ISA by the County, and no substantive concern was offered for the wishes of the huge majority of area landowners and residents, who have proven they do not wish to be annexed. The KC Executive employee M. Thomas, working directly for the KC Administrator Sims, introduced the same KC police officer, Norton, that testified last time as an individual, but this time as an official spoksperson for the County Sheriff. The officer was, again, out of uniform and with no badge visible; no surprise there are 'morale' problems within the force. Of the 18 'public' speakers, 5 asked for 'Phase 1' only, some out of the mis-taken belief that 'Redmond would bring sewers', and others to make higher property values and high-density development easier. 1 brand-new non-resident landowner in the 'Phase 2' area said he wanted a sewer, too, and annexation of everything, but didn't seem to know his own address or anything about local history. All others begged the BRB to cease their potentially illegal acts and leave them alone. Public testimony ended at 2209 hrs. This last public speaker was cited as an example by BRB member C. Hirshey to demonstrate the urgent need to annex everything. BRB member R. Loschen moved for annexation of everything, seconded by E. Anderson. They were supported by C. Hirshey, A. J. Culver, J. Tessandore and M. Marchand. 6 to 4 in favor, so the motion carried. The next BRB meeting will be on 27 September at which time they will take the final vote on annexing 100% of Rose Hill, including ISA. The meeting ended at 2248 hrs. The only remedy to these actions is through the Courts, unfortunately, as our elected and appointed officials have turned their backs on this subversion of justice, fairness, and law.
On 15 July 04 the BRB met for 3 hrs and accepted testimony. A Redmond department head testified, asking for partial annexation (Phase 1) immediately, and Phase 2 ASAP, thereafter, citing slight concern about lack of citizen support (less than 20% of landowners) and about litigation. A King County Executive Official testified, asking to annex all the land, Phase 1 and 2, immediately, and indicated that citizen opposition was not a concern to the County. BRB questions indicated that they favored complete annexation, rather than partial. All 9 citizen speakers were totally opposed to annexation; there was 1 'pro-annexation' citizen speaker, a female County Sheriff Captain out of uniform and with no visible badge, who asked for total annexation as she said the deputies often didn't know the area or physically where they were, so annexation would 'improve police service delivery as the Deputies wouldn't have to go there, anymore' (yes, it's really 2004 and she's a 'manager', not a street officer. Stunning...). No known observers or participants or statements or assistance was sent by the NRA, NSSF, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, other KC ranges or any other 'rights' organization, although all were solicited weeks in advance. Interlake testified verbally and in writing, arguing that annexation would violate 2 sections of RCW at least; 36.93.170 and .190, and submitted written official pleas from federal, state and local law enforcement to save the range. A BRB member, R. Loschen, stated that the RCW did not specifically bind them and that they could follow their own personal guidance! (i.e.; that they are not bound by any law!) He also stated that Interlake's plea re financial impact, community impact, public safety, national security and status as a protected and specially permitted organization were not relevant to the RCW (and outside the meeting he also commented about "gun addicts" to another BRB member, A. J. Culver; ex-partite communication...). Their lawyer, on contract from the State AG, kept silent and was not asked about these issues. The BRB then voted to reconvene in about 30 days (last week of August) to consider (vote on) annexation of Phase 1 and 2 (including Interlake), simultaneously. (insert your favorite epithet about abuse of power, here)
As of 14 July 04, King County reissued our operating permit on a 30-day basis, stating that they expected us to be annexed into Redmond by then. Redmond does not recognize our 'grandfathered' status and has officially stated that A) a firing range is not compatible with their land-use (ignoring their own police range, under the Public Safety building, of course), B) we are welcome to stay as long as we want, subject to arbitrary regulation, and C) we are an immediate, significant concern; take your choice. We were told that all other civilian ranges in the County would be similarly, individually, 're-examined' and re-licensed, in anticipation of more annexations of ranges into municipalities. The County person issuing the permit stated that the new County polity is to divest itself of range regulation, and to extend that task to cities. The County also recently adopted regulatory language identical to that in the Redmond Ordinance. All other ranges in King County with published email addresses were contacted by us; none were concerned enough about their future to respond yet all are at immediate risk. Your tax dollars at work.
YOUR RANGE IS NEXT.
The appointee-group responsible for reviewing and authorizing this annexation is;
Washington State Boundary Review Board
Rm 402 Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way
Seattle, WA 98104
The person in charge of Board operations is Ms. Blauman, so you may address correspondence to her. She has been helpful and polite to us. The Board members are identified in a brief way on their website. Be civil and polite. The telephone for the Board is 206-296-6800 and their FAX is 206-296-6803. Look for their names and more contact numbers on their website, below.
They decided on 23 Aug 04 to annex PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 and ISA, all at once. We need something other than this, such as an ethical ordinance and intent within Redmond, or (preferably) to remain in the County. The Board is constrained by certain RCW limitations on their actions but has chosen to ignore the law in favor of their own agenda. The relevant RCW sections are 36.93.170, .180 and part of .150 and are linked, below.
The only known story in the Seattle Times is here (requires quick registration on the website); http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=annex15e&date=20040615&query=city+of+redmond
Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County site
The RCW may be found on this page.
The Ordinance that Redmond has on the books that affects ISA may be downloaded here; http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/insidecityhall/documentlibrary/cityord5.asp and select ordinance #2120.
The Gig Harbor municipal code may be found here; http://www.cityofgigharbor.net/html/municipal.html
**This file will be frequently edited and expanded. Please check back often.**
Previous annexation news page, with lots of important, historic information, is here.
Have a suggestion, a question or want to see something else here? Please email!
Back to Interlake Home
This page compliments of and copyright Jaegerdesigns©2002
all rights reserved.