During a drive through Rose Hill recently, I was amused when reflecting on Katherine Casseday’s letter (Sept. 16, “Annexation means local land-use control). Ms. Casseday contends that land use and traffic planning would be so much better if we vote for annexation to the City of Kirkland. She sites the traffic backup in the queue at the newest Starbucks in upper Juanita as poor planning by King County. I was amused because the identical situation exists in the heart of Kirkland at the Rose Hill Starbucks (traffic backs up onto N.E. 85th). To assert that Kirkland is better at land use and traffic planning is absurd. Is it better land use planning to allow two (yes, an additional casino is about to open) in the Kingsgate Area even though Kirkland’s zoning codes do not allow casinos (unless, of course, they generate approximately $1 million-plus in tax revenue)? Let us not forget the Totem Lake Shopping Center that was annexed from the county to Kirkland several years ago. Hasn’t that been a success for city land-use planning? How about a multi-million dollar carpool ramp at N.E. 128th Street and I-405, which does not allow access to northbound Totem Lake Boulevard, a major traffic arterial.

I would suggest that those people who tell us how much better Kirkland’s planning is than King County’s, get out of their homes and visit the real Kirkland. You will find land-use planning is no better. We will just have a new City of Kirkland bureaucracy controlling our lives.

Please visit www.nokirklandannexation.com for more facts to consider before you vote on Nov. 3.

R. Luke, Kingsgate