Yes, Kirkland will have to offer services to our neighborhood (Finn Hill); however it will be our neighborhood and others that will help the city find its way out of the current budget deficits and spread the tax burden more evenly to a larger population. It is our neighborhoods that would include some of the highest real estate taxes in Kirkland and in return we’d only receive the same services everyone else in town currently takes for granted.

At the same time, it is our neighborhoods, and I’m just guessing here to a degree, that spends a great deal of money in local restaurants and shops, so this myopic thinking by these Kirkland townies is radically flawed. Their side somehow finds it analogous they shop in Redmond and Bellevue, thus could claim they’d like to be annexed to either Bellevue or Redmond. Does this make any rational sense to anyone? Our address is in Kirkland, even if it’s an unincorporated area … for now. When reading the other sides of the arguments over the last six months, one would think we’re merging West and East Germany. I understand change is difficult; however this change will ultimately prevail in the end. These same arguments have been made by these same folks over the years when other parts of Kirkland were annexed. It’s a tired argument.

Steven & Melanie Wise, Finn Hill