Letter to the Editor: Thanks to all who worked for Proposition 1

Friends and Neighbors:

While, once again, the majority of Mountlake Terrace residents supported the funding of a new City Hall, Community Center, and Police Station, we fell short of that 60% mark.

Even though the proposition fell short of the 60% needed we believe we’re starting to see a fundamental shift in our community. A shift away from complaining about problems and towards solving problems. A shift away from sitting on the sidelines and towards participating in the process. A shift away from expecting things to be done for us and towards getting things done ourselves. A shift towards progress. It may be happening slower than we like, but it’s happening nonetheless.

While the comments online may seem to say otherwise, we truly believe that Mountlake Terrace is not as divided as it may appear. During campaigning there is obviously two sides fighting for what they believe is best for our community and there isn’t opportunity to work together. That’s behind us for now. There are certainly those who have a track record of saying “NO” to every solution proposed and that likely won’t change moving forward. But for the rest of us, there’s work to do.

So what’s next? Well, our city council members have some tough decisions to make and they’re not going to be easy. Remember that the city council members are our neighbors and friends and they need our help and participation. If we could have one thing stick from this campaign it would be getting people to participate. Participation does not mean waiting for a solution to be proposed and then saying “NO”. Participation means being a part of the process. Go to public meetings, give your opinion, be informed.

We’d like to thank everyone who put so much hard work in to the Proposition 1 campaign: the local businesses who displayed signs and donated, the residents who tirelessly door belled, phone called, liked and shared our positive message, the city council members who listened to those of us who wanted to give it one more try, and most of all the MLT residents who voted yes.

The Yes for MLT Citizen’s Campaign

  1. I don’t hear anyone saying “NO” to every solution… just to overpriced solutions. There are other ways to provide for the needs of the citizens of Mountlake Terrace without overspending.

  2. I’m sorry, but I am dubious as to the sincerity of this ‘move forward, work together’ attitude the letter writer seems to express. I would love to move on and work together to find a solution to the problem but I can read between the lines of the letter, and the comments on this same letter posted on your facebook page, and I can’t help but think it’s best to stay away. The hostility expressed in those comments shock me and I can’t help but feel that if I were to express my thoughts about how we can come together–I mean really come together, somewhere in the middle–that I would meet with the same hostility and negativity I’ve seen so many demonstrate during this campaign.
    I feel that throughout the campaign every idea put forth by the opposite side was shot down quickly and harshly without even a wink of acknowledgement that it might have some merit. So, I will sit on the sidelines for now, as I am a sensitive thing and don’t wish to be told to “just sell and move”. I wish you the best in coming up with something that 60% of us can get behind.

  3. I am amused that you lifted your comment (the last paragraph) almost verbatim from my own thank you at mltnoprop1.com Nonetheless, we AGREE that participation is a good thing. And the many scores of voters I personally spoke with received a thank you from me REGARDLESS of which way they voted. After all, we ARE a community and after all, we must decide TOGETHER, based on the WA legislative requirement of a 60% yes if the whole community should be saddled with a debt as it was presented. NO was the clear resounding answer, failing the 60% test.

    That said, I am sure we will be able to walk together. We are one citizenry and we all want a Better MLT!

  4. I am amused that a group whose proposal has been twice-defeated has the gall to define participation for the rest of us.

    Part of participating is casting a vote. It is participatory to say “No.” to excess. On another thread, Mr.Barnes posted a link to a consultant’s report. It describes options, all of which make more sense than what the losers of the proposition tried to ram down the throats of the rest of us.

    My participation is to point it out and to suggest that it be read. I will also participate in asking the City Council, “Can you hear us now?”

    Repeating a mistake and expecting a different result is not participation. Stupidity might be a better word.

  5. I have to applaud all those commenting on the “Yes” campaign FB page under their posting “Friends and Neighbors” for keeping it positive!

    Boycotting businesses is not going to solve our problem! Working together to find a solution that is going to be acceptable to everyone is how I want to spend my energy! Decide for yourselves what you want to do! Seems to me your time could be better spent!

  6. It was rather amusing to read the No campaign responses on their Facebook page after the results. Basically they said hold onto your signs and wait for the next round rather than say let’s become the “yes campaign” that can give the community something we want them to stand behind. They’d rather just say “No” again. If their primary concern was “It’s Too Much” then I would expect them to begin to campaign to make themselves the “yes campaign” with a reasonable plan (details). But no, they said we are going to say “No” if this is raised again because the reality is that they want the status quo.

    1. Hi, Mr. Holt.

      I am one of those folks that said to “hold onto your signs.”

      Rest assured that if the City Council makes the same boneheaded decision that it made in January to put the Proposition back on the ballot virtually unchanged, I will vote “No” again. Despite your amusement, it would be foolish, wasteful, and counter-productive to keep bringing the same measure back to the ballot when it has already failed twice.

      I do hope the City Council has learned its lesson. But then again, I did not expect that they would be so cavalier and disrespectful of the electorate to ignore the results of the August 2012 ballot.

      Mr. French is right. City Hall has earned my mistrust. It is up to them to earn it back, or City Council members should take note – there are more uses of the ballot than to repeatedly say “No” to this measure.


      James Mize

  7. I’m not on Facebook, so I don’t know what some from the NO side are saying, but it sounds like the theme of it is that they remain distrustful of city hall. That’s not surprising.

    If there is going to be meaingful engagement of the entire community, I would like to make two simple suggestions which begin with respect.

    Number one: Insist the city tell the truth. Have their historical and numerical assertions fact checked, including the ones they are already using. Harry Truman once said, “It isn’t what we don’t know that gets us in the most trouble; it’s what we know for sure that just isn’t so.”

    Number two: Insist the city play fair. Give the opposition equal access to city funds for distributing the other side of the argument. Include a monthly column in City Happenings for say 3 months before any subsequent ballot measure and an equal number of glossy flyers per ballot measure at city expense. Then, make sure each large group of citizens( that’s both the pro and con) gets equal monetary support from big-money outsiders.

    Do these during a General Election cycle. You’ll find out what a real majority of voters think when they have open access to the whole truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.