I read an interesting blog entry by Erik Emery Hanberg, a local blogger that I've heard is well known around these parts. I found his entry from last Sunday very interesting regarding University Place. Here is a quote, "So once again, I'll make the point: if UP wants to keep its suburban identity, the best thing for them to do is to be annexed into Tacoma." To read the rest, click here.
We could easily replace UP with Ruston and suburban with residential and presto, it's one of the on-going debates we have here! The Ruston Connection group (Council Members Albertson, Everding, Stebner and Huson) campaigned strongly on maintaining the current residential flavor that Ruston has evolved into. Yet they oppose most development (by running any proposal through the ringer and then often not approving it). They met with Tacoma's mayor two years ago to explore annexation. They continue to push for Tacoma emergency services even after their own fire committee recommended against it and Tacoma has withdrawn from negotiations.
Perhaps this gives a bit of a clue about their motivation. They want to stay a bedroom neighborhood at all costs. If they strip away Ruston's tax base and identity, the only choice will be to annex. Then they won't have to deal with pesky things like small business customers parking near their homes, or buildings on the waterfront that might impact their view.
Maybe I'm grasping at straws. They sure haven't explained openly any reasons for their actions, leaving us to guess like this. Right or wrong, agree or disagree; open discussion is always best. But after two years of questions and open discussion by the public that has not been reciprocated by the council, I'm wonder if we can ever hope for honesty from these folks.
Karen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Karen,
Glad you found it interesting! I get some grief from UP readers about always calling for them to merge into Tacoma. They really don't like the idea.
I am curious about your thoughts, and those of your readers, on whether there are terms for annexing Ruston into Tacoma that you think would be good for your community and would not be a "defeat" or a "cave."
Would services need to be noticeably cheaper or would residents care more about town pride than saving a buck (assuming you could save a buck, which may not be the case)?
Would a strong Ruston District Council with land-use decision power make residents feel better about it?
Could town pride be transformed to neighborhood/community pride?
Or is it simply a non-starter for most residents?
Good questions, Erik. You have me thinking (good, but it can be dangerous)…
I think all our services are cheaper or close to equivalent in Ruston. We buy power from Tacoma but have our own substation. It’s been a while since I looked, but I think the Town gets a bulk rate and residents pay about the same as Tacoma. I could go on for a long time about infrastructure, but I’ll save that for another time unless you want to hear the full saga. Bottom line, I don’t think Tacoma offers anything that we can’t do ourselves for about the same rate, despite some pressing needs. And as a small town, we qualify for different grants than the big guy.
I don’t think this is just a matter of pride or emotion for people, although the emotional aspect of being a ‘community’ is very important to me. My homeowner insurance is less, my taxes are less, I can talk to the mayor or council anytime they will let me. And I’m a lot more adapt to run into them on the street around here than in Tacoma. I can have a real voice compared to the big city.
Having local land use control would not be enough for me. There are so many more things that build the character of a place, although land use is a big part of it. Loosing our fire and police department would hurt. They have a quick response time and deliver personal care that Tacoma can’t match. We have more of an opportunity to support and build our local businesses if we choose.
We would loose such hard-fought history by annexation. Ruston has traditionally fought the outside world to forge its own identity. Too much of that uniqueness goes away if the label becomes just “neighborhood”. Maybe it’s only the old-timers like me that care about this aspect, but it is a vital part of who we are. If we loose it, we can’t wish it back.
I know its weird to think that boundaries are good, but for Ruston it gives a firmer sense of place, of identity. It’s like being in a family, you know you belong (for good or for bad). It’s a heritage and a welcome you can’t achieve with a loosely defined neighborhood. Ruston has traditionally captured all those good things of rural small-town America (that sense of neighborhood) but at a deeper level because we are surrounded by (and different from) this urban city.
I could ramble for days on the larger history that has played out here; societal shifts in environmental issues, the transition away an industrial economy and its impacts. It’s all very meaningful and becomes just a fleeting memory if those boundaries dissolve.
I’m not sure we can hang on, but it’s well worth trying to me.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer, Karen.
There was a time when I would have said the best thing about Ruston was that one voice here has far more clout than one voice in Tacoma. But the renegades that are currently running the council don't care a bit about what a hundred voices have to say. Once we get rid of them, it'll be better again.
By the way, voters. You elected these folks. How's that working for ya?
Post a Comment