To the Editor

February 26, 2013

By Contributor

Just say no

Don’t allow logging on Squak Mountain

I have lived in Issaquah and raised my children here since 1989. I chose this beautiful community because of its forests, trails, creeks and woods. My children grew up in the woods and love the outdoors. They have very enriched lives because of it.

Please don’t allow the logging of 216 acres to happen on Squak Mountain. We don’t need any more homes, traffic, displaced wildlife and air pollution, and that valley of homes below High Valley doesn’t need any more flooding.

That area should remain as is. For once, don’t take the developer’s side. We have had enough.

Janet McIntosh



Consider annexation facts

Regarding the proposed Klahanie PAA Annexation — let’s do it right this time. When this subject was put to a vote of the residents in 2005, their desire to be annexed to Issaquah was clear, with a 67 percent “yes” vote. That should have been case closed but when the added question of accepting indebtedness was also put to a vote (not sure what the motivation for this was) whereby the required 50 percent approval fell short reaching only 47 percent.

Here’s a question for you — when did you last move to a new city and only pay a portion of your appropriate tax bill based on indebtedness from your move date going forward? The two-part vote served only to confuse some — that approval would somehow incur added tax liability as a result of annexation. Not so.

The City of Issaquah has commissioned a study by the Nesbitt Group to assess the potential effect of annexation, both on the city and on the PAA residents, and this information will be available to the public online at

Let us hope that this time a decision will be fact based, unencumbered by confusion.

Michael Foss

Brookshire Estates


Interstate 90 tolling

Does the City Council support it or not?

The Issaquah City Council sent a letter to the Interstate 90 Tolling Project that seems very soft in rejecting the I-90 tolls. The 520 tolls were to pay for the new 520 bridge. The powers that be now want to go outside that area and get money from non-520 users. Typical bad judgment.

The Issaquah letter suggested (1) some of the I-90 tolls be used to improve the I-90 corridor, whatever that means, (2) some of the I-90 tolls go to mass transit, (3) all users of the I-90 bridge should pay the toll, (4) no tolling at the four Issaquah I-90 on- and off-ramps, good action, and (5) have a I-90 toll public hearing in Issaquah.

Items 1 and 2 seem to support the tolling and would extend the tolling period by spending funds on other projects than the new 520 bridge. Item 3 seems to support the tolling. Item 4, tolling should be done only at the entrance to each end of the bridge, seems to support the tolling. As for item 5, does anyone believe that public hearings will stop the I-90 bridge tolling program, or is it just a means for the council to indicate they tried everything and failed?

The letter did not address the impact upon local business operations that utilize Seattle buyers and/or Seattle workers, or Issaquah people that work in Seattle. The tone of the letter does not seem to find the I-90 tolling “totally” unacceptable to the Issaquah City Council!

I suspect there would be more crashes on state Route 18 due to many more drivers bypassing the I-90 bridge.

Ken Sessler



Bookmark and Share


Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.