Looking into the City of Redmond budgeting process | Letter

I hoped I was wrong; I wanted to trust. I not only participated, I encouraged my neighbors to do the same and some did. We were a portion of the 1,400 who provided input to the Digipen-designed online survey on the budgeting process. I was proud to note that a majority of the other 1,399 who voted agreed with my selections of the top-three areas (Infrastructure, Safety and Clean & Green) to devote funds.

I hoped I was wrong; I wanted to trust. I not only participated, I encouraged my neighbors to do the same and some did. We were a portion of the 1,400 who provided input to the Digipen-designed online survey on the budgeting process. I was proud to note that a majority of the other 1,399 who voted agreed with my selections of the top-three areas (Infrastructure, Safety and Clean & Green) to devote funds.

While the “writing was dimly on the wall” at the “Open House,” I continued to hope.

Today, when a “flier” was hung on the doorknob of my front door, I realized our input was not to result in a redistribution/redirection of the taxes we already pay, but a projection of how much more we’ll pay to have what we consider most important. So much for participation.

After this folly, the thoughtless sale of a Redmond historic (Nokomis) building, and the continuing embarrassment of accepting the “Tree City USA” designation after the Group Health site fiasco, I’ll not easily “trust” again soon.

On the plus side, perhaps some of the miserable traffic problems (infrastructure) will get better (in as much as it must be fully funded).

Jan Wilkinson

Redmond