The City of Burien has spent an enormous amount of time and resources on the annexation issue and its alternative options. Some of the incentives of this action, according to the city, are increased real estate and added police and fire department coverage.

As a hopeless skeptic, I wonder if there would be a benefit of additional property to Burien. Many annexations of the past have resulted in net negative cost to cities. The "possibility" of grants and rewards in annexation seems speculative at best and not a long-term positive income producer.

Wearing my skeptic hat again and as an outsider viewing in, without all the facts and figures, I wonder if we are getting the full picture, the "realistic cost/benefit analysis" of the annexation proposal. My primary question is, can the city of Burien be truly unbiased in its decision, in that I believe that there is an inherent attraction in the possibility of governing over a larger jurisdiction.

My apprehension might be alleviated if a third party studied a comprehensive cost/benefit of every alternative. It would be truly neat if it could be binding in the city council's decision, but that would be perhaps asking too much.

In conclusion, I am saddened that the impacted population does not have the opportunity to vote on this, since this is going to affect them dramatically in the future.

Mark Pitzner

Burien