Although I have tried to run a positive campaign focused on my own strengths, I will not sit back and let my opponents smear me with untrue statements and innuendo.

Bill Allison has stated in his campaign materials that in regard to sports fields, I “don’t represent those families’ interests.”  The truth is that for the last 14 years I have been deeply involved with youth sports, including 9 years as a coach for Maple Valley Basketball (12 different teams) and for 3 years I was member of the THS Lady Bears Booster Club, and I continue to be an avid supporter of my son’s youth soccer team.  My children (now teenagers) have participated in basketball, volleyball, soccer, track and golf at the “rec,” club, and high school levels.  I continue to attend numerous Tahoma High School sports events, just for the fun of it, and in the last 2 years I have sponsored a total of nine Maple Valley youth sports teams (Lacrosse, Pony Baseball, and Junior Football) even though I have no children in those programs.  While on the city council, I was a tireless supporter of youth sports programs in our community and I played a critical role in the acquisition of the property that the city is now planning to use for fields.  It was I who proposed that Maple Valley should have a Parks and Recreation Department, not just a Parks Department.  The extensive list of youth sports programs that are now offered by the city were initiated during my tenure on the council, with my full support.  In summary, the suggestion that I do not represent the interests of the sports-minded citizens of Maple Valley can only be made out of ignorance—or fabrication.

Bill states that I “do not have a plan” to “restore the funds” used to buy Lake Wilderness Golf Course.  I proposed a plan to recover these funds prior to the purchase of the property and have continued to lobby for that action.  Again, Bill is either ignorant of the facts or he is deliberatly misleading the public.  

Bill also contends that because of some undefined “direct conflict of interest” I would have to remove myself from any debate regarding the Donut Hole.  Bill does not explain what “direct conflict of interest” he is referring to, but I can unequivocally state that I have no interest in the Yarrow Bay Group (the developer), the property involved, or any other individual or organization involved with the project, and I have no possibility of any direct benefit or gain from the project.  He implies that because I am employed as a property manager that I “will have to remove” myself from the debate and not provide input.  Bill’s statement has no legal basis.  But if a business operator was not allowed to be involved merely because he is a business operator, Bill would be faced with the same limitation since he has a much greater potential for bias--he operates a business just down the street from the site which would be in direct competition with Donut Hole businesses.  Luckily, common sense prevails here and there are no such limitations;  saying that a business owner should not be allowed to participate in a discussion about another unrelated business would be like saying that a homeowner should not be allowed in a discussion about other homes.  Bill just does not understand the issues and the rules.

Bill claims that during my 10 years on the council no “business area” was developed in Maple Valley and that I chose to only benefit my business interests.  In reality, the properties that I manage are diverse and many are not yet developed.  The interests of the owners of those properties are similar to those of all the other commercial property owners in Maple Valley.  The regulations that were imposed while I was on the council impacted commercial properties throughout the city equally and many work to the detriment of properties under my management.  Bill’s statement that restricting new business would somehow keep rental rates high on properties that I manage is false and his simplistic analysis is far off the mark.  I have managed commercial properties in Maple Valley for over 30 years and have seen other individuals develop many commercial properties in town.  Every time other projects have “come on line,” business activity in the community has increased, the new buildings are always higher priced than the older ones, and all property owners see increased demand and potentially higher lease rates which is just the opposite of what Bill is asserting.  Again he does not understand the facts and issues.

Bill also ignores the fact that during the 10 years that I was on the council I was the strongest proponent of regulations that would encourage and foster commercial growth in our community. For example, I was responsible for enacting a graduated traffic impact fee schedule that gives a break to small business, I helped secure office space for the Chamber of Commerce in city hall, I served on the city’s first Economic Development Committee (EDC) in the 90s, and I serve on the current EDC.  Bill also does not seem to understand that during that 10 year period the city experienced dramatic growth across the board.  The population doubled, but during the same period the commercial sector actually outpaced that growth rate and more than tripled the amount of commercial space in the city.  Again Bill does not have the facts straight and he doesn’t understand the issue.

Bill Alison is throwing out a lot of accusations, but he is very short on facts and does not understand the issues.  Hopefully, his inaccurate statements are a result of ignorance and not an attempt to mislead the public.  One has to wonder, if Bill (a 10-year resident of Maple Valley) thought that the council was doing such a poor job over the last 10 years, where was he when all these issues were being addressed?