SEQUIM — Glen and Norma Humphrey’s property on Jesslyn Lane looks the same as it did last month — the tidy house, the neatly trimmed lawn, the gravel driveway, the large, gray wood shop that towers over it all.
The only difference is that as of Feb. 28, he’s a city of Sequim resident.
“I don’t want to be,” he said. “I like the county. I think the county does more for us than the city does.
“But that’s ‘progress.”‘
The Sequim City Council annexed a large swath of property north of the city at the end of February, including several properties on Jesslyn Lane — and the Humphreys aren’t the only ones who feel they were annexed against their will.
Humphrey and his dissenting neighbors said they aren’t blanket anti-annexationists and that they understand the city’s point of view.
The concern is that city leaders didn’t listen when they wanted to opt out of the annexation — a concern that’s sure be shared as Sequim continues to grow and continues to take in land within its assigned urban growth area.
Common struggle
Residents of cities everywhere struggle with the issue, said Dave Catterson, a municipal government analyst with the Association of Washington Cities.
“Change is difficult for people in general, and when their local government changes, people are uncomfortable with that,” Catterson said.
“The urban growth areas in most cases were established about 10 years ago, and those areas are intended to become part of cities over time.”
The annexation in question in Sequim encompasses almost 115 acres, most of it north of Port Williams Road and east of North Sequim Avenue.
It started with a request from landowner Bill Littlejohn to bring in about 60 acres of his land, along with the First Baptist Church property.
The City Council, however, asked him to significantly broaden the annexation request to take in almost all of that area’s unincorporated property that’s within the urban growth boundary.
The final annexation fell somewhere in between, and the way that happened is what makes some landowners uncomfortable.
