Earlier this week a King 5 news story about the work the city is doing to improve Edgewater Park highlighted the city’s legal acquisition of a piece of private property to improve the park for public use.
Specifically, the focus was on a court ruling allowing the City of Lakewood to use eminent domain to acquire private property.
Unfortunately, information shared with the news station about the legal dispute between the property owner and the city was not correct.
Below is more information about the City of Lakewood’s efforts to improve Edgewater Park and why the city ultimately had to go to court to resolve a dispute with the property owner.
How did we get here?
Several years ago, city officials learned public property on Lake Steilacoom was occupied by Dr. Ebrahim Mirjalili.
A land surveyor hired by the city to survey the area for a road improvement project confirmed Dr. Mirjalili was using public land for personal use. Around the same time, Dr. Mirjalili inquired with the city about building a fence between his property and the public waterfront park.
The city then conducted another land survey to determine the boundaries of publicly owned right-of-way and city owned park property. That survey showed additional encroachments and that public waterfront land was being used by Dr. Mirjalili as private property.
Most of what Dr. Mirjalili believed was his property is public property and has been for decades, predating Lakewood incorporation.
Once the city learned of this encroachment, it was required to act. City officials contacted Dr. Mirjalili to reach a resolution.
By law, the city can’t give away publicly owned land. That means the city cannot give Dr. Mirjalili the land, regardless of how long he used the public property, including lake frontage, as his private property.
Is the market value of the property over $1 million?
Reports of the property being valued over $1 million does consider the fact that much of what Dr. Mirjalili has been occupying is publicly owned land. Both the surveyor hired by the City of Lakewood and multiple surveyors hired by Dr. Mirjalili and his title insurance company confirmed this.
According to land surveys, approximately one-third of the home structure on the property is built on public land. The home does not meet code requirements due to non-permitted additions and renovations. In its current condition, the home is likely not marketable.
Title insurance company settles dispute
According to property records, Dr. Mirjalili purchased the property from a bank in 2008 out of foreclosure. The purchase price was $441,000. After the encroachment issues were identified, and after being unable to reach a resolution with his title company over the issue, the city understands the title company paid Dr. Mirjalili to settle his claim.
Why eminent domain?
Historically, the City of Lakewood does not use eminent domain to acquire property. Instead, in the rare situation when the city may need to purchase private property for public improvements, efforts are made to work with the owners to acquire property with mutual agreement.
After several years of trying to reach an agreement without success, it was finally determined the city had to go to court to move forward with its plans to improve Edgewater Park for public use.
Court ruling
In January 2024 Pierce County Superior Court Judge Bryan Cuschoff ruled in the city’s favor. Later, Dr. Mirjalili reached an agreement with the city that allows the city to take possession of the property on July 1, 2024.
The only remaining issue is how much the city will pay Dr. Mirjalili for the property.
The city can only pay for the private property, not the public land it already owns.
The city and Dr. Mirjalili are scheduled for mediation at the end of April to reach final agreement on purchase price.
Improving Edgewater Park
Edgewater Park has received minimal improvement since incorporation in 1996. As part of the City of Lakewood’s Parks Legacy Plan, improvements to the park are identified to meet the needs of Lakewood residents.
Some of those improvements include plans to increase access to Lake Steilacoom. More parking is also needed, so visitors don’t park on residential side streets.
The city has involved the neighborhood and held public meetings to gain resident feedback on the proposed improvements. The city’s volunteer-led Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recently reviewed the proposals and listened to public input. It will send its recommendation to the Lakewood City Council for review and consideration in April.
Having an updated master plan for the park allows the city to request grant funding to pay for the identified improvements in the plan.
Ultimately the goal for Edgewater Park is to create an improved park experience for visitors with adequate parking improved boat launch access and the opportunity for residents, including those that launch their boats, and visitors to enjoy the beauty of Lake Steilacoom.
“Reports of the property being valued over $1 million does consider the fact that much of what Dr. Mirjalili has been occupying is publicly owned land.”
So the County has been taxing him for property owned by the City? Seems he may have “paid” for this land via taxes. Also paid the bank for the land in the purchase of the home in 2009 if the County is taxing him on said land.
As noted by the City, he purchased this home from a bank in 2009. Therefore, he did not build the home on public land yet the City is taking their portion AND all the rest of the property to include his home?
Also… If the City MUST act when it knows residents have taken over pubic land what about the “street ends” down to Gravelly Lake? There have been many conversations on FB in the past and it looks like one of the home owners built a fence and shed across the street end to block access. Is the City going to act on that too?
Exactly! The city states,”Ultimately the goal for Edgewater Park is to create an improved park experience for visitors with adequate parking improved boat launch access and the opportunity for residents, including those that launch their boats, and visitors to enjoy the beauty of Lake Steilacoom.” Why don’t visitors get to experience “all” of the lakes within our city? On a side note, Lake Steilacoom does not need more toxic chemicals from asphalt, parked cars, or boats in its water. As the Nisqually Tribe has stated, “We need to come together” and work towards sustainable water quality & quantity. Why should the state spend millions on the Estuary at Chambers when Lakewood is destroying habitat upstream?
So why did the good Dr. go public and intentionally Lie about his legal standing and the ongoing legal situation with the city of Lakewood.?? Why provide intentionally misleading and blatantly false statements of Fact ??
Given the years of continuous negotiations
Lakewood should Sue the Dr. for all their legal fees and fines..
No one is above the Law..
I agree with the City and the Judge.
The city has acted rationally and legally. Most of us know that if we buy stolen goods, whether we knew it was stolen or not, we don’t have any ownership claim. If someone steals your car, and I buy it from the thief, the car can be recovered and it’s on me seek recompense from the person who sold it to me. The disputed title appears to have been resolved to the homeowner via the homeowner’s title insurance. There’s no basis in law that the city should spend tax payer money to pay the homeowner for land the homeowner doesn’t own or a house they cannot sell because it’s been built on public land. For all those outraged by this, exactly how does this play out? Can I go build a shop on Ft Steilacoom Park and open an auto repair business on public land and I can count on your support when the city comes to eject me and my shop from the park? I’m not suggesting that the city is always in the right, but this case is very clear. It’s been to court and a judge has found for the city (which, by the way, is all of us living in Lakewood, that land is held in trust for our use). The city is doing what we have legally directed it to do. If this homeowner is allowed to encroach on public land and make it their own, any Lakewood resident whose property abuts public land would have precedent to grab as much of that adjacent land as their own. Indeed, why stop at public land? That vacant lot next to you, just throw up a fence and call it yours.
Digging that all up isn’t going to improve anybodys park experience.
The remaining land will fall away and it will recede without the trees that anchor it now. It will create a big mud basin/channel way, and they will dredge the silt. Why don’t they improve the fishing area over at the bridge? There won’t be anywhere left to put picnic blankets. Parking lot: to stabilize something like that would be like making a ferry dock. Why do this now? Isn’t there somewhere else to dig and spend tax payer dollars right now?
Why does the city have to ruin all the habitats for the waterfowl, etc? Frankly, the sight and sound of constant construction is not a welcome view.
It’s interesting no one is pointing out that the Mayor of Lakewood recently started working for Pierce County in the Real Estate sector. Was it for this exact purpose?
From the city webpage:
Whalen recently returned to public service, and now serves as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, Civil Division, where he assists the office in real estate matters involving Pierce County.
Oh, elusive one, hiding behind the name “Something fishy”, you have asked a question about Mayor Jason Whalen which by innuendo seems to suggest that Lakewood’s mayor is doing something sinister, underhanded, or wrong.
The difference between you and me is I have the courage and commitment to use my real name, Joseph Boyle when making public comments. I am about to share my opinion which answers your question.
Lakewood’s mayor is an attorney, combined with the fact that he is now employed with the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office in the Civil / Real Estate division, has nothing to do with Lakewood, other than what I like to refer to as a left-handed complement. Mr. Whalen has probably forgotten more about real estate, encroachments, and public land than you and I together will ever know.
The Pierce County Prosecutor’s office and Mr. Whalen have no direct influence over the City of Lakewood’s real estate matters.
What is going on is the City of Lakewood gets to benefit from Mayor Whalen’s abundant real estate knowledge so problems in the City of Lakewood can be dealt with in an efficient, lawful, and fair manner.
I hope I have answered your question, “Fishy”.
Joseph Boyle
I am well known for having an opinion on every subject. So I surprised myself the other day when I read the King 5 news story in The Suburban Times about the City of Lakewood taking a citizen’s property located on Lake Steilacoom and only offering $250,000. Since modest properties on modest lots can command $250,000, I wondered how the city could justify $250,000 instead of $1,300,000.
My surprise was I resisted commenting. While I know a lot about real estate and have had experience with the eminent domain process, I felt I lacked enough information regarding this particular case to comment intelligently
One of my axioms is, Generally there are two sides to every story”.
Thank you, City of Lakewood for sharing the other side of the story. With information from both sides, I now wish to comment.
Points to ponder:
(1) The owner bought the property “as is” out of a bank repossession. With “as is” comes risk, especially if the buyer fails to accomplish his due diligence.
(2) Early on the owner learned that the property was defective. His title company paid a claim thereby theoretically making him whole.
(3) The owner’s property encroaches on city property. Had the owner done what I make a practice of doing, he would have purchased the property subject to a satisfactory survey. Most people do not accomplish a survey, but I do. It is a smart move. Those who skip this step, on occasion, get caught in an encroachment problem.
(4) Many modifications and additions were made to the house without the required permits thereby making the modifications illegal.
(5) Based on the encroachment issue and the failure to secure building permits, the home is very likely not saleable, which places the value closer to zero.
(6) Now the City of Lakewood’s offer of $250,000 begins to make sense.
Start with a $1,300,000 assessed value, based on the lot, lake frontage, and large home. From the $1,300,000 subtract the overvalued home which appears to have a real value of zero you end up with only a building lot.
The next step is to value the lake frontage lot alone and then subtract the demolition cost for removing the defective home. $250,000 seems generous.
Assuming these dollar numbers are relevant, I would be offering $250,000 – $50,000 demolition = $200,000, cash.
(7) When thinking about an assessed value of $1,300,000, it is helpful to understand that the property tax assessment process only involves a cursory examination that can be characterized as, “Yup, there is a house of a certain size, in a certain area, with several bedrooms, and bathrooms.” The Assessor does not generally become aware of survey or encroachment issues.
Tax-assessed values and actual market values are two different things.
Thank you, City of Lakewood for sharing your side of this story.
Joseph Boyle
Good to hear from you Joe! As always, spot on comments. One of your key points is that at some point the title insurance company made him whole. Part of that agreement is recognition that the city owns part of what he thought was his property. Any development made after that agreement is completely on the owner – he knew (or should have known) what he was doing. It appears he hoped that city would just cave or look the other way; kudos to Lakewood for not doing either. As far as him possibly paying property taxes on property he didn’t own (it appears we don’t know for sure that’s the case), that issue is between the owner and Pierce County, who administers the property taxes.
It seems to me that prior to the City of Lakewood presenting the Edgewater Park Plan for public review and comment it should have settled the Dr. Mirjalili/City property ownership dispute on some equitable basis.
The City has a penchant for taking ill conceived action prior to listening to and seriously considering legitimate citizen stakeholder concerns about the consequences of the City Council’s approval and City Manager and his advocating staff’s intended actions.
I am reminded of the City’s ignoring the extensive 2019 and 2022 citizen stakeholder expressed concerns about the City’s proposed and subsequently executed 2020 and 2023 alum treatments. These three alum applications have now cost us taxpayers $630,000 and resulted in the aluminum, sulfate, sulfide and sodium ion pollution of Waughop Lake. Waughop Lake now needs a toxic waste site clean up to restore its safe beneficial use by park goers and as suitable habitat for aquatic plants, fish, waterfowl, eagles, osprey and wildlife.
Inviting citizen stakeholder input, promoting citizen/city staff collaborative action, monitoring results of their collaborative action, and practicing adaptive management is paid lip service, but not practiced in the City of Lakewood.
I agree. Citizens comments are constantly ignored it seems, but maybe because not enough of us are coming to meeting. I think it’s time we start rallying neighbors and start showing up at the council meetings.
The City of Lakewood completely ignore permits for a Major Modifcations.in addition I was told the contractor was vetted and highly recommended. Actually, I had the choice of three vetted.? contractors.. the city refused to allow me to hire a bona fide vetted contractor with 30+ years experience. in addition to that the apprentice electrician was not supervised ever! I found out later that the electrician was employed by the general contractor and not an electrician! These are major violations of the law. And I’m sitting here three years later after the project was completed kinda sorta. The heat pump was installed and failed. I have to replace it. The HVAC company also creased and folded the ducting in the attic. I’m looking at an eight to $12,000 replacement COST! So the city’s selective enforcement of the permitting process.
Thank you Mr. Boyle for a very clear assessment of what the issues were starting with the purchase of the land and the new owner being informed after the fact that he didn’t own what he thought he purchased, thus the title company paid him a settlement. He then proceeded to put illegal additions on to the house. KM Hills — as noted, the city cannot sell public property to Dr.Marjalili and he didn’t purchase what he is claiming he owns now, the issues with title came up immediately but he proceeded to ignore them and is crying foul now. He didn’t do his due diligence before making his purchase.
This can be a little confusing. There is 1. Private property 2. City owned property 3. Public property. In one line it says his landscaping was not on his property. In another it says his building was not on his property. So was he legally served notice to vacate on any/ all of this? Did the city fence off any non-owned landscaping? Was Pierce County PALS service notified of this? So it seems to me he’s a squatter. And it seems there are very specific laws on this. This letter from the City says they and homeowners had reached a vacancy agreement earlier this year. SO is this really all about stirring up the public so the homeowner gets more money? Or the newspapers sell more drama? Why do I feel manipulated by ‘false news’ ? This isn’t about what it seemed initially. Wish the City had been quicker in their reply, you should have known it was going to be needed.
Well, I’d say Joseph Boyle gets the “Emmy” with standing ovation for beneficial public comment, with apology to Mark Twain, as the City is getting its shoes on. We also might note this matter is but one of several “street end” property issues left unattended by Pierce County since forever. It’s a commendation to our local government that it seeks fair redress and resolution through due process and thoughtful consideration.
It seems someone has and was scammed. Unfortunately it has been brought up by maybe greed or power, but ownership doesn’t go to the occupier, just like a person who was given a bag of lost money or stolen property, it was never theirs to own or keep. Dr. Mirjalili fell into this scam just like so many other nice people has with no fault of his own. It is a discouraging feeling to know you have been a victim especially when it is in the publics eye. The city should have acted sooner but did not. Now it looks like a greed and power or miss management issue, but when you don’t cover your self because of whatever reasons that don’t make you a victim it make you just like so many other people in life.
THE GOLDEN RULE: Treat Others As You Wish To Be Treated. This home was built 67 years ago, in 1957, on existent land. Justice is about doing what is right, included for those who are empowered to rule. Representation is to listen to the community who trust in you to unite. Simple solutions need not be drastic. The City needs to pay rightful compensation, and allow this family to keep their home, Instead of costly legal fees, the City can utilize those funds toward greater satisfaction through responsibility in having this house lifted and relocated within the agreed legal boundaries. Instead of tearing apart people’s lives, help them put it back together. We just need to be a better world, within our own City, to each other and build relationships not destroy them.
I checked the Pierce County Assessor’s parcel search:
https://atip.piercecountywa.gov/app/v2/propertyDetail/3085002170/map
Here’s some relevant info:
Built 1957. I must have had a plat and building permit issued by Pierce County which in part included a plat map showing all the easements/right of way/public land and physical set of the home. When did Pierce County or Lakewood create easements/right of way/public land across the property? If in fact Pierce County issued such a plat and permit encroaching on the alleged easement/right of way/public land does not the home owner have a valid defense?
Lot size 14,680 sq ft. Does any of this sq. ft. include land where the alleged easements/right of way/public land are located?
Tax assessed in 2024 at $1,368,700 with RE Tax of $16,033.30.
Until the City of Lakewood reveals when the easement/right of way/public land was instituted/platted, provides a copy of original plat and building permits, provides a plat of the easements/right of way/public land and physical set of the home we cannot ascertain the facts in this case.
LakewoodCARES.org