On Monday, August 5, 2024 at 7:00 p.m., or soon thereafter, the Lakewood City Council will hear public testimony on the proposed vacation of a portion of 100th Street SW lying west of Dekoven Drive and east of Steilacoom Lake, a street end abutting a body of water, pursuant to RCW 35.79.035.
The area is public access, it is proposed to be vacated, and anyone objecting to the proposed vacation should attend the public hearing or send a letter indicating the objection to the City Clerk, 6000 Main Street SW, Lakewood, WA 98499 or BSchumacher@cityoflakewood.us prior to the hearing.
This hearing will take place in the City Council Chambers, 6000 Main Street SW, Lakewood, Washington. All persons will have an opportunity to present their oral comments at the hearing. You may also attend via Zoom, meeting ID: 868 7263 2373 or by telephone Dial +1 (253) 215- 8782 and enter meeting ID: 868 7263 2373.
For further information about this matter, please contact Franc Sawatzki, Associate Civil Engineer, PWEpermits@cityoflakewood.us.
Public access – on water? Why vacate? Is there a developer behind this?
Please provide the reason/thinking behind the proposal to allow meaningful comments on 5 August.
Thank you.
I agree Frank, this could be more clear in the post. Not sure why it can’t be made more clear when these postings occur. I did dig around and found a PDF on the City’s site that helps a bit more. See pg 66. https://cityoflakewood.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-07-01-Council-Agenda.pdf
The city struggles to maintain it’s current parks as is, not blaming the city, but it’s clear when visiting the parks we don’t have enough people to work on them, so this might actually be a good thing for the city to let go of and take that sale as more funding to maintain it’s current parks to a higher standard.
Casting about the shores of our much-loved Steilacoom Lake (suggest a Public GIS search), it becomes readily apparent there are a number of odd property boundaries, “improvements,” and likely no end of easements, restrictions and boundary issues of City and “neighborhood” interest. This one presents an 82 foot R/W, ending in further wet reduction, and on the City’s books for obligations explicit and otherwise that begs sensible disposition. One would hope the entire bag of these variations and oddities might be assembled for comprehensive review by the Planning Commission and Council for the attention that each separately merits.
Ok…. So I am confused.
First, The City is willing to declare eminent domain to take someone’s multi-million dollar home on Lake Steilacoom and then vacates this property which allows for another public access?
What is the process, is there going to be an auction and it goes to the highest bidder?
Second, The City wants to encourage increased housing along Gravelly Lake Dr. Down to Nyanza, in the CBD with tax incentives but then allows an apartment building to be removed off Steilacoom BLVD for a car wash.
Is it just me?