Submitted by John Burns, Lakewood.
The Lakewood City Council, on Monday, August 19 at 7 pm, will decide whether or not to sell a city-owned public use lakefront parcel on Steilacoom Lake.
Two adjacent Homeowners have petitioned to purchase this valuable public property. I have conducted an examination of city documents related to the Steilacoom Lake 100th St SW public access Site #5.
Below is a list of major examination findings along with my emailed recommendation.
- I found a number of misleading and clearly false or inaccurate statements within the Streets Ends Report 2023 (located on the City of Lakewood’s website).
- I believe some of the errors the retained contractor might have injected into the report because they were following what the city wanted to do; which was to sell the property.
- Both this report and the previous report, Lakefront Street Ends Policy 2009, degraded 100th St SW property (which has the longest waterfront and best Site parking) in relation to the other sites .
- The 100th St SW public access Site was consistently scored low in spite of the facts:
- Example:
- Disfavored 100th St SW area is ~ 12,212 sq ft and has a score of (1)
- Favored Westlake Site area is ~ 9,206 sq ft yet has a score or (4)
- Within the 11 categories in the 2009 reports Decision Criteria Matrix category scores are added and the sites with the lowest totals have been used identify properties to vacate/sell.
- I have identified 7 of 11 categories I believe either the Westlake incorrectly scored with high or the 100th St SW Public Property was incorrectly scored low with (1) category up in the air.
- The current Survey show that the southern property adjacent to the 100th St SW access has an encroached garage, a chunk of house, and fence that bisects public property. The fence encloses ~25.5 feet of public property down to the Lake while the concrete driveway extends the scope of the encroachment beyond ~25.5 feet. Length of the encroachment appears to be on the order of ~130 ft.
- It is my belief the 2009 Report scoring table does a disservice to the Public Good.
Following is a letter I submitted to all Lakewood City Councilmembers.
Dear Mayor Whalen, Deputy Mayor Moss and Council Members: Pearson, Brandstetter, Belle, Lauricella, and Bocchi:
I am writing to strongly urge you to vote “NO” on the vacation of the 100th St SW access to Steilacoom Lake, Public Access #5. There is strong evidence that the 2009 and 2023 evaluations of this public access conducted by the city, used a deeply flawed rating system that will not hold up under public or legal scrutiny. In addition, Washington State has been very clear on the legal limitations of vacating streets abutting bodies of water:
- RCW 35.79.035 Limitations on vacations of streets abutting bodies of water –Procedure (Section 2b) conduct a study to determine if the street or alley to be vacated is suitable for use by the city or town for any of the following purposes: Port, boat moorage, launching sites, beach or water access, park, public view, recreation, or education.
- RCW 35.79.035 Limitations on vacations of streets abutting bodies of water –Procedure (Section 2d) Make a finding that the street or alley sought to be vacated is not suitable for any of the purposes listed under (b) of this subsection, and that the vacation is in the public interest.
Facts: The 100th St SW Public Access has ALL of the following:
- Launching site: paddle boards and kayaks can easily enter and exit the water.
- Beach or water access: very accessible shallow water for wading/swimming.
- Park potential: drawings of a proposed park on this property were completed by the city.
- Public view: water is easily viewed from the trail-head when it is maintained.
- Recreation: an obvious benefit to the community to enjoy a waterfront setting
- Education: within walking distance to Park Lodge Elementary School, home school students, public
There is no acceptable reason to sell this valued public waterfront property to two homeowners. The loss to this community would be enormous.
Questions:
- How could one of the largest Steilacoom Lake public access locations be so undervalued by the city?
- Can the city explain the vague 1 thru 5 matrix system used to evaluate our public access locations?
- When did the city become aware of the South homeowner’s encroachment of Public Access #5?
- How does this encroachment issue compare/contrast with the Edgewater encroachment issue?
- Are there clean hands in this proposal to buy/sell?
- Is there any hint of conflict of interest?
Respectfully,
John Burns
It is important for citizens to know that there is still time to voice your concerns in person at the August 19th City Council meeting.
Red flags are flying!
The sale of this public waterfront property needs to be voted down on August 19th by our city council. Based on obvious faulty scoring criteria and biased survey summary reports (costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands dollars), the 100th St SW:Site #5 has been intentionally downgraded since the original 2009 Street Ends Report. Someone wanted one of the best Steilacoom Lake public access locations to be viewed as unfit for public use as far back as 2009. Why?
If I’m following the breadcrumbs, looking at public survey documents and reading between the lines, we also have a lakefront homeowner living adjacent to Site #5 who has encraoched significantly on valuable public property. No doubt, the very public Edgewater Park issue sparked concerns and moved this homeowner and another neighbor living adjacent to Site #5 to resolve a sticky situation by purchasing the public lake access for personal use.
I went back and listened to the citizen comments recorded at the City Council Meeting on August 12th. According to the lakefront owners who are petioning to purchase this public land, Site #5 is of no use to the public because they have experienced having to pick up some trash, drug needles, experienced a theft, a police chase/incident…the basic problems every neighborhood faces in Lakewood. They did not offer any documented evidence.
However, what I 100% agree with them on is that our city has failed to properly care for and maintain all 7 public access sites. This calls for a change short of selling off valuable public access to Steilacoom Lake!
Mr. Burns-
Thank your for sharing your work on this. It was good to read the RCW’s that may keep this land available to the public.
I agree there is certain conflict with the City not handling the encroachment the same for the two Lake Steilacoom properties you mentioned.
I use a similar street end to launch my kayak and agree the loss of any public access is unacceptable.
Thank You KM Hills, Certainly, selective enforcement enforcement of the Law wherever and whenever it occurs points to a breakdown of justice. What does it say when the rich or powerful get away with manipulating government and breaking laws and the weak and vulnerable pay full price for similar activities? Keep using the Lake through our Public Access Locations and Report any Violations/ or blockage of sites to local sources of news, State and local agencies, elected officials, watchdog organizations and Law enforcement.
Keep using the Lake, it is your right:
From WA, Department of Natural Resources: Ownership History Fresh water, such as in lakes or rivers, or marine waters, such as in Puget Sound, are not owned by individuals. Water is managed by the state and protected for the common good. Generally, aquatic lands beneath these waters have been managed that way, too – since statehood. On November 11, 1889, at statehood, Washington’s aquatic lands became state owned lands under the Equal Footing Doctrine, which guaranteed new states of the Union the same rights as the original 13. Washington State, through Article XVII of its constitution, asserted ownership to the “beds and shores of all navigable waters in the state…” so that no one could monopolize the major means of transportation, trade or fishing areas. Some other states gave adjacent upland owners a “riparian” right to build over navigable waters, but Washington chose to be a “nonriparian” state – that is, it did not grant that right. It held that aquatic lands are owned by all the people of the state, not individuals.
There is definitely a “if they can’t afford to live in the lake, they don’t deserve access” mentality.
It will be interesting to see the comparison of the two encroachment situations. Sounds like a good legal challenge to me.
Certainly there are many attitudes and groups of attitudes on the Lake Access issue. I heard a dominate themes at the meeting on the Proposed Vacation but not all city residents were attending.
I have seen Edgewater park is overused/highly used and has minimal services.
Thank you John Burns for your research and for speaking up.
Back in the mid-1900s as a kid in my 20s, I cleverly arranged to own a 16′ Cady Craft runabout boat. My boat had many adventures on American Lake and Lake Steilacoom along with Lake Tapps.
My main point in commenting is PUBLIC ACCESS to community lakes such as Lake Steilacoom is an important community asset that should be protected for the benefit of the community.
While I understand the concerns, problems, and motivations of the two lakeside owners who wish to dominate their lake frontage, the City of Lakewood should favor all 63,212 citizens, not just 2 citizens to avoid harming 63,200 citizens by making it more difficult to enjoy a community asset.
I sold my boat back in circa 1975 and I no longer live in Lakewood, so I have no axe to grind, but I feel qualified to comment to help the City of Lakewood understand what is the correct decision to make on this important issue.
Joseph Boyle – A guy with an opinion on each and every subject.
Joseph Boyle,
You appear to have lived long enough to have a well developed sense of Citizenship. Not everyone has been taught good Citizenship. We can set good examples. Thank You for your speaking up. You are service to the community as a whole.
Excellent letter and points. Keep up the good fight for the public interest.
Thank you for your interest in and research about this lakefront property. Your findings are certainly cause for concern and further investigation. May I add that the boat launching opportunities for this property and the Edgewater property are not equivalent, and thus you are advocating for 2 parks. It is reasonable for the City to determine how many parks they can afford to maintain. If the City determines that it cannot afford to develop and maintain both sites, the 100th St parcel could at least be reserved for future development.
Pat D, Certainly, the City has the tough job of allocating resources and it is their business to do so. But when the City, through neglect or design, allows dishonest or misleading appraisals of various Sites to be the foundation of Policy a bright light needs to be shined on the darkness and good people need hold responsible parties accountable. I am not advocating for two parks, I am advocating for honesty and integrity in reports. And advocating for the freedom of City Employees to make sound responsible decisions.
Thank You for Bring up Good Points.
John Burns
Thank you Mr. Burns,
The information/oversight you provide comes just in time. I can appreciate property owners wanting to expand their privacy, but this is rightfully public property.
In recent years, we’ve witnessed a troubling trend where public spaces and resources are increasingly being privatized, leading to restricted access and diminishing community benefits. Whether it’s parks, beaches, or recreational areas, the push to prioritize private entitlement over public access threatens the fundamental principle that these spaces should be available for everyone.
Public spaces are more than just physical locations; they are vital to the social fabric and well-being of our communities. They offer opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and social interaction, which are essential for a balanced and healthy lifestyle. However, the encroachment of private interests—often motivated by profit—puts these benefits at risk.
Take, for example, the recent developments where private entities have sought to control or limit access to once-public beaches and parks. These moves, disguised as improvements or exclusive memberships, often result in higher fees and restricted hours, making it increasingly difficult for ordinary citizens to enjoy these amenities. This shift not only undermines the democratic principle of equal access but also erodes the sense of community that these spaces foster.
It’s important to remember that public access to these areas is a right, not a privilege. These spaces are funded by taxpayers and are meant to serve the entire community, not just a select few. When access is restricted, the impact is felt most acutely by those who rely on these spaces for their everyday well-being—families, children, and individuals who may not have the means to pay for private alternatives.
To combat this trend, we must advocate for policies and practices that protect and preserve public access. Local governments and policymakers need to be vigilant about the privatization of public resources and ensure that any changes to access are made with the community’s best interests in mind. Transparency, public input, and accountability should be the cornerstones of any decision involving public spaces.
Moreover, as citizens, we should actively engage in discussions about the future of our community resources. Attending town meetings, supporting organizations that fight for public access, and voicing our concerns can make a difference. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to preserving these spaces as accessible and inclusive for everyone.
In conclusion, while private investment and development can contribute to the enhancement of public spaces, they should never come at the expense of public access. By standing together and advocating for equitable access, we can ensure that our public spaces remain vibrant, inclusive, and available for all to enjoy. Let’s safeguard these community treasures from the encroachments of private entitlement and protect our collective right to access and enjoy the spaces that belong to us all.
This reeks of elitist entitlement. I understand the adjacent property owners wanting privacy but that does not give you the right to buy away your problem while disenfranchise the citizens from public access to the lake.
Gregory Alderete,
Excellent writing. Your post is a thoughtful and articulate expression that adds to the evolving big picture that is unfolding in these Public comments.
John Burns
As a taxpaying property owner in Lakewood, I recommend a vote of “No” to the sale of this property. I also believe Lakewood should begin charging rent from the encroaching property owner and give them a deadline to remove improvements or the City will remove them and charge the encroacher.
I’m deeply gratified to witness rousing public interest unfurl thoughtful response and claim for access and preservation, indeed stewardship, of Lakewood’s natural foundation for community. Lacking passion for place, our fair city would be just another off-ramp along I-5. But by this presence shown our village blooms, good reason for arrival. Thank you all.
Have any of you actually gone to the 100th Street SW street end to scope it out? I did over the weekend and found an abandoned junk car in the middle of the road blocking the driveway of the adjacent homes seeking to purchase this property. Yes it is public access and provides opportunity for wading, swimming, kayak launch, etc. However it also invites parking and perhaps other activities which directly impact the adjacent properties. Perhaps a simpler solution is to post “No Parking” signs at the site or “Walk-in only”. I can’t speak for the two home owners adjacent to the street end but I suspect it’s not “greed” that motivates them. Rather it’s the disruption they have had to endure through inconsiderate public use of the street end.
I just finished speaking with the owner of 6926 100th Street adjacent to the subject street end. It is the city that first decided to vacate the street end after which the adjacent property owners offered to purchase same after the fact. There was no “collusion” between city and property owner in this case.
She also related that there has been a lot of drug activity, homeless encampment, traffic in that street end which is disruptive. Indeed the abandoned car I saw this weekend was involved in a Lakewood police drug bust. A records check for calls for service from the Lakewood Police should confirm the property owners assertions.
Cars have plowed through the steel barrier which has not been repaired. There is no turn around so people back up into the property’s car port and have hit the supporting beams that hold the roof. The street end is not ADA accessible. There is a gully running through the middle of the street end, a result of last week’s thunder storm.
The real question in my mind is once the property owners have purchased the street end how and what are they going to do to prevent all the problems they now face from continuing to occur?