Submitted by John Burns, Lakewood.
There is 86 feet of prime Steilacoom Lake waterfront property set aside by the State of Washington for your use. It is Public Property and that means it is there for you to use. It is a block or so away from my house at the end of 100th St SW. Feel free to park at the street end and walk down the trail through the tall Fir trees to visit the scenic waterfront. Maybe you will see a mother duck at the water’s edge with her newborn duckling. Or maybe you will sit in your lawn chair and enjoy the view, or wade out into the cool water, or launch a Kayak and scoot around the Lake, or teach a child how to be a better steward of the land and lake. You get to decide what you to do on the property; within reason. It is always a good idea to be respectful of your neighbor, regardless on which side of the fence you live.
Although this property is held for YOUR land and waterfront use, it is also held for My land and waterfront use, and in-fact, it is held for EVERYONE’S land and waterfront use.
The City of Lakewood is responsible for holding and maintaining this property and the 12 other Street Ends in Lakewood for your, mine, and everyone’s use. The responsibility to hold these Public Street Ends for tomorrow’s use falls directly on the shoulders of the seven City Council Members.
Responsibility is not a one-way street; the Public also has responsibilities. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the Public to not only support the successes of our City and its seven City Council members, but to also hold them accountable for errant behaviors and poor-quality workmanship. I understand that it is no easy task to run well an enterprise as large and diverse as the City of Lakewood. However, when citizens provide thoughtful feedback on the City’s perceived performance, good or bad, they help keep the train on the tracks.
I have highlighted the recent 100th St SW Site#5 Survey below, which shows the Site Right-Of-Way — which is up for a vote to Vacate (to sell or not to sell) on Monday, September 16 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers.
Encroachments from the Southern Property are shown in Orange and believed to be substantially correct based on the Survey – the small orange triangle area, (Lower Right) may or may not be an Encroachment; a court ruling might be necessary regarding that area.
*The length of the Southern Property is not known by me. I colored it down to the water’s edge as shown in the survey only because that appears to me to be the effective dry western edge border- a backfilled concrete breakwater that acts as a terrace.
I was not able to find the City of Lakewood’s definition of an encroachment, so the City or Renton’s will have to do for now:
ENCROACHMENT: An incursion onto public lands including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, gardening, landscaping, installing structures, constructing, storing, placing, dumping, maintaining, cutting, overhanging, excavating, parking, diverting, destabilizing, draining onto, defacing, damaging, mutilating, removing, and limiting access onto.
Applicant has owned the property to the south of the 100th St SW Public Access to Steilacoom Lake for ~6 years. Applicant has publicly admitted to encroachments, but I don’t recall them admitting their fence is encroaching on and bisecting public property, therefore limiting Public access to public lands and what appears like public waterfront from the survey.
I believe there are plenty of members of the public who would benefit from sitting on a bench enjoying and full and expansive view of Steilacoom Lake from Public Property set aside by wise forefathers specifically for them to do just that.
Take some time, if you would, to read LMC 12.07.010 A, B, C, and D below.
It is informative to find that the City of Lakewood has LMC 12.07.010 A, B, C, and D processes to deal with encroachments.
Clearly to me, the City of Lakewood has allowed, and is allowing, encroaching residents (more examples for another day) to scam on/enjoy access to waterfront specifically set aside for Public Access; all the while appearing to deny or limit Public Access itself through lack of Right-of Way code enforcement of encroachments, widespread promotion of outdated and erroneous report results that encourage vacations, and site neglect.
There also seems something shady about not dealing with known encroachments until property owners, some of which are your friends, ask for a vacation.
There is little public access to the Lakes in Lakewood. Someone must protect existing accesses from encroachments and the chipping away by the selling of precious Public Property through vacations. These individual Street Ends are not toys for the City Council to play with nor chips to be cashed in for pet projects elsewhere.
Let the City Council know you support “No” on selling Public Waterfront Access.
Let’s save what little access there is!!!
Certainly. I suggest you look at your schedule to see if you might be able to attend the meeting and if so; walk up the microphone and share your views
on the subject directly to the City Council. Thank You for your support. You have made a difference with your post so no worries if you can’t attend. You have already made a difference.
👍🏻
John Burns, I had no idea that the amount of encroachment on this public land was as large as the survey indicates. I also did not know that the 100th St public access was so large. No wonder this petition by the two adjacent homeowners to purchase the street end access for their own use has invited a closer examination. It should be an easy “no” vote. The homeowner who purchased that house 6 years ago had to know of the encroachment issue, so did the seller! I sure hope the city council doesn’t think that tiny Edgewater Park on Lake Steilacoom is all the public deserves and that these street end access points have little value and are up for grabs to the highest bidder.
I think your analysis of the situation is spot on. Thank You.
I encourage the Lakewood City Council to vote no on the sale of this property parcel number 5 on Lake Steilacoom and suggest they notify the encroacher to remove their structures and pay rent to the city for the use of the property.
I agree. Personally enjoying access to Public Property behind fences, walls, and underneath and around encroaching structures, and while doing so, denying the Public access to views of the waterfront and to what the survey likely shows as the waterfront itself, is problematic.
Like Mike, I also had no idea the encroachment was so much. It appears most of the encroachment is a carport, which should be relatively easy to remove. Council should refuse to sell, force the owner to remove the carport. As a concession to the situation, the could let them buy the tiny strip the house is actually on and waive all fines. If there is an issue with disclosure with the previous owner, let them sort it out, not the city’s problem.
Yes Gary, A birds-eye view that makes the scope of encroachments stand out with respect to the encroacher’s property is necessary for the mind to get a true scope of the issue. Unfortunately, the City briefs provided to the City Council for decisional information on a range of subjects before Public Meetings are often 300 or more pages and are derived from information not made available to the public (this allows the work of City Staff to not be checked for adequacy by independent Public advocates). this sometimes results in the council getting poor quality information from which to make decisions with insufficient time to do thorough analysis of complex issues due to the nature of how the City Council has been set up (by the City Charter?).
The carport appears to me to be ~1/4 of the apparent encroachment.
The value of this public access is priceless. If you agree, I suggest you show up Monday evening in support of a “NO” vote.
Thank You for your post. I agree.
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot – Joni Mitchell
Thank You. Public Lands are for the Public. Disregarding the will of the Public is not a wise career move nor a sustainable way of governing.
We do not support the vacation of the lake end of 100th St.
Thank You. Public Lands are for the Public. Disregarding the will of the Public is not a wise career move nor a sustainable way of governing.
The sale of this property will send a message it is okay to encroach, then ask to buy more of what is public property. For this reason alone, I would say Lakewood should not reward someone who has already take what is not their’s. NO should be the answer.
Indeed. The severity of the continuous encroachments and public status of the the former Real Estate Attorney / Commissioner require a degree of ethical consideration.
City council members must vote NO, even if they themselves live on a lake in Lakewood. (Or especially if they or their family have lake property in Lakewood.) Public access must remain, and even be expanded for all to enjoy the rejuvinating peacefulness of being able to even just gaze upon water.
Indeed. The severity of the continuous encroachments and public status of the the former Real Estate Attorney / Commissioner require a degree of ethical consideration.
Certainly. It is time for the acity Council to do the right thing for the Public. Cashing in this property at the expense of generations of Public use is foolish on its own; without even considering tarnishing impact on the images of the Pierce County Superior Court, the City of Lakewood, those Council members who vote agaist it, including Mayor Jason Whalen who has strongly lobbied the remaining council members to sell the property despite good reasons not to and to the benefit of a personal friend, Pierce County Superior Court Commissioner, Clinton P. Johnson.
NO KIDDING ? Time for some people to get fired !!
I urge the Lakewood City Council to vote yes for the sale of this street end. It is not a park and was never intended to be a park.
Street ends were for fire trucks to be able to pump water in the early 1900s when homes around the lake were being developed.
Edgewater Park is where the development money and effort should go. It has the ability to become a jewel in the City of Lakewood if done properly.
Just because there are 8 or 9 street ends running into Steilacoom Lake does not mean there should be 8 or 9 mini-parks. This is a disaster in the making.
The City has trouble keeping Edgewater Park clean and safe. They can’t handle more problems.