Submitted by Kristofer Marks.
Pierce Transit is unlawfully excluding and removing people from the public street, currently known as the Jackson Street – Olympic Boulevard Park and Ride lot and War Memorial Park, at 6th Ave and Skyline.
The entirety of the property is a City owned street, for street purposes, with an existing, underlying street easement allowing all persons, at all times, free lawful passage.
On Nov 7th, 1938, Tacoma City Council, fka as the Corporation Council of the City of Tacoma, declared a state of emergency and exercised Tacoma’s right of Eminent Domain to condemn and acquire properties, owned by private citizens, ‘for right of way purposes’. Those properties comprise the area now known as the Park and Ride lot and War Memorial Park, among others. The Council declared that the ‘acquisition of said lands for the purposes herein mentioned is a public necessity and for a public purpose.’ The council’s declaration resulted in Ordinance No. 11624, effective the date of publication, Nov 9th, 1938.
The adverse possession cases were prosecuted, and the judgments from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County required in every Decree of Appropriation that said lands be used for street purposes.
Since that time, the property has been deeded to the State for Highway 16 and then back to the city when the state no longer needed the land, each time, as renumerated in the quit claim deeds, for and only for street purposes.
In 1985, City of Tacoma entered into a lawful Maintenance Agreement, publicly recorded, with Pierce Transit, granting Pierce Transit nonexclusive license to park vehicles there in exchange for general maintenance and payment of utilities. All duties and responsibilities were strictly limited to those listed in the Maintenance Agreement. Furthermore, the City explicitly stated ‘nothing herein shall be construed as a delegation of the City’s legislative authority relative to the control of public streets as to the area defined in Exhibit A [i.e. the park and ride lot] in accordance with City of Tacoma ordinances and regulations as may from time to time be adopted by the City Council…’ and state law, etc.
At some time after 1985, Pierce Transit, in violation of the Maintenance Agreement, previous court order concerning the property, Tacoma City Ordinances, Washington State Law, and the US Constitution, began exercising exclusive license to control that portion of the public street where they share rights to park their vehicles. They began posting signs claiming ownership and control of the property. They began removing people from this street. Furthermore, in direct violation of Tacoma Ordinance 28831, Pierce Transit has removed homeless campers without two-week’s notice, without notifying the Homeless Coalition, and without giving interested organizations and groups the opportunity to render assistance or resources, all of which are required under Ord. 28831.
What’s worse, Pierce Transit has been discriminating in application of this force, whereas they allow all manners of people they deem suitable and fit to use the property for uses that are not in accordance with their purported policies, while forcibly removing those they deem unsuitable and unfit.
I have begged Pierce Transit and multiple City agencies to cease these behaviors, but all except the Real Estate office have been unresponsive. The Real Estate office appears to corroborate my interpretations.
Eminent Domain does not allow for any government to claim a property for one purpose and then use it for another. Pierce Transit has mis-appropriated our land for their own purposes without the necessary bidding and/or allocation processes required by our laws. If this can happen here, it can happen anywhere. It can happen to you.
I think there might be more to this than Mr Marks’ letter states. I’m guessing this is an activist’s complaint and the “forcible removal” involves homeless squatters in a public space/park. Just a feeling from the tone and the reference to “all manners of people they deem suitable and fit to use the property.” If correct, I have no problem with Pierce Transit’s actions.
I’ll stand corrected on a complete explanation and clarification.
I would kindly suggest you review Tacoma City Ordinance 28831. Homeless campers can be removed from city property with two-week notice. Nothing about my appeal seeks to change that.
Pierce Transit can remove anybody from their properties for violating the Uniform Transit Code or any other law. Nothing about my appeal changes that.
The property is city property, not Pierce Transit property.
I would suggest taking your complaint to a Tacoma City Council meeting.
I have tried. After four months of trying to resolve the matter informally with individual council members and the City Manager’s office but finding no appropriate response, I attended the Council meeting 12/17/2024. The meeting was adjourned before reaching the Community Forum portion, item 42. The minutes I captured at the moment the meeting was adjourned clearly show the council stopped at item 41, and I had a witness in attendance that will testify to the same thing.
I have made more than reasonable efforts to resolve this problem without publicizing the City’s incompetence. That did not work.
If your main complaint is that they’re removing homeless encampments from this property, you’re unlikely to find much in the way of sympathetic ears. This parcel is surrounded by residential properties filled with families. No one wants to see homeless camps there, regardless of what the law might state, or your interpretation of it.
Homeless is not a crime; however, camping, or squatting as the case may be, in a City of Tacoma Park is. “Camping is prohibited on public property, which includes parks, piers, streets, trails, and more.”
Plus the ordinance your reference prohibits camping with a 10 block radius of a waterway and goes on to note … ”
If a 10-block radius cuts through a block or a public parcel, such as a park or a school, then the entire block or parcel shall also be included in the prohibited area.”
So that block where War Memorial Park would be off limits given the waterway nearby.