It’s time to give the last couple Lakewood City Councils and city staff credit for having more courage than past City Councils. And I say that having served eight years on four different councils myself. (in case you’re wondering about the math – you get a new council every two years after election, even if it’s the same people re-elected)
As part of a series of steps the city has been taking to address lake access, there was recently an open house held at one of the dozen street ends. Read a summary of what’s going on here.
It took 29 years of cityhood to get this far.
Why it took so long
In general, I remember the early City Councils fondly, especially the first. The city was new. There was a lot of citizen energy and participation. The city’s transition groups included 300 volunteers who worked hard to study, report and recommend. There were things to do everywhere. I remember the first City Council in particular working late into the night just to get the city started.
Over the years, our City Councils have tackled major challenges. The worst, of course, was an involuntary one, dealing with the aftermath of a lunatic murdering four of our officers. I’d rather that not have happened during the watch of my councils, but history has its own path.
And I’m not running down my or any other council. Larger government agencies have intimidated and even bullied the city. Lakewood has fought hard, many times. It took on everyone from the slumlords to seedy business owners to worse. Lakewood even took on the railroads, and the way the United States works, the railroad will always win. But we stayed in the game. I’m proud of what this city has accomplished.
Ah, but friends, now we get to the street ends and lake access.
Everyone knew, when cityhood began, that certain streets dead-ended into lakes. The land around Lakewood’s lakes was originally subdivided with the idea of creating vacation homes. They were for people to get away from the ‘big city’ of Tacoma and Seattle. The street ends dead-ended into the lakes so that the homeowners who lived on either side of the streets could have lake access. In that way, the developers increased the amount of lake exposure for people who didn’t actually have a waterfront property and maximized the number of lots.
However, as you know, Lakewood is no longer a place people just visit during the summer. We have A LOT more people.
Lake access was discussed on and off for years. I remember the very first council bringing up street ends, and everyone taking a deep breath. I remember the silence because it was so uncharacteristic. Back then, you might meet various individuals who said they’d want lake access. But you knew that the lakefront property owners would, and this is a very very general statement, not want more people on the lakes. And many of the most involved people in the city were people who lived on lakes.
Part of the issue is that the people who did want lake access didn’t necessarily know about each other. When social media was still new, I recall someone on Twitter wishing for a place to launch a kayak on Gravelly Lake.. Here it comes, I thought, but there was no momentum.
So any council member could reliably know that if they proposed expanding lake access, you’d have public hearings with influential and angry lakefront property owners filling the room vs the one guy who wanted a place to launch his kayak. I can remember lake access coming up just a few times during public comment sessions and in newspapers. One did not get the sense it was important enough to create an issue in a city that already had and has plenty of issues.
Now, I’m sure you will find individual past council members who will say they were perfectly courageous and visionary, and there was one technical reason or another that we couldn’t expand lake access.
And again, it’s not like the city was doing nothing. Money got spent on improving public safety and existing parks. Those are good things, not bad things. But there was a choice being made that did not include the street ends.
We now get to more recent City Councils, who have had the courage to tackle the issue. Something else happened shortly after they started on that path to validate their timing.
The issue got more public attention in 2023 because the council decided to improve lakefront access on Lake Steilacoom’s Edgewater Park. And then, there was a community movement to reclaim land at the foot of 100th street. You can easily get a ‘virtual flash mob’ to support darn near anything on Facebook. What was unusual is that citizens took action and physically cleared the land at that street end.
The big difference now is that citizens who care about lake access have found each other, so it’s not just a random council member or single person advocating for access. It’s not just one guy and his kayak.
I can’t stress enough what a huge deal the 100th Street event was for Lakewood. It was a Lakewood version of the Boston Tea Party. It’s one of the most historic things that has happened in Lakewood in many years (I hope you were taking pictures!).
The best part: It was a very Lakewood thing to do.
Another trip into history
Before Lakewood was a city, when we were the ‘Lakes District’ or known by individual communities like Lake City and Lakeview, the way you got anything done was to do it yourself. We’ll talk about that next week when I write about the 100th anniversary of a Lakewood Boy Scout Troop.
Why did you have to do things for yourself? For years, people were subject to Pierce County government, if you want to call it that. (Join me by the site of the razed downtown library and we can come up with other words).
Citizens who wanted to get things done had to do it themselves. The history of Lakewood is the history of people doing things on their own, and slowly evolving a community. What we know as Lakewood got its start in the groups who eventually formed the Clover Park School District or the Lakewood Fire Department. Lakewood evolved. Nobody founded it.
Fort Steilacoom Park became a small ‘p’ park because citizens reclaimed the abandoned hospital farm, not because of some grand government vision. People started using the land. The park followed.
Anyway, in the Fall of 2024 the 100th Street group erected the message in big neon letters so that even a slow guy like me can figure it out: CITIZENS WANT MORE LAKE ACCESS.
We have already seen that this is controversial. There were all sorts of issues for the improvement of Edgewater Park. But again, it’s the latest City Councils that have tackled that issue. They did it willingly, knowing they’d get guff. They started even before the 100th Street action, though that was what got everyone’s attention.
Nobody was forcing the council to improve Edgewater or finally take steps to address the street ends. It’s admirable that after citizens made themselves clear about 100th Street, the city already had this plan in waiting.
I don’t feel qualified to speak to details of the latest actions. If you are knowledgeable in what’s currently going on with street ends, you are more knowledgeable than me. I hope you advocate for what you know and believe and don’t sit on your hands like so many others before. I just wanted to put this in the context of history and share my mea culpa.
Go ahead and give the city feedback on whatever is relevant. The city leaders expect that, based on the complexity of the issues and fallibility of government.
I give the current council a lot of credit for taking on an issue that other councils avoided. They’re making these decisions with the long game in mind — knowing they will get grief now to do the right thing for tomorrow.
Excellent piece Walter.
With more access I do think the City needs to make sure the Lakes are clean and safe for it’s citizens. I wouldn’t consider the water in some of the Lakes to be as healthy as it could be for swimmers / fisherman
I also think there is not enough consideration of Waughop Lake and how great that could be for citizens. It would of course need more city attention and dollars, but I think there is great opportunity there. Plenty of parking and places for families to spread out, playground close by, restrooms, etc.
This was a good read, so obviously a lot of work would need to be done to make it “safe”
https://thesubtimes.com/2025/03/13/letter-how-the-city-of-lakewood-killed-waughop-lake-and-what-to-do-about-it-now/
You think that there is opportunity but have no knowledge of how much those things cost or what grant opportunities are available. That’s an ideological fantasy.
Thank you for adding your perspective to this issue. I’m hopeful for the 100th St access as I too just want a place to launch a kayak. I’ve given up on any chance to ever do that on Gravelly Lake. This has the same feeling as property owners vs rail trail proponents on Lake Sammamish a few years back. In the end, it comes down to who runs the local government: people or money.
Increased public access always leads to increased public safety risks, both intentional and unintentional.
These city planners need to factor the cost of responding to and monitoring high-density public access spaces.
Our full time lake residents and property owners deserve respect and the safe living environment they pay high taxes for.
High density mixed crowds on a hot summer day, can be like a powder keg waiting for a spark.
Many times we’ve seen a day at the park end in traumatic loss.
Even our wonderful lakes have a safe carrying capacity.
Well said, Brian. Looking big picture, I think directly addressing lake access and these street ends may be one of the most complex things the city has taken on in its whole history. The city has taken on complex issues before, but generally it’s had public support – such as cleaning up all the fields of hoarder homes and strip clubs and such. That was extremely complicated because of proper property rights, etc. But this council has shown a willingness to address complicated things. Rezoning and then proposing a tax incentive to disincentivize small business along Gravelly Lake Drive is another example that I’m less fond of. It takes a kind of courage to tell current small businesses that they should make way for apartments. I personally think that particular example of courage is not well-placed, but you have to give people points for taking a controversial stand.
I completely agree with the need to find solutions to the upkeep and monitoring of all street ends. Pride in our natural resources comes with owning some responsibility. Let’s stop treating our citizens as trespassers and do some much overdue public education. My hope is that establishing active neighborhood associations will encourage continuous education and responsible volunteer care of all street ends.
Who purchased lakefront property without knowing they would be living on a public lake? Their complaints of the “public” wanting to use “their” lakes just shouts entitlement. The claim often made that only lakefront owners are good stewards of our lakes is not accurate; just look at the long history of lawn fertilizer and yardwaste that was dumped into our lakes! When we know better, we do better…it’s all about education and it must be continous.
The benefits of living on the water come with a cost. Those extra taxes they pay do not entitle them to keep the public off of the lake…period. Due to flawed surveys and lack of oversite, we have some lakefront owners who have enjoyed the use of public accesses for decades without paying taxes for its use. If you build a structure, add landscaping and/or use a public access for yard waste and private use, you are freeloading. Residents parking their vehicles to hide entry points on public land is worthy of fines. Collecting taxes on encroachments could help pay for upkeep and monitoring. New accurate surveys are needed as citizens have discovered some rather glaring inconsistencies. The 100th St. encroahment issue was so blatant it ignited a movement. Now, it’s time to move forward in a positive, collaborative and responsible way. Public lakes are for everyone and it should not take years to open up our street ends for passive boating and recreation.
I just looked at my 2025 real estate tax bill for my waterfront home on Lake Steilacoom. I noticed a little matter of “Other special assessments: $1,449.60”. That’s what I pay, as does every other lake resident, for the upkeep of Lake Steilacoom. What does it say on your real estate tax statement?
We lakeside residents pay for the privilege of living on Lake Steilacoom which benefits the entire city and all potential users. Don’t get all “high and mighty” when you aren’t paying for the lake’s upkeep and have a little consideration for those who do.
There are several issues which the City of Lakewood has yet to address. First off the condition of many of these street ends which are not only unimproved but overgrown with blackberry bushes or maintained by neighboring properties at their time and expense. Want to make these street ends more available to the public then how about maintaining them? You do it with parks so are these not “mini-waterfront-parks”?
Second is parking or lack thereof. These street ends are often adjacent to private property adjoining them. A couple of visitor cars parking at the street end can block driveways and even other visitor cars. Car parking or backing up have hit neighbor houses. Most of these street ends are narrow to begin with and even one car parked can block the road.
Third, there is no policing of these street ends. There have been cases of drug dealing, abandoned cars, garbage and trash and rowdiness that have disturbed the neighbors at all times of day and night. City Parks are police monitored and close as sunset so these street ends must be governed by the same standards of conduct and hours of operation.
It’s easy to throw stones at lakefront homeowners over the issue of street ends but that smells a lot like “virtue signalling”. Want to increase lake access? Then do it the right way through thorough planning, funding, management and policing just like you do with all the other parks.