Home Owners Fighting to Keep Park Land as Private Backyards

Comments

Can we get some pics and....

fuck 'em. We don't need their rent money. Another example of rich assholes who don't think the rules apply to them.

Rotten666 on May 5, 2010 at 2:41 PM

fuck renting. give them a time frame to vacate the public land, if they go over it, fine them, and remove their personal property.

derrickito on May 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM

@Rotten. Really? A property owner: a) buys the property 15 years ago; b) is told that the fence line is the property line; c) submits plans to the city planner for an addition; and d) were told that the city has recognized the chain link fence for 50 years; but no one ever argues the point.

"In some cases, we wait until the property is sold before we insist on moving the property line back," says parks spokeswoman Dewey Potter. "But we're talking about thousands of square feet, here. That's pretty significant."

Apparently not significant enough to find the mistake 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 45 or 50 (!) years ago. I think Dewey's first suggesting is the fairest.

dasBoot on May 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM

So, I can go have a picnic in thier back yard and it wouldn't be trespassing?

DJSauvage on May 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I would feel bad if they were poor and lived in the CD but once in awhile rich people gotta lick the shitty end of the stick.

Andy_Squirrel on May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM

When they purchased their home (also in 1995), they were told that a chain link fence—a fence that still stands today—marked the boundary between their property and the park.
...
The lawyer for both families, Glenn Amster, argued on the phone today that the city has recognized the chain link fence as a boundary for fifty years, so it's partly at fault.

Isn't there a squatter's rights issue here? If the city, landowner of the park, told residents that they could use land up to the fence, and therefore have been doing so for 50 years, the park landowner has basically given up its standing. If you aren't diligent enough about your property (or don't care) to prevent use of the land by others within 20 years or so, squatter's rights says you can't just screw those people over by up and suddenly taking it away; you've effectively surrendered it by tacitly allowing the use for a prolonged period of time.

K on May 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM

My god you guys are real bastards. We're talking about land on the other side of a fence around the park. No park goers have been using the land in FIFTY YEARS. No one's missing it.

I'm sure we don't want to hear about the shock it is to the people who own the house who now find out the 10,000 square foot loot they paid for is now a 9,000 square foot lot for the same price.

K on May 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM

@Andy - I love it when people just assume that wealthy people didn't "suck the the shitty end of the stick" to get to where they are. Maybe they did but they didn't bitch about it.

@K - I am not a lawyer, but that is the first thing that came to my mind. I suspect there are eminent domain laws and public protection regulations that don't apply here though.

dasBoot on May 5, 2010 at 3:02 PM

When I bought my home, I received a plot survey, official and stamped and everything. Despite what they were "told" regarding the fence being the property line, what did the official survey say? When they remodeled, the family should have referred again to the official survey, despite the city not requiring a new one. They would have seen how close they were building to their own property line (again, assuming the survey was correct). If I was "told" that my property line ran through my neighbor's living room, I wouldn't be able to plop on their couch and put my feet up on their coffee table.

Banna on May 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Also, if they want to keep the land, we need to make sure they've been paying taxes on the "thousands of square feet" that they currently enjoy. Give them a choice: keep the fence as the boundary, and hit them for back taxes (I'm assuming their lot is calculated as the smaller of the two sizes).

Banna on May 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM

@6, The legal term is adverse possession and it is not available against government entities, only private landowners.

on May 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM

If they took someone's word about where their property lines were and didn't have their property line surveyed, they're either incredibly stupid or feigning ignorance. Either way, fuck 'em.

UNPAID COMMENTER on May 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM

@6, 11: "implied easement" rather than "squatters' rights" or "adverse possession"? Fifty-Two-Eighty, care to weigh in? Not a big fan of rich obnoxious fucksticks, but the city has clearly neglected to defend its interests.

rob! on May 5, 2010 at 3:19 PM

@9 Exactly what I was thinking. I've never bought a house, but I've been through my parents buying multiples, and they always plotted out the EXACT property line before any work was done on the plot.

kersy on May 5, 2010 at 3:19 PM

@Banna: Their lot is assessed at 10,000 sq ft. They were easy to find on the King County GIS. http://www5.kingcounty.gov/kcgisreports/…

K on May 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM

@12, stupidity notwithstanding, seems to me they have grounds for a lawsuit against the realtors, title-insurance co., and/or previous owners for misrepresentation.

rob! on May 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM

#8: Um, yah, some rich people (like the Althouses - both doctors) might have earned their money through hard work and a rich family to help them along.

Others, like Charles Wilk, the other guy suing to keep his park land, was indicted less than a year ago for "conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, tax evasion and money laundering, among other charges." Google it.

This guy is charged with over $1.3 BILLION dollars of tax evasion for the Quellos investment banking company. But he still has enough free time to sue to steal our park land. Great.

on May 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM

@15: So it sounds like their property taxes are about 20% too low. Not being local any more, I don't know what the tax rate is, but back taxes for 15 years plus interest may be more than the "rent" that was suggested?

Banna on May 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM

@12, Yes, always pay for your own survey and inspection before buying a house.

tiktok on May 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM

@17 - so Charles Wilk is an asshole. I am not sure he had "time to steal our park land" so much as it was him responding to actions the City undertook because the Stranger had a bug up its ass. I have a feeling someone other than Charles Wilk is going to own that property after June and the city can straighten it out then.

dasBoot on May 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Can we tell Nickelsville to fuck off public land too?

on May 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Hmmm..... would that be the Dr. Lesley Althouse at Virginia Mason who was on their ethics board when I worked there a few years back?
And yes, every house that I have lived in has come with a survey requirement upon purchase or significant exterior remodeling/putting on an addition.

StuckInUtah on May 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM

There are numerous examples of municipal inaction coming down to a use-it-or-lose it situation. No doubt these folks have their heads up their asses, but if the city didn't act on it's claim for so long, well, it probably should be out of luck. Something called the principal of laches would seem to apply here. If the land in question isn't effectively part of the park despite being legally so then the homeowners should have a chance to buy the property they've been using. Given the prices of the homes in question it's fairly unlikely they woudn't have the money.

on May 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM

@23 Given the prices of the homes in qustion, it's fairly unlikely that they'll be willing to spend the money for what they believe they already own.

tiktok on May 5, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Just tack the surcharge - backdated - onto their property taxes as an Illegal Park Land Usage Rental fee.

Then zone it for offleash pit bulls.

The pit bull owners will take care of the rest.

Will in Seattle on May 5, 2010 at 4:46 PM

@3. Really. They should have had a survey, just like the survey I got when I purchased my property ( a 300k property in the Rainier Valley). Make all the excuses you want, but it takes a special kind of moron to buy a 1million+ property adjacent to a city park and not survey the fucking land. They should be happy they got away with using the land for as long as they did, and immediately vacate.

Rotten666 on May 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM

The Parks dept better sharpen it's teeth and get in there. Giving up / rolling over/ playing dead won't be forgiven.

The homeowners need to move their property back to the real line or face the back taxes. SP&R cannot afford to ever set a precedent that parks can be sold to private citizens, and CERTAINLY not due to greedy-ass encroachment / lazy survey tactics.

btw: Charles Wilk doesn't vote = clearly a scum bag.

"b) is told that the fence line is the property line; ... d) were told that the city has recognized the chain link fence for 50 years; but no one ever argues the point."
Fine argument except property ownership isn't based on verbal "hand me downs" - it's based on plots and measured lines that have been carefully mapped since the 1880's and before. Law = written documents. "They were told" = sue the realtor, then.
Althouses (Les, Dan, Ralph, Ben) and Wilk's (Kristen and Chuck) are saying "but weee werrrre tolllld...." when all the other families pulled back and admitted their thievery. Own up.

Rent?? No, no, no. Seattle Parks, If you rent them that 2800 sq ft for 90 cents sq/ft, then you better prepare to lawyer up and keep me from renting the watertower or SAAM for the same damn rate.

on May 5, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Thanks for the info, SLOG.

I think - and suspect others will agree- that I've figured out the perfect home for the city's new
Combination Go Cart track / citywide P-patch compost pile featuring Zoo Doo.

on May 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM

It's been a long time since I took Property Law but my memory is clear: Adverse Possession does not run again public authorities. Use that city street or public park for as long as they let you get away with it, but it will still be owned by the City (or other public authority in charge).

And I marvel with other commenters at the amazing ignorance of some people, proving once again that wealth and success do NOT buy common sense.

"We were told the fence is the property line..." Unbelievable.

Citizen R on May 5, 2010 at 5:03 PM

@13

"but the city has clearly neglected to defend its interests."

So if I go setup a new building in an out of the way corner of Carkeek or Discovery Park, or the Arboretum, and no one notices it till I've lived there for 10+ years, "too bad" for the city?

Joe Szilagyi on May 5, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I'd rather the park set a fair market price (probably in the millions), sell it, and use it to fund the rest of the park. Nobody has been using that land for 50 years, the owners sound like the acted in good faith in buying the land and in building on it, but it also sounds like they could afford to take on a bigger mortgage.

mason_bryant on May 5, 2010 at 6:24 PM

I have the reverse idea. I plan to take the 200 sq ft in m enclosed backyard and open it as a public park.

GlennFleishman on May 5, 2010 at 6:28 PM

It's called a survey. When I bought my house, I paid about $1000 for a detailed survey of my property which showed the footprint of my house in relation to my property line. If you're going to buy a $2,000,000 house and remodel it, you really should get a survey and you can definitely afford one. I have no sympathy for these folks.

And no, you can't squat or adversely possess public property.

RVPMB on May 5, 2010 at 6:39 PM

a survey can resolve questions of a few inches, you wouldn't even need a detailed survey to notice a mistake that big. in 1995 you could have done it with a tape measure, the lot description an basic math skills. Today you could do it online remotely with a property viewer without even going there.

DJSauvage on May 5, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Wouldn't happen to be the same Charles Wilk, would it?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406872_in…

on May 5, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Wow mapsmith, Joe, I'm convinced!

Btw next time nickelsville tries to steal public land I'll call on your support.

on May 5, 2010 at 8:20 PM

It's funny that Conservatives are all up in arms to protest against those freeloading on the public dime - that is, unless those who are freeloading happen to be rich.

So yeah, end the park neighbor bailout!

on May 5, 2010 at 11:00 PM

@6, 8, 13: What @29 and 33 said. Squatters' rights (formally known as "adverse possession") does not run against the government. Otherwise, a couple of bums in city hall could give away half the park system to their cronies to the detriment of the innocent public.

kk in seattle on May 6, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Home Owners Fighting to Keep Park Land as Private Backyards

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Is Bellevue Dying?

Seattle Is the Anti-Fashion Capital of the World

The Animal in You

Council Rejects Progressive Tax Increase to Fill $140 Million Budget Hole

Anatomy of a Paul Hlava Ceballos Poem

CHOP Plunged Seattle into a Long Identity Crisis

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!