News May 13, 2010 at 4:00 am

Two Families Are Trying to Keep Portions of Volunteer Park for Their Own Private Use

Public property.


How long 'til they can claim squatter's rights?

Given the similar problems near Seward Park, I really hope the city starts to put effort into researching this sort of thing in the future. It doesn't create a lot of goodwill with residents when the city keeps having to say "well, we know we told you otherwise in the past, but..."
Anybody who believes a realtor when they are told where the property line lies is a real fool. They are a double fool when they don't have their property surveyed before they make any changes to their house, etc. Volunteer Park is public excuses for being double stupid. And adverse possession does not work on public property.
You are referring to the doctrine of adverse possession, which does not apply against municipalities. “It is well established that title to land held by a municipality in its government capacity may not be impaired by means of adverse possession,” Finley v. Jordan, 8 Wash.App. 607, 609, 508 P.2d 636, review denied 82 Wash.2d 1006 (1973)
Such cry-babies! Tear down that Fence!
Security threat? If it's that damn dangerous why the hell would they get a house there in the first place? And seriously, a chain link fence ain't that much protection in the first place.
Ultimately it is the property owners responsibility to make sure the building is within the legal property boundaries with the correct offsets taken into account. Claiming ignorance is no excuse.
I wonder how many drunk, needle shooting, knife throwing gay-sex having park goers there actually are. One dude doing all of that at the same time would be pretty impressive, though.
Make a zoning variance that lets these people put a fence up 2.4 inches from that family room wall and be done with this.
They keep their building, just move the fence, and the city keeps their park.
Public officials have the responsibility to act as stewards of public land preventing the private appropriation of public parks. I wish that the Seattle Parks Department were responsible for Waterway 1 in Laurelhurst. At that historic waterfront park, the adjoining private waterfront property owner has appropriated one-fourth of the park and more than one-third of the waterfront. Yet, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources doesn't appear to have any interest in eliminating the encroachment.
Kin, I googled Waterway 1 on Lake Washington ... big-time encroaching going on there. Have you contacted the Department of Natural Resources to find out why it hasn't demanded the encroachments be removed? Could the prime waterfront land be transferred to the Parks Department so it can be opened to the public?
Maybe public officials feel that it isn't prudent for them to challenge theft of public land by well-connected and powerful individuals. Three cheers for The Stranger in raising an issue that might otherwise be settled by opaque, under-the-table dealings. A free press creates the transparency that encourages public officials to act responsibly.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.