any waterfront that's not working waterfront, should be open to the public

burn! take that fred and keith. greedy bastards.

Out of curiosity (and having no background in real estate or property law of any kind) can someone chime in on whether adverse possession applies here...seems like the public has been using that beach for a lot longer than the 10 years required? Is it because it's the city vs the property owners?

Adverse possession would not apply because the adjoining property owners, before they discovered the error did not believe it was their property. After they discovered the error, they did not allow "open and notorious" use to continue unchallenged. They challenged that use by fencing it off and enforcing their newly found property and newly found property right.

Nice work. Now can you get around to opening Blue Ridge Park to the public?

Cue RW outrage in 3, 2, 1...

Hooray!

How much is 85 years' worth of property taxes on waterfront property, plus interest? Make the landowners pay that while the beach is fenced off, then eminent domain it back.

Hold on a second. You're telling me a PATENT ATTORNEY is an asshole? No way, I don't believe it.

Oh so NOW the City is claiming eminent domain...for a beach but Roosevelt/Ravenna is abused by slumlords for 20 years and the City couldn't use eminent domain there? Interesting and noted, Mayor Murray.

I think either way the rich, greedy NIMBYs come out ahead. Each homeowner will make $200,000 each, and we're paying for that.

I wrote a long and heartfelt response to this story on my facebook page. I'm totally interested in hearing feedback. Keep it constructive.

@14: I anyone knew where your facebook page was, you a linky thing

@14 Thank you for your long and heartfelt response to this post. Sorry you lost your private, magical place at the bottom of the rickety stairs. When the Mayor and Council get their way, children, dogs, grandparents, kayakers, teenagers, paddle boarders and many others will once again be able to enjoy this one tiny spot of beach access along 5 miles of the Burke Gilman Trail. I hope you will take comfort from the words of the neighboring "relaxed and reasonable homeowner" on the north side of the beach who took the property away from the public. On KIRO-TV he said: "If you want beach access go by your own waterfront property."

@10 - perfect! No reason why the city can't ask for that!

he got exactly what he wanted - money. god bless america.

Got a great idea. Let's not waste the opportunity. We can make a really righteous park by condemning both properties while we are at it.

Now that those two homeowners have a private beach all to themselves, the value of their properties should have gone sky high.

Their property taxes should be reassessed appropriately.

While I'm sure these two people are a couple of greedy turds, who found a loophole... Is it worth using $400k of public money, and forfeiting the recurring property tax revenue (which goes to education) of approximately $5200/annually (based on the $200k/per parcel value) to give yuppies a place to launch their kayaks? I'd prefer to see the money go to education.