The latest in the ongoing evolution of the Sunset Avenue walkway project is the designation of some angle parking spaces for use by compact cars only. The new signage also requests that motorists “pull forward” until their tires touch the curb.
It’s all part of the ongoing effort to best mesh the needs of the public with those of the property owners.
“The driveway across from these newly designated spaces is really tight,” said Edmonds Public Works Director Phil Williams. “Often large cars would park in the angle spaces across from the driveway, and in many cases not even pull completely into the space. This not only partially blocked the roadway, but made it very difficult for the property owner to maneuver in and out of the driveway.”
This same rationale is behind the location of the parallel parking spaces on the north end of Sunset. According to Williams, there are fewer parking spaces on this section of Sunset simply because there are more driveways.
“We purposely located these parking spaces to not conflict with driveways, many of which are narrow, tight, and don’t offer much room to maneuver,” said Williams. “And with the preponderance of driveways on this part of the street, it was a challenge to even get these in. By locating them this way, we avoid congestion, make collisions less likely, and provide a safer situation for both the public and the property owners.”
Williams asks that all motorists on Sunset practice good parking etiquette. When using the angle spaces, honor the compact car designation. And whether you’re in a regular or a compact space, pull all the way forward to leave more roadway for your fellow motorist. It will help make Sunset Avenue safer and more enjoyable for all.
Thanks for your story Larry. We appreciate the help!
I believe the new, temporary angled parking in the middle of Sunset (with new concrete bumpers) was not approved by the City Council. I believe what was approved was angled parking that mainly butted up against the old existing curb.
Agenda item 11 on the August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda was titled “Proof-of-Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project”. The City Council ended up voting 4-3 to authorize the Mayor to implement a recommended demonstration project on Sunset Avenue known as the Temporary Trail and New Striping Plan. The Temporary Trail and New Striping Plan was prepared by Landscape Architects Macleod Reckord and dated August 4, 2014.
The City’s recommendation to the City Council for Agenda item 11 was as follows:
“Authorize the Mayor to implement the recommended demonstration project on Sunset Avenue in substantially the same form as recommended or with any adjustments added by Council.”
During the August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting, Public Works Director Phil Williams represented that “This temporary pathway is built down to here on the west side of the curb…”
As he discussed such, he pointed to the drawing on the overhead projector to the area west of the new angled parking. Hence, the temporary pathway to the west of the angled parking was supposed to be built “on the west side of the old existing curb…”.
As we all know, the temporary pathway to the west of the angled parking was placed to the east side of the curb, on the existing pavement.
Because the City failed to build the temporary walkway on the west side of the curb in front of the angled parking, the angled parking was shifted to the east. There was no legislative approval of the current situation, a situation some believe is dangerous and that has caused problems –including the problems the City attempted to address with today’s modifications.
From the August 19, 2014 City Council meeting Minutes:
“At the point where the railroad property jogs east is where the overlay between BNSF property ownership and the City’s existing street is most acute. At this point the
path would transition to the existing pavement on Sunset Avenue.”
Please note where the TRANSITION point was supposed to be.
It is interesting that once the City does a study on some proposed project, like 5-corners, Sunset, etc., it is a foregone conclusion that it will be done.
Contrary public input is allowed at meetings, but it still is a foregone conclusion…it will be DONE! It says something about our city decision making process.
No matter how you measure it the road behind angled parking stalls is too narrow and dangerous to pass. It is also unfair to the homeowners on the south side to have cars parked in front of their homes with none parked down on the north side.
I believe you are right, Mr. Reidy. Could we please get SOMEONE in charge that actually knows what they are doing?! One block, and the $$$$$$$$$$ it is costing taxpayers is simply stunning to say the least of the danger zone it has become.
Again, I am reminded this is a project that was asked for by one Edmonds resident. Hard to believe this could become so complicated and so off on getting a very simple street plan right.
Here we go again and again and again. Most ideas begin with one person and then grow, this is no different. Now that a lot of people have weighed in on the idea of improving Sunset the council authorized the “testing” so we can all get a better idea of which options work and which need tweaking. Most people I have talked to like the “direction” of the ideas but were concerned about the parking issues on the south end.
If the majority of the concerns folks are raising are saying, “general idea good, figure out alternatives to the parking on the south” then the city is just responding to the citizen views with some changes to “test” a different approach to parking. Sounds like a good test to me.
I applaud the city council for doing this “real live testing” Gives ALL of the citizens an opportunity to “see” the potential changes and to voice their opinions. Council can always step in and change things if they wish, but I think they are moving in the right direction to do the “testing” to give us all a opportunity to have this well thought out “simulation”.
I would like to thank the “one” person who started this all. And I would like to thank the council for their actions, and I would like to thank the city for responding. This is a really great example of the community working together to make Edmonds a great place.
I hope citizens will appreciate how big a deal this is. Significant public funds were paid to Macleod Reckord to develop a Temporary Trail and new Striping Plan. This plan was presented in detail to the Council on August 19, 2014 and they approved it via a 4-3 vote. There was no approval of new concrete parking bumpers in Sunset Avenue. The approved angled parking was to the west. Because the parking was not placed where it was supposed to be, we have had problems for months.
The Council can act if they want or let the process play out. The big deal to me is we are moving forward with some ideas and showing people the possibilities. The Council can step in now, step in later or let the process play out.
If this is a test, then what precisely is being measured? Not unlike the round-about study, this one is driven by grant money which the City has obtained and does not want to return. Once there is a funding source, it seems that projects go forward regardless on the notion that we don’t want to forfeit money we have already spent.
What criteria (besides keeping the grant money in place) is actually being used for the “test”? Usage, safety, traffic, curb appeal? Without specific issues being tested and evaluated, I am reminded of the old saying; “if you don’t know where you are going, all roads will get you there.”
This is NOT about “showing people the possibilities”. …………This is a simple street configuration and a no brainer in regards to safety and implementation and whether it is even a possibility as designed. And clearly (as pointed out by citizens many, many times and people even out there measuring with measuring tapes…..amazing that they had to do that to make a point, and it didn’t matter I might add) the width of this whole area does not accomodate this configuration or the configuration of the original drawings we saw at the first meeting regarding this projects. This was also not approved by our City Council that I could see.WHO would approve a mess such as this and particularily regarding the safety issue.
Letting the “process play out” in regards to safety is just plain ridiculous. This is not rocket science. And it is simply, totally not true that the majority of citizens are saying this is a good idea. We have seen over and over pedestrians having to accomodate dogs, kids, groups of people walking, kids bikes, etc (on west side) and some end up IN THE STREET walking toward oncoming traffic. So to say let it play out is quite incredible……Many on our government and many citizens that appears to not give a ratZ you know what regarding safety in our city. Historically, we all know what happens when one just goes along……with the elephant in the room……
Nice comments everyone. Anyone interested in running for council instead of bashing the staff. I am so happy now I can put my two cents in.
The Council is only as good as the information given to them or not given to them by the staff. In any business if a person does not perform his/her job, they are let go and someone who can do the job correctly is chosen. The money spent here and what we have is ludicrous and the fact that it is still being spun as wonderful is simply not true. It is UNSAFE!…..and our staff created this and obviously believes it is okay. ……This isn’t about “bashing” staff, it is about a dangerous street that was created by the staff……a street that was not dangerous before
I assume the publisher will blacklist this comment as it does reflect on our Mayor who is in charge or not in charge of the city staff. Something wrong about that too.
This project as Tere explains clearly does not work. The street is just TOO narrow to do what has been “proposed” by Phil Williams. Phil Williams has said numerous times he will not look at other options such as a narrower sidewalk or to look at removing certain modes of transportation on the sidewalk because that does not fall under the “grant guidelines”. A project should not be pushed through and made to work because of grant money. A narrower west sidewalk and parallel parking along the whole street would make way more sense if there is a compromise. Word around town is the Council is saying “it is a done deal”.
There have been a few days of nice weather and this street has turned into chaos. Both sidewalks are full to capacity and the street is like a freeway. Between all the dog walkers, walkers, strollers, bikers, skateboards, people are now moving more than ever out into the street to avoid all of this. What will happen when it is a raised sidewalk? People are so frustrated they are honking at each other. You cannot drive down this street any longer without white knuckling it and you can no longer enjoy the view as you could while driving it before.
This morning there was a delivery truck parked on the east side of the street at the north end. Cars had to drive onto the west sidewalk clear to the curb to get around. People were walking in the sidewalk and had to avoid being hit. What is safe about this? This is a daily occurrence.
Why is no one talking about an environmental impact survey being done? There are so many issues that need to be looked at rather than just saying people want to walk along that side of the street.
A house was sold at the north end of Sunset and will start construction within the next 3-4 months. Where will any of the work vehicles park? During the summer it will be a nightmare.
Maybe the City doesn’t care about how the street functions or how safe it is, but I would have to think the grant issuers will be looking at this very carefully.
I ride my bike on this street 4-5 times a week. I don’t ride in the marked west pathway because it doesn’t seem like it would make pedestrians feel safe (I don’t see any signs saying bikes can’t ride in it but maybe I missed them).
With the new configuration, the previously marked “bikes only” lane is gone so cyclists have to ride in the street with cars. Unless you can ride your bike at 35-40 mph (the speed most cars are going) you will be tailgated by thousands of pounds of metal and drivers impatiently waiting to get on their important way (nearly every driver ignores the new “sharrows”).
It makes even less sense to ride on the concrete east sidewalk. In some places, there literally is no other course of action to get out of the way of drivers than hoist yourself and your bike up the curb onto the east grass median.
Even that wasn’t good enough to satisfy the finger-flipping teenage girl driving 45 mph who nearly killed my wife and me last week.
From the cyclists’ point of view, the previous configuration with the dedicated “bikes only” lane was much safer.
Change very rarely satisfies all parties. I personally like walking on the waterside of the street with my young family – it follows what most waterfront cities do by maximizing the view for walkers, not those who park their car.
I get the close quarters – but as Darrol stated, this is a work in progress. As to the safety of bikers – we definitely need to evaluate how to improve. Fast drivers, be on the watch for speed enforcement.
As to the one who stated, “And it is simply, totally not true that the majority of citizens are saying this is a good idea,” – please inform us all on how you have a pulse of what the majority of citizens are for and against. I’m not so sure 20,000 plus individuals have weighed in on this issue.
Change requires objectivity and not speculative rhetoric. Change is happening – that is certain.
I personally stood on Sunset for over two months all day long and spoke to hundreds of people who hate this new configuration. They feel it should not be “just” for walkers and frankly want it back the way it was. They don’t understand why there needs to be two sidewalks when so many streets in Edmonds have no sidewalks. The view is beautiful on the east sidewalk also.
Why can’t there be a compromise and let walkers and cars share the same side. We DO NOT NEED a 10 foot sidewalk on a 30 foot wide street when we already have a sidewalk. Why not a three foot wide sidewalk on the west side as a compromise and let cars parallel park all the way down the street. You want to exclude our large population of elderly, handicapped, families with children who like to sit in their car, enjoy the view from their car, etc. Not everyone can walk down the street. No one understands that with the increased traffic it is more dangerous than ever. Walkers should not have precedence over everything else.
The configuration of this street was changed years ago to calm it down and we are right back where it was years ago. It has become a three ring circus down here. Someone needs to spend more time than a once a day walk down here to see what is really happening. Does anyone care that none of the Sunset residents minded nor ever complained about having walkers, dogs, cars, whatever, but there is a limit to what this street can handle. On a busy day we cannot even get out of our driveways and that does not mean we are selfish and want the whole street to ourselves.
One outcome already is a bunch of ‘graffiti’ on the street. It’s a mess, a distraction and is worse now. Angled parking makes for a difficult and dangerous situation. One cannot get a clear view of who, and what, is behind them due to the angle itself. And in backing up, a driver is close to, if not in the bike lane that I, and others, won’t use. Improved view? What I now see in walking on the edge, is both train tracks and the same Sound and mountains seen for decades. I’m not sure what the added value is from seeing the entire track bed and all trains (a 0 ‘wow’ factor). And the first impression remains the same, a grocery store parking lot with cars every which way, and as the picture shows, too big for this bad idea.
What are the evaluation criteria? Who will review the project and determine the next step? Who makes the final decision? Giving a grant back is not a sign of failure, it’s just knowing when to say an idea doesn’t work after all. I just hope we have some real adults playing in this sandbox; ones who will say it’s, indeed, a bad idea. My greatest concern is the conflict of interest if the person/people who sought the money, also decide the outcome. Not good Edmonds!
Jim, you raise good points – what is the criteria? What determines this project is a success? Graffiti is a bit strong – but a good sound bite. Kudos to you on that one. Thalia, thank you for standing on the sidewalk to gather data points – still not enough for what meets the criteria of an objective sample set.
I think for the record I’ll state that just because I am for something (like walking) doesn’t necessarily mean I’m against those who can’t walk or against the elderly. Clever attempt to frame a point – but not accurate; and the statement below is truly not entirely accurate.
“You want to exclude our large population of elderly, handicapped, families with children who like to sit in their car, enjoy the view from their car, etc. (not true.) Not everyone (true) can walk down the street. No one (not true) understands that with the increased traffic it is more dangerous than ever. Walkers should not have precedence over everything else (define everything else).”
Bottom line: there is a happy medium, but it will take sound minds, less rhetoric, and an objective approach to settle this.
Oh…and I’m rather certain that the majority of those who are debating this are over the age of hmmmm…50 – could it be that there is another age demographic that has yet to weigh in?
Must be a nice gift to single out the age of individuals for what they write. Perhaps, one would like to retract that.
I only make that point to frame perspective. There is sufficient data to support that age demographics correlate with perspective. I’m suggesting another demographic perspective could be beneficial. So…No. I don’t retract.
I say we fill out a petition to place a referendum before the council to rename Sunset Avenue as follows – ‘The 300 Yard Parking Apocalypse’ or ‘Cool Hand Luke Street’ – who’s in.
Needless to say, I was not selected for the vacant council seat. It may have been affected by not actually applying, but I was delayed by dogs and strollers forced into oncoming traffic on the aforementioned street.
The simple truth about the, “Temporary” walkway on Sunset is this: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t take great mathematical minds and 20/20 vision to see that an 8′-10′ path cannot accommodate bicycles, people, wheelchairs, skateboarders, roller skaters, single/double strollers and people with dogs traveling north and south in that same narrow space. We are told it must accommodate that in order to get the grant. I don’t know what has already been spent but believe it is more than we were told, just as it will be for the nearly $2 million price for the finished product and likely go beyond that as everything else does. IF . . . it is allowed to move forward. Please Mr. Mayor and City Council, stop this ludicrous experiment now.
What used to be a wonderful two-block long road that was a calm, peaceful, joyful place to walk, bike, jog,, drive, park, enjoy the view, set up chairs on the grass, commune with others, train watch, picnic and take pictures from the grassy area . . . is no longer. Parking was along the entire street with space between cars without a sense of it being a shopping mall parking lot. People who live there could have company and parties where their guests would not be forced to park a block or more away. These same people could get in and out of their driveways without holding up traffic as they were being honked at and subjected to rude gestures.
I don’t live on Sunset but walk it nearly every day at different times and sometimes twice. It has changed for the worse and at a high price in much more than dollars. WHY . . . and for whom? Phil Williams of the Mayor’s staff told us it would attract people from outside Edmonds to come here and spend money. I don’t know if the merchants are seeing this increase in revenue or not. But, don’t we – – the taxpaying citizens of the community – – deserve to enjoy our own city? And what about the people who live on Sunset? Most of it is a pure residential street turned into an unsafe walkable area and traffic jam. And by the way, in the many years I have been walking Sunset, the majority of these homeowners have been extremely gracious, generous, friendly, and accepting of those who walk on their grass and whose dogs do other things. Yet, they still smile communicate and befriend us.
Since this, “Supposed” trial walkway began seven months ago, it has been a divisive debacle pitting citizens, friends, family, neighbors, City Council, Mayor and staff against one another. One disabled person who used to park there to enjoy the view was sent to jail. Another had her leashed dog attacked and killed by an off-leash dog belonging to one of those, “Out-of-town people the city wanted to attract to spend money. The dog’s owner was also bitten and taken to the hospital when she tried to intervene.
Many of the people who use the walkway actually signed the petitions to eliminate it. They used to enjoy walking/jogging on the dirt/grass west of the curb but the City laid 4-5” of wood chips in that area, cut down the blackberry bushes that prevented one from falling over the embankment and planted roses and other shrubbery to force walkers into the walkway. I understand that cost between $8000 – $10,000 and many of those plants are now dying or dead.
Here’s a thought for compromise: Widen the sidewalk on the east side to include the grassy area. Put the bicycle path one way only on the east side where it was. It could also be used for people to pass the slower walkers, strollers & wheelchairs on the widened sidewalk. Reduce the speed limit starting at Edmonds St. to 10-15 mph. Put the parking back to its original design utilizing the entire street. That is fair and reasonable thing to do. No homeowner would have to look out their window at a parking lot and agonize over the simple act of getting in/out of their driveway while the homeowners at the north end have an unobstructed view but no place for anyone to park who come to visit or service their homes. And, the elderly and disabled who have been disenfranchised by the current configuration can once again enjoy the train, view and picnic area. I have heard other good suggestions such as narrowing the walkway to 3′. That eliminates the need for a grant plus additional taxpayer money. It would also require the Mayor and City Council to, “Man Up” to the fact they made a mistake (we all make them) and send back the grant dollars that have been used. But PLEASE . . . let us not throw more good money after bad. As one individual said, “It looks like this whole thing was conceived, planned, and implemented by the Keystone Cops!” We deserve better. Let’s end it now.
Yesterday, Mayor Murray, the Mayor of Seattle gave a speech regarding what has been unfolding and PLANNED and implemented for quite some time regarding Seattle’s streets and trying to accommodate everything…..
..Perhaps we can learn from this……..After much time and use, the Mayor has stated that this does not work on all streets…….All streets are not everything for everybody (bikes, strollers, cars, walkers, skateboards,etc)…..There have been some injured (and even killed) on Seattle streets because of some of their everything for everybody plan on all streets.
We would be wise to learn from this. We should return the money and put Sunset back to the way it was and move on with more important business in Edmonds……such a waste of time and money……….let’s just move on……..stuff happens
I encourage all to write our City Council regarding returning the money (It’s the right thing to do because some other municipality can use the money for its true purpose)………and putting Sunset back to it’s original configuration and moving on with the important business of our city.
I agree with the last paragraph from Janet Henry. The testing period is over and it doesn’t work. There is no way to measure the economic benefit from this experiment. It would be a bad guess at best. Will DPW staff walk up to a representative sample of people to ask them 1) are you a visitor today? 2) are you here because of the experiment being conducted on Sunset Avenue? 3) have you spent money in Edmonds today, because the experiment on Sunset Avenue caused you to do so? Ad nauseam…. Yes, erase the paint on the street, remove the parking stuff, repair and widen the sidewalk and end the tension that has, unfortunately, been thrust upon the good folks on Sunset Ave by DPW.
Mayor Seattle Every Street Cant Handle Every Use
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/every-street-cant-handle-every-use–mayor-says/
What do you all say to asking the city council to hold a public hearing on this issue? I don’t know if we can put the genie back in the bottle but it is obvious that something must be done.
What can be done today is to stop the project, give back the grant and apologize to the folks on Sunset Ave for creating such pain and discord. Hard to tell if these folks will be neighbors again, but a disservice has been done them and we don’t need a hearing to know this and have DPW apologize. All for a ‘better view’ of the railroad tracks.
And once it is put back to right, as a way of apologizing to the neighborhood, how about doing some sensible plantings where the sawdust plants are? Make it a community event. Make it part of Edmonds in Bloom or something, but do something to add value to that overlook which will remain long after the “experiment” is gone.
I walk the road often. I see a whole lot more folks on Sunset than I used to. I have always said that Edmonds was a special place because they had made the shore available to the public; compare Edmonds with the towns north and south. The changes to Sunset are part of that tradition. While I am sympathetic with the Sunset residents, the comments fail to convince. Mostly, they seem to reflect a dog-in the-manger attitude.
Yes, I agree – a sincere apology is a very important step.
The point is once again how many people, people with dogs, skateboarders, wheelchairs, bicycles, segways, joggers,etc. can this street accommodate. It was at capacity on a nice day before this trial sidewalk went in. It is overflowing now. People are having a horrible time getting out of the way of each other, their dogs and the cars. What is enjoyable about that for anyone when it is overflowing. When there is an actual raised sidewalk, it will be even worse. This street is toooooooooooooooo narrow for all of this.
Every time I have visited Sunset Ave it’s just been terrific. I feel that city council did the right thing when they voted to move forward with improvements.
Matthew, my experience is the same as yours. My wife and I have been walking Sunset a few times each week for the past 12 years. The changes being evaluated make the walk more enjoyable.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Waldron, Mr. Schindler, Mr. Monke and Mr. Wambolt. The exaggerations of the opponents “fail to convince”, as previously stated by Mr. Chapin.
I think the new design is definitely an improvement over the old design. The east side sidewalk is too narrow for two people to walk side-by-side and have a conversation. Before I used to walk with my dog in the bike lane while my wife walked with our other dog on the east side sidewalk. It was dangerous before the redesign if you ask me. I wasn’t the only one who chose to walk in the bike lane before the redesign.
I also believe the new design needs some changes. I would take out all the diagonal parking and just have parallel parking. I do feel bad for the residents there who have to pull in and out of their driveways with the diagonal parking. Its just not enough room for them. It seems to me there could be more parallel parking further north on Sunset. That’s just my 2 cents worth.
Seems to me that is a lot of exaggeration going on in the comments on this issue. Any time I read someone say that “everyone knows” or “the vast majority feels” either without any kind of documentation, I have a tough time putting too much credence to.
So, I decided to do my own survey on what people think about the changes the sunset Avenue. I drove down there this afternoon and spoke to a dozen people using the walkway. While not a statistically significant sample, I at least got a feel of what people felt.
Exactly 1/2, or six of the people, preferred the new layout and the other half preferred the old layout. No one said they thought it was perfect nor did anyone say that they “hated” the new configuration.
The people who liked it felt that it got them closer to the shoreline and made for a better walking experience. One person said that he preferred the old version because he was able to walk on grass as opposed to blacktop. Several people, walking dogs, but the new layout was probably better for the neighbors because they didn’t have to worry about dogs in their own yards.
While cold, it was a bright sunny afternoon in a number of people were using the pathway alone, in couples, walking their dogs were taken their children in strollers. I did not see any bicyclists so I can’t really comment on their reactions.
The people who preferred the old layout were concerned about the parking, the difficulty for people in the homes to get out of their driveways, the absence of a bicycle only halfway and the traffic congestion. The people who were concerned about the resident’s parking were not residents of the street.
Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on whether the changes are improvements or not. But it certainly isn’t as totally one-sided as several commenters make it out to be and I, like several others, appreciate those in government trying to make things better.
I think back to our initial “Coffee with Harry” held with councilmember Mesaros when he first joined the Council. He stated that he wasn’t convinced that the improvement plan was the answer but he was certain that we have to be able to do something that would be “better” than what was there in the past.
I believe that to be true and it saddens me to see Edmonds residents get so polarized over these kinds of issues. I don’t believe that anyone is trying to make Edmonds a worse place for personal gain. People just have different perspectives on what is an improvement. We should acknowledge that there never perspectives from our own and we should be open to this discussion.
This isn’t about “different perspectives”. Those of us that live here and see 24/7 the SAFETY issues know exactly what is going on up close and personal.
Those that don’t live here do not see the many, many issues and commenting like
Ms.Ryder, YOU do not live on Sunset. And you are not there 24/7, because I have never seen you there.
Mr. Wambolt, I Do live here!!!…………..ask anyone on Sunset…should I list our neighbors?……Most around town know exactly where we live……We were on two Edmonds Art Studio Tours (theres a map of that with our address and names!!)………we are on Sunset EVERY day walking also..approximately around 7:00 – 8 am*****..My studio here looks out onto Sunset….. we are approximately 45 feet from Sunset ……….ask anybody here on Sunset…..I actually SEE everybody walking Sunset while Im working every day…..You can see my studio from Sunset also…….I’m sure you are well aware of that…….You seem to think you know alot about me…..the irony of your comment is that while Ive seen your wife and you all over town including Council meetings every week, I have yet to see you on Sunset walking…..but perhaps I have missed you
and Mr. Waldron, it isnt about where we live, it is about the FACT that we are simpy here 24/7, on the ground, living AT this area unlike some that are only here to walk or ride bicycles occassionally……and we do see so much regularily of the safety issues……….so………..you simply are not here like those that actually live here……..I have not seen you here either, but Ive probably missed you too…….talking to the choir
I reject the idea that my perspective doesn’t matter because my address and proximity are not the same as yours. My address is Edmonds, and Sunset is every bit my street as it is yours.
Harry, I think 50/50 is about right. I’m one of the people who preferred it the old way, partly because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, and it was quite popular before, and also because I thought the angled parking with lots and lots of spots was ideal for the kind of use it had. Sunset is part of the reason I ended up in Edmonds in the first place; my ex-wife and I would drive here from Kenmore to watch the sun set once in a while, and when we decided to move from an apartment into a house, I asked her, “how about Edmonds?”
I’ve questioned before whether it’s really a good idea or necessary to spend tons of money “fixing” something that only a small percentage of people ever thought was broken in the first place, but I don’t get quite as excited about it as some people do.
One element of an apology could relate to the angled parking that was supposed to be located further to the west. Why have we had to live with this for months? Council did not vote to approve the angled parking’s current location, nor the new parking bumpers installed in the street. I think there is a good chance they would not have approved the temporary plan had they been told the truth about where the angled parking would be placed.
For those who want to watch Public Works Director Phil Williams represent to the Edmonds City Council that the temporary pathway to the west of the angled parking was supposed to be built “on the west side of the old existing curb…” follow these instructions:
1. Go to the City’s website – edmondswa.gov.
2. Click on “Meeting Agendas” in the top right hand corner.
3. Change the Month and Year to August, 2014.
4. Click on the blue Video link for the August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting.
5. On the right hand section of the web page, scroll down to Agenda Item #11 and click on the green video symbol.
6. If pressed for time, move the video forward to the 07:30 mark and you will see Mr. Williams discuss the project beginning at Edmonds Street as he moved from south to north. Watch until about the 15:00 minute mark, which is roughly where he finishes discussing the area in the vicinity of the angled parking.
The Temporary Striping Plan is also attached to Agenda Item #11. It shows 6 pages of MacLeod Reckord’s plan. One can look at page 2 of that plan and clearly see the temporary trail was supposed to be on the west side of the existing curb and that the temporary trail surface treatment was still TBD – to be decided. One can clearly see that the plan did not include any concrete parking bumpers in Sunset Avenue and that the angled parking was supposed to butt up against the old existing curb. Page 2 also clearly displays the location of “New Curbs and Ramp to transition to existing street Grade”. Page 5 shows a close up version of where the trail transition to existing street grade was supposed to take place including the related ramp. This TRANSITION point was near the northernmost angled parking spot.
Another possible element of an apology could relate to city staff doing a lot of work on a project that had yet to be added to the TIP, especially during difficult financial times back in July of 2011. The July 19, 2011 City Council Meeting Minutes indicate that the related work had resulted in some type of project concept that included a 12.5-foot-wide sidewalk and an adjacent 5-foot-wide bicycle facility.
I would still like to know why City staff did a lot of work on the Sunset Avenue Walkway project before such was included in our Comprehensive Plans, the starting point for any planning process.
Who approved this staff work and why was so much attention devoted to a walkway project that was not included in our November, 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan?
A divisive project consuming public and private resources was born. Why?
Furthermore, most of it (the part north of Edmonds Street) is not even located in a “Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses” area as defined in Figure 4-1 of the November, 2009 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The source of this information is City of Edmonds (2008), WSDOT (2008), and Snohomish County (2008).
It still astonishes me that Edmonds has a high volume of traffic engineering experts, safety experts, fiscal mavens, and crime solvers. Ken Reidy does a great job detailing out how the process has unfolded, and although we are usually on opposite sides of the argument, I can follow the logic and his respectful position.
What I don’t follow is the bashing city staff, vitriol towards proponents of the opposing ideas, the constant ‘I told you so’, and the uncanny ability to predict the future.
Much like the round about, I support positive pedestrian and traffic friendly solutions that improve not only safety, flow, but also the infrastructure and appeal of the City. It is impossible to improve on the view on Sunset, but it is possible to improve the accessibility, the facilities, the safety, and the flow. It worked at 5 Corners, and I believe it will work at Sunset as well. I appreciate the staff and council members who continue to look for solutions that improve some of Edmonds assets for all of us, and hope to see them continue with the Sunset project, find the right alternative and either build it or kill it.
George, well said.
Thank you George. I think we probably have much in common related to a City that I am sure we both love and want the best for. I support truly public processes and I want my council to be told complete and accurate information both in Open Session and behind closed doors in Executive Session. Have a good night.
Why don’t we overspend on Sunset like we did on the 5-corners roundabout(3.2+ million smackers) ?? Maybe we could install a splash fountain, hanging baskets, sculptures, etc. on Sunset…perhaps a Sunset street fair, a carnival with a Big Ferris wheel…and have Seattle-style parking meters…even a cute tiny roundabout at the end of Sunset..
Endless possibilities…
Very well stated, George (and Ken)…and still haven’t found an improvement you like, eh, Donald?
I love the changes. They need refinement, but represent a positive direction for users of all ages and abilities. My children and I feel much safer there now. Good work City of Edmonds. Build more protected walkways and bikeways that are are safe for everyone to use. We need to connect all the neighborhoods and shops with downtown and the Interurban trail. I pay taxes for the streets too. & I want a protected space to be in whether I’m walking, biking or driving. A clear and effective physical separation is better for everyone. I love the changes, and I would really like to see more spaces made safe for our children. Too much public land is wasted in wide lanes that encourage speeding and discourage all but the most fearless bikers. We need more places where kids and grandparents and everyone can safely travel around, with or without thier 3000 lb metal shell. If you stand on the side of the road for 5 minutes during commute, the number of people you will see using phones or intoxicated should convince you that human beings moving around and cars moving more than 20mph need a physical separation. Unless of course your standard is to tolerate the needless deaths of thousands of our friends and family.
Curmudgeons, It’s a design change, unbind your panties, speak like reasonable people (the kind who don’t always get everything they want) & when the data is against you and so is the rest of town, get over it.
I’m confused. Is a reasonable person one who calls people curmudgeons and tells them to unbind their panties?
…………it is shocking that we have men in our town that make comments by making female reference remarks like “unbind their panties”. This is simply shameful, and I wonder WHY the publisher allows this type of comment to be printed…….We could also go without the “crime solvers” remark also…….This publisher knows exactly what this is in reference to as I was asked by the publisher for information once (a case)……. Considering that I help work on cases of exploited and MISSING and trafficked children with many professionals, these type of remarks are shameful to me……”unbind their panties”………..
Just an FYI – from Wiktionary
Get one’s panties in a bunch
English
Alternative forms
-get one’s knickers in a twist
-get one’s knickers in a knot
-get one’s shorts in a knot
-get one’s undies in a bundle
Verb
get one’s panties in a bunch
(idiomatic) To become overwrought or unnecessarily upset over a trivial matter.
Regardless of the definition, it’s still offensive language to use on a public message board (in my opinion). And I think most people do understand the definition.
The direct reference was about unbinding panties and this has nothing to do with male attire or British references….I see nothing about knickers the old school British term and we very rarely use British English in America…….Perhaps the publisher should do more research on this….It is a derogatory male comment in reference to only females ….men do not wear panties……and quite frankly this day and age even “dont get your panties in a wad” is derogatory and sexist toward women ….but the “unbind” is the most derogatory and this comment should be removed…….even “get ones panties in a bunch” is totally a sexist remark…….We never make references to men’s boxer shorts, underwear, shorts, etc……Simply, the word that was used was panties and unbind…..referring to “trivial” was also used in the past regarding women…..”overwrought, trivial” , these are all sexist expressions that have never been used about men……just women in the PAST…..this newspaper by leaving and blowing off as nothing is teaching any young adults that comments like this are acceptable, and that simply is not true this day and age.
And I don’t think this is a trivial matter. With this much discussion and comment, a lot of people don’t think this is trivial. And we are speaking like reasonable people who see so many unsafe things happening. Are we just to ignore all the near misses daily, the congestion, and chaos this new configuration has brought to Sunset Avenue. Why are you who “love” this new configuration not willing to compromise? A smaller sidewalk makes so much more sense than a sidewalk that takes up one third of the road of a very narrow road. The Public Works Department will not even look at other options because of the grant guidelines. All options should be looked at and not decided by grant guidelines.
When a couple is walking down either sidewalk on Sunset with two dogs, the whole sidewalk is taken up by them. Not everyone keeps their dog on a tight leash. Anyone passing has to either walk into the street (which they normally do) to get around or walk on the grassy strip, which is not all grass now but wood chips so you can’t walk on it with any stability. When three people want to walk side by side, someone has to get out of the way. When people with strollers and dogs want to walk side by side, once again someone has to get out of the way and usually into the road. So to say the “trial” walkway solves those problems, it clearly does not. It just means the other people who want to walk side by side cannot. As someone said above, it is not going to satisfy everyone. But a compromise would sure come closer to making it work for everyone.
Those of us who think there is a better solution are not whining and pulling things out of the air. We have a right to voice the things we see daily that don’t work and that are dangerous.
Well spoken Thalia! And a shout-out to Mr. Rumpelein who speaks to the issue of $$$$. it’s possible that, as you say, the rest of us get, “Excited” and feel passionately about this wastefulness and all other issues presented in these posts, because we see the negative impact it has had on so many to the benefit of so few. And, because many of the elderly and disabled can no longer enjoy the view for lack of parking on the north half, that benefit is probably a “Wash.”
Many of these posts come from those who spend a lot of time on Sunset at different times and most days of the week. I know we “Observe” much more than Mayor Earling, his staff, or the City Council members. Sadly, they will be the ones voting yea or nay! And they are the ones who allowed this to become the reality it is today.
I URGE everyone who has not read Mr. Reidy’s post of 3/4/15 at 6:34 p.m. to do so. It’s important that everyone in this City understand this project went forward while other important and needed ones were put on the back burner – – perhaps to languish for years. I wonder if our City’s government might speak to how and why this happened?
Please Mr. Mayor and City council . . . End this trial now. We don’t need a year to see how bad it is.
It strikes me that we have two views about Sunset Avenue. First, as a neighborhood with a street, homes, residents, landscaping, nice sunsets, etc. Most of which we all have in one way or another. The residents have accommodated others for decades, in ways many of us would not in our neighborhoods.
The other view, which seems to be the bone of contention, is that Sunset Ave. is also like a city park to be used by anyone, almost any time, for various activities. The ‘bigger park’ proposal pushes the button. When one adds paved walking paths, lots of paint on the ground to direct people/bikes/cars/strollers/walkers/you name it, then we have a park in place of a neighborhood! You have crowds and congestion so this must be controlled with lines/signs/concrete curbs and more. This wasn’t necessary when Sunset was only a neighborhood with a great view.
Sunset Ave.is a nice, but not unique place. Many other locations have a stunning view, ways to walk about, meet others and have a good time. Again, the City is asking too much from one neighborhood. We all do not need to rush to Sunset Ave. for the view and sunsets. Put it back as it was for the sake of its residents, and the many who enjoyed the uncluttered and safe neighborhood that it has been.
Every City has a maximum capacity that is controlled by Council. Edmonds staff and council has done a good job controlling that capacity. We don’t have ten story or higher condominiums that steal the views from everyone. We don’t have mega developments and planned communities of cookie cutter houses. We don’t have huge areas of blight, and the areas that do suffer from negligence or lower incomes do get attention.
We do have a scenic downtown that is a vibrant anchor for all 44,000 or so residents. Sunset Avenue is a part of that downtown. Improvements to the core and draw of the City (that not only generate revenues for business owners, but protect fairly high property values) should be reviewed and, eventually completed. I get no benefit from upgrades to the senior center, but I agree with them. I doubt you will see me galavanting in the water park, but I agree with it. My rugby and soccer days are long gone, but I agree with improvement to the old Woodway fields. I look both ways when I cross the street, but still like safety improvements at crossings. I don’t own a car, but when I drive my wife’s car, I like streets that are free of potholes. The City has done a respectable job balancing budgetary constraints with community maintenance and capital improvements.
I agree that the residents of Sunset deserve a vote and a voice to protect their homes and investment. The voices I hear do more of a disservice than promote dialogue. What is the right solution for Sunset? Should the City avoid improvements all together? Are there acceptable alternatives other than we liked it the old way?
As far as safety goes, people still wander aimlessly across Main Street 40 feet away from a new raised and lighted crossing. Folks on 3rd must think the safety flags cause disease, because I have been hard pressed to see people use them. I see many people refuse to push the button at the round about. Now I don’t spend 24/7 anywhere, but the City cannot fix bad choices, whether that be folks who speed, ignore cautions, or are just plain oblivious. The City can, through intelligent design based on case studies that have worked, develop a half mile mixed use pathway and parking area that serves as traffic calming, and opens accessibility to everyone. Sunset should follow that example.
Now funding priority. We all seem fairly fiscally conservative. I am amazed at the spectrum of fiscal conservatism that exists. The City needs to be held accountable for every nickel they spend on projects that are approved. The issue I have is that the City spends a huge amount of money in analysis paralysis. You build it or you kill it. Kicking the can for more study, more comment, more what if scenarios actually cost the City money, not to mention tired staff and frustrated volunteers with ever changing guidance.
I would love for a viable Sunset upgrade to happen. I would love for the tests to be over. If it doesn’t happen, I am not going to get my knickers in a knot, my dander up, my blood boiling, all hot and bothered, or any other analogy for upset. I am going to vote and encourage others to vote a council in that is more aligned with my views.
Then, I am going to do what most of us do every day. Go to work, church, school, and enjoy our community with my family, regardless the width of the sidewalk on Sunset, while trying to avoid the drug houses at the round about.
George: I very much enjoyed your musings! Thanks for taking the time to put this together. It puts things into perspective.
Let me add that I do respect the opinion of the residents of Sunset. They do play into this equation, and the City certainly cannot ignore them. There has to be a balance between preserving community in all of the discussions and alternatives. I believe the City can preserve the unique community enclave that is Sunset and improve the multi use path plan that may cause change, but not displacement. I don’t think anyone here wants to replace those homes with multi use mid rise condominium projects that provide for the residents but not the community. I do believe that the argument currently being made by some of the residents is similar to just that. Sunset Avenue isn’t there for just residents, and there is a happy medium to place improvements that enhance the entire community access.
George! I echo, ditto all the comments you said! You have reasonable, comfortable, well thought out, say-it-like-it-is, not over exaggerating, not blaming the mayor and city council from all thing you feel is wrong with what you believe kind of thought wave.
I’ll ride the Wave. Let’s make Sunset better! Returning to the old is an issue and the current layout is not working. So let’s all move on to the best of both worlds! Say what you liked and hated about both the current design and the old design! What would you change to make it the best compromise!
I liked it before and I don’t dislike it now, but I can’t help but wonder if all we’ve managed to do is get everyone’s… pelicans in a batch. Before, I mostly came down here to park and watch the sunset. Now, I’ll mostly come down here to park and watch the sunset. If I can find a spot.
John, I agree with you. On another note, I think I may be a bit harsh on the the testing. There is a trend to test small expenditures in large projects and glean the good parts frombthe bad. My comments were more directed about the number and time of tests and discussions. I like the ideas that combine a multi use path with minor amenities, (additional benches, period or appropriate trash receptacles, period or appropriate lighting enhancements, all with upgrades to accessibility, and a solution that preserves the community feel). A couple of other ththings that I thought would be cool would be to use the pathway to highlight historical facts about Edmonds set into the concrete, on brass or some other metal. There is a rich history, and highlighting the shingle mill past with a history walk would be cool. That’s an opinion. I have also seen art walks that are pretty neat, where smaller installations are placed in distance increments, and near benches. When I worked with the railroad, we never really complained too much about ROW beautification licenses as long as they didn’t involve additional rail crossings or impede future growth. I don’t know that BNSF is going to bulldoze the bluff, install sheet piling, and expand their track, but seems like a lot to me for them to do.
The parking tests seem like a good idea, and the patience of both the residents and visitors has got to be worn thin, but I hope an alternative can be chosen that accomplishes a combined goal for all. Maybe permit parking spaces (I hated it in Chicago, but it worked) that are designated for residents along Sunset? That could free up guest parking, and serve as a compromise?
Does anyone know the width of the multi-use trail at Green Lake? I know that it is pretty narrow in some places, and it accommodates all sorts of traffic and much higher usage, but it would be interesting to compare.
I think Sunset to the Crossings (or whatever the antique mall is called) could be a pretty vibrant waterfront, with a calm serene viewing area on the north end and strong retail/commercial in the Harbor Square and Antique Mall development. In the middle of it all you have Main Street and the surrounding areas as a steady anchor.
On another completely off topic subject, I am excited about the daylighting project!
One thing that for sure that has resulted from all of this controversy. Sunset is being deluged by people who otherwise seldom go there. Like flies to honey they now come.
I have quoted this from My Edmonds News regarding My Edmonds News Code of Conduct………….The Sunset Project being of great debate by citizens of Edmonds…….below is a Code of Conduct that shows for My Edmonds
“We do not tolerate bullies, and we’ll do our best to spot them and get rid of them;
– post libelous, obscene or pornographic material or content that contains racist, sexist, homophobic and other slurs;
– deliberately post stories that are untrue, false or misleading or that make false representations about the poster him/herself;
My Edmonds News readers will:
– be accountable for stories they post and follow up by correcting known errors;
– resist attacks, insults and threats and instead remain civil and focused on the ideas being presented rather than the individuals expressing them;
– promote interactivity and dialogue that supports real community collaboration;
– avoid the use of ALL CAPS in their comments as that is seen by others as shouting. At a maximum, we request no more than three ALL CAPS word per comment.
Our anti-flaming/baiting policy:
According to Wikipedia, “Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users.”, this particularily being the Associated Press.”
The following is a link to a great Statement of Ethical Principals as done by the Associated Press in 1994:
“Statement of Ethical Principles
(Adopted 1994 as revision to APME Code of Ethics)
These principles are a model against which news and editorial staff members can measure their performance. They have been formulated in the belief that newspapers and the people who produce them should adhere to the highest standards of ethical and professional conduct.
The public’s right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests.
No statement of principles can prescribe decisions governing every situation. Common sense and good judgment are required in applying ethical principles to newspaper realities. As new technologies evolve, these principles can help guide editors to insure the credibility of the news and information they provide. Individual newspapers are encouraged to augment these APME guidelines more specifically to their own situations.
RESPONSIBILITY
The good newspaper is fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent. Truth is its guiding principle.
It avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
The newspaper should serve as a constructive critic of all segments of society. It should reasonably reflect, in staffing and coverage, its diverse constituencies. It should vigorously expose wrongdoing, duplicity or misuse of power, public or private. Editorially, it should advocate needed reform and innovation in the public interest. News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.
The newspaper should uphold the right of free speech and freedom of the press and should respect the individual’s right to privacy. The newspaper should fight vigorously for public access to news of government through open meetings and records.
ACCURACY
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.
INTEGRITY
The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects. It should provide a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism, especially when such comment is opposed to its editorial positions. Editorials and expressions of personal opinion by reporters and editors should be clearly labeled. Advertising should be differentiated from news.
The newspaper should report the news without regard for its own interests, mindful of the need to disclose potential conflicts. It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups.
It should report matters regarding itself or its personnel with the same vigor and candor as it would other institutions or individuals. Concern for community, business or personal interests should not cause the newspaper to distort or misrepresent the facts.
The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises.
The newspaper should not plagiarize words or images.
INDEPENDENCE
The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided.
Newspapers should accept nothing of value from news sources or others outside the profession. Gifts and free or reduced-rate travel, entertainment, products and lodging should not be accepted. Expenses in connection with news reporting should be paid by the newspaper. Special favors and special treatment for members of the press should be avoided.
Journalists are encouraged to be involved in their communities, to the extent that such activities do not create conflicts of interest.
Involvement in politics, demonstrations and social causes that would cause a conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict, should be avoided.
Work by staff members for the people or institutions they cover also should be avoided.
Financial investments by staff members or other outside business interests that could create the impression of a conflict of interest should be avoided.
Stories should not be written or edited primarily for the purpose of winning awards and prizes. Self-serving journalism contests and awards that reflect unfavorably on the newspaper or the profession should be avoided.”
https://www.apme.com/?page=EthicsStatement
What is the City Council’s policy when Council discovers that they or their predecessors have been provided false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information by City Staff or attorneys? My question relates to information provided both in Open Session and Executive Session. I am very concerned about Executive Sessions as there is no public oversight of the information Council is provided behind closed doors. I fear that information is not always true, accurate or complete.
The decisions Council makes and the related votes are very important and they often greatly impact our citizens. History tells us that there are times when the City Council makes decisions after being provided false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information.
When seeking approval of the Sunset Avenue Temporary Plan, it was represented that the location of the temporary pathway to the west of the angled parking was supposed to be built mainly on the west side of the old existing curb. We all know that this is not what happened. What we do not know is whether or not City Council would have approved the Temporary Plan had they known the truth about where the angled parking would be placed.
Why should we even have to wonder about what would have happened?
Please appreciate the challenges facing our City Council members. Not only do they have to digest massive City Council Agenda Packets before each City Council Meeting, they also are subject to the danger of being provided false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information prior to their votes.
I hope the City Council will discuss this soon and make sure they have a solid policy in place to follow promptly after they discover they or their predecessors have been provided false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information prior to their votes.
Please look at the picture at the top of this article. The Temporary Pathway in front of the angled parking was supposed to mainly be built on the west side of the old existing curb. Had this been done, the two vehicles in the picture would be parked up against the old curb and there would be much more room in the street behind the cars, making it easier for people to get in and out of their driveway, etc.
Why are our elected officials not taking immediate action to address this? Will there be accountability?
I will provide one more example of information provided to Council before a vote:
During the June 16, 2009 City Council Meeting, City Staff asked City Council to AMEND ECDC CHAPTER 19.80 BOARD OF APPEALS.
Former Councilmember Steve Bernheim asked whether a public hearing had been held regarding the recommended amendments.
A former City staff member responded that public hearings were held for the adoption of Chapter 19.80 and that when the code was adopted, these sections were inadvertently omitted, a scrivener’s error. The former City Attorney commented that since entire sections had inadvertently been omitted, staff determined the best course of action was to present it to Council for approval.
I’ve researched this in great detail and I have never found any evidence of scrivener’s errors. I’ve asked the City to research it also and the City has never provided evidence of any scrivener’s errors.
I am very confident that Ordinance No. 3740 is an Ordinance passed after false representations were made and it was also passed without a public hearing.
This Ordinance is still in place despite the fact that I originally brought this to the City’s attention in late 2009.
Again -I hope the City Council will discuss this soon and make sure they have a solid policy in place to follow promptly after they discover they or their predecessors were provided false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information prior to votes.
In addition to the concrete parking bumper mess, I have another concern:
From the August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes:
She (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas) was concerned about the property owner’s comment about the sidewalk on the east. She pictured having to move sidewalk west three feet which would kill the project. Mr. Williams responded that is a valid question but he did not envision the issue would be approached in that manner. A more likely scenario would be to work with the property owners to get the property dedicated.
I find this statement very significant and alarming. Watching the video of it is even more alarming in my opinion.
It is not explained just HOW the City would work with the property owners to get the property dedicated. There is no discussion of what might happen if the property owners do not want to dedicate their property. Council is not asked if it would be their legislative desire to pursue dedication or the uglier word, condemnation. It is possible that Council would choose to respect the private property rights and not pursue the property…especially if design flexibility allowed the related sidewalk to be placed in the City’s right-of-way easement. An argument can be made that this is what should have been done in the first place.
If the City has knowledge of real estate property title issues, can administrative staff just choose to not address those title issues and proceed forward as if all real estate issues will work out the way staff desires? I thought only the City Council has specific authority to regulate the acquisition, sale, ownership, and other disposition of real property.
If staff does not have real estate authority, don’t they have an administrative responsibility to respect private property rights rather than just act as if they will get what they want at a later date?
One of the goals of the Growth Management Act is to not take property rights without just compensation. Is that consistent with the concept of working with the property owners to get the property dedicated?
Shouldn’t City Staff’s starting point be: “How much do we need to pay you for the use of your private property?” Shouldn’t the option of dedicating private property ORIGINATE from the property owner – not City Staff!?!
Also, if City Staff already has knowledge that a sidewalk is on private property without just compensation, can they just ignore that and act as if they will get what they want at a later date?
During the August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting, a resident on Sunset Avenue expressed concern with the City’s use of the sidewalk on the east side of Sunset Avenue that is on his property. Neither he nor the previous owners have been compensated for the City’s use of the property.
So again, how can this City sit back and not compensate the property owners for use of their property? How is this proper? How is this ethical?