With latest Ebb Tide appeal, no quick resolution in sight for proposed waterfront walkway

A beach walker traverses the tide flats within the city’s easement across the Ebb Tide beach. (Photo by Larry Vogel)

The legal maneuvering continues regarding how the City of Edmonds may use its existing easement across the private beach owned by Ebb Tide condomiums.  Attorneys for the Ebb Tide Homeowners’ Association have filed a motion with the Washington State Court of Appeals to reverse last month’s Superior Court decision that would allow the City of Edmonds to build an elevated walkway across the easement.

The dispute has been in the courts since 2017 and has so far involved more than 300 separate legal filings that include motions, declarations, rulings and orders  — all aimed at asking the court to determine whether the easement will allow the proposed elevated walkway. All documents are available to the public from the Washington State Digital Archives.

Signage alerts walkers to not trespass on the Ebb Tide private beach (Photo by Larry Vogel)

The Ebb Tide is located adjacent to Railroad Avenue at 200 Beach Place between the Edmonds Waterfront Center and Olympic Beach Park. The property stretches from Railroad Avenue on the east to Puget Sound on the west. Ebb Tide has traditionally maintained the tide flats west of the building as a private beach for the exclusive use of condominium residents and owners.

The aim of the proposed $1.3 million elevated walkway is to connect the two existing sections of the Waterfront Promenade, a public walkway maintained by the City of Edmonds, thereby creating an uninterrupted public footpath linking Marina Beach Park and Brackett’s Landing Park. Closing this “missing link” was identified by citizens as a high-priority project during the public involvement phase leading up to the 2022 update of the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.

The paved Waterfront Promenade walkway ends at the Ebb Tide. (Photo by Larry Vogel)

Built in 1965 by Wylma and Lloyd Nelson, 12 years after the last shingle mill closed on the Edmonds waterfront, the five-story, 20-unit residential building offers its residents beachfront living with 180-degree water views. From the outset, a major attraction was exclusive use of the private beach stretching west from the building’s patio area to Puget Sound and between the building’s north and south property lines.

The Ebb Tide units were rented as apartments until 1983, when the building was sold by the original owners to Olympic Properties, Inc. and converted to condominiums.

With the demise of the waterfront mills in the 1950s, the City of Edmonds gained control and ownership of the beach areas to the north and south of the Ebb Tide’s private beach. But it would take another decade for the city to begin showing interest and taking action to designate and develop the beach and waterfront for parks and public use. (See the My Edmonds News story about 1960s-era Edmonds Parks Board member Bill Phillips and his efforts to acquire rights from the various mill interests to develop waterfront parks here).

Plan view of the existing easement, granted to the City of Edmonds in 1983.

In November 1983, the City of Edmonds and Olympic Properties signed an agreement that created a 10-foot-wide, 100-foot-long easement across the Ebb Tide’s beach, for which the city paid Olympic Properties one dollar (see original easement document here). The easement allows beach users to walk between the sections of public beach to the north and south of the Ebb Tide by crossing the tide flats. Ebb Tide has erected signage on the easement’s north and south borders, warning walkers not to trespass on its private beach, directing them instead to use the easement.

Signage directs walkers to use the 10-foot-wide easement across the tide flats to cross in front of the Ebb Tide. (Photo by Larry Vogel)

The legal battle hinges on how to interpret the language of the easement.

The easement document begins by laying out the rationale for granting the easement, specifying that this is “a right-of-way easement for public access, use and enjoyment, together with the right to construct and maintain public improvements, facilities, utilities and necessary appurtenances over, through, across and upon the following described property.”

It spells out limits on the height of anything the City of Edmonds might build on the easement.  Specifically, it notes that “The Grantee [the City of Edmonds], its successors, agents, or assigns, shall construct, install or erect no structures or improvements upon or within the above described easement right of way, whereby any portion thereof extends above a horizontal plane having an elevation of 17.00 as referred to the City of Edmonds Datum (Mean Lower Low Water).”

It concludes by noting that the agreement is in perpetuity, specifying that it “shall be an appurtenant easement running with the land and shall be binding on the Grantor [Olympic Properties], its successors and assigns forever for the benefit of the Grantee [the City of Edmonds] as owner of the real property located immediately adjacent to the north and south of the subject property.”

The Waterfront Promenade showing the missing link in front of the Ebb Tide building

For almost 40 years, this easement has provided the only waterfront pathway between the public beach areas to the north and south of the Ebb Tide, allowing beach walkers to legally cross the 100-foot-wide private beach on the tide flats, providing they stay within the 10-foot easement pathway.

During those years, the City of Edmonds and the Port of Edmonds have improved the waterfront to include parks, the Edmonds Marina, various sections of seawall and paved public pathways (the Waterfront Promenade) along the beachfront. As public use of these amenities increased, the city became more interested in connecting the north and south Promenade segments by building a walkway across the “missing link” in front of the Ebb Tide.

Accordingly, in 2017 the City of Edmonds developed preliminary plans for a raised walkway across the easement and filed in Superior Court for a declaratory judgement affirming the city’s right to “construct the Planned Improvements within the easement area.” (See full document with initial walkway drawings here).

This was followed by years of court filings by the Ebb Tide Homeowners’ Association and the City of Edmonds, during which lawyers for both sides invested thousands of hours presenting to the court their rationale for interpreting the easement language in their favor. The city maintains that the easement allows construction of the raised walkway, while the Homeowners Association maintains it does not – and this is the crux of the legal battle.

The City of Edmonds is represented by the Lighthouse Law Group, and according to Lighthouse attorney Jeff Taraday as of Oct. 21, 2022, the firm has put in more than 3,700 billable hours on the Ebb Tide matter. Up until now, these legal fees have been covered under a fixed annual fee contract with Lighthouse for legal services. But with the recent Edmonds City Council decision to move from a fixed annual fee to paying Lighthouse by the hour, these legal costs will be billed at Lighthouse’s hourly rate of between $266 and $354 per hour, depending on which attorney is doing the work.

In its latest request for a declaratory judgment, the city argues that the 1983 easement language clearly grants Edmonds the right to construct and maintain a walkway “over, through, across and upon” its easement. It further states that “after years of waiting, the timing is finally right for the City to complete the missing link in the Edmonds Marine Walkway by building a wheelchair-accessible walkway within the city’s easement in front of the Ebb Tide building.” It goes on to point out that “the project will further the city’s interest in complying with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act by providing an accessible walkway along the waterfront.”

The document also notes that the city has engaged consultants to create a design for “an elevated pedestrian walkway that would be elevated on steel piles” and includes plan and section views of the walkway design, updated from those included in its original 2017 filing.

In response, the Ebb Tide Homeowners Association filed a trial brief in which it maintained that “the parties to the Easement did not intend the Easement to allow an elevated walkway,” further maintaining that such a walkway “would impose burdens on the Ebb Tide beyond those contemplated in the Easement.”

The document cites numerous examples including the following:

  • The design would not fit within the easement area “because railings required by the International Building Code will raise the final structure at least three feet over the 17-foot maximum height allowed by the Easement.”
  • The city lacks “sufficient real property rights” outside the easement area [which remains Ebb Tide private beach] to construct and maintain the walkway, pointing out that according to the easement “construction and maintenance be effected within the Easement.” Thus, the homeowners associaton maintains that the agreement does not allow the city to use Ebb Tide land outside of the easement area to stage materials and equipment or conduct construction-associated activities.
  • The plan would create an “unconstitutional taking [of the Ebb Tide’s property] due to the blockage and exclusive use, interference with Ebb Tide’s views, loss of the Ebb Tide’s privacy, and ongoing trespass worse than what the easement was intended to eliminate,” and further that since the easement did not confer exclusive rights to the city, it cannot do anything that would “exclude Ebb Tide from using any part of the Easement area.”

The document goes on to state that “since the Planned Improvements will therefore overburden the Ebb Tide beyond the express grant of the Easement and the parties’ intent, they are not in conformance with the Easement’s intended scope and are not allowed.”

After five years of legal haggling, on Oct. 16 of this year Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Millie M. Judge ruled in the city’s favor, opening the way for Edmonds to move forward with construction of an elevated walkway to connect the north and south sections of the Waterfront Promenade.

In response, on Nov. 17 attorneys for the Ebb Tide filed a notice of appeal to the Washington State Court of Appeals Division 1, ensuring that the issue will remain undecided for months and possibly years to come.

As the legal battle continues to rage, local awareness of the issue and its environmental, budgetary and social justice aspects is growing. The issue recently came up in the Edmonds City Council’s budget discussions. To allow time to further study of the issue, at a Dec. 13 council meeting Councilmember Diane Buckshnis proposed and the council agreed to delay consideration of the walkway project in the budget until 2026.

“We need to pause and really understand the financial, environmental and public safety concerns for this one small stretch of right-of-way on the west side of the Ebb Tide,” Buckshnis said. “The elevated walkway in the middle of the tide flats would be an environmental disaster not to mention extremely costly and could be a potential public safety issue with the extreme changes in our climate. The elevated walkway pushed through the property of the Ebb Tide would also be an expensive ticket item with having to purchase condemned land and then design and replace their bulkhead.

“The ‘missing link’ is not really ‘missing’ as there is an east side link [i.e., around the Ebb Tide building via Railroad Avenue],” she concluded. “So, from a financial and common-sense perspective, I say let’s look at the east side link and make that an attractive path for folks to take.”

At high tide the easement is underwater and not accessible to walkers. (Photo by Janice Carr)

Councilmember Dave Teitzel said he thinks that while the issue is multi-faceted and more than a bit nuanced, clear direction to the city is provided by the fact that the almost 2,000 Edmonds citizens who provided input to the city’s recently updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan overwhelmingly favor closing the “missing link.” It emerged as the second-most-favored priority behind improving existing park land.

“Our citizens are telling us that they want to walk the waterfront uninterrupted and unfettered between Sunset Avenue and the off-leash dog park,” he said. “To me, that’s why the city is pursuing this initiative. When citizens identify a particular action as a top priority, the city has an obligation to do our best to make it happen.”

Teitzel went on to point out that other challenges surrounding an elevated walkway across the beach — including environmental compliance, permitting and especially ADA access — will be critical pieces and must be factored into the walkway design.

“We need to ensure that folks with mobility challenges will be able to enjoy our waterfront as fully as those without,” he said. “Right now, the area in front of the Ebb Tide is a sandy, muddy beach that’s essentially inaccessible to anyone using a walker or wheelchair. And while detouring around the east side of the building remains an alternate route, this is contrary to what our citizens told us they want.”

Teitzel also raised the issue of a third alternative for walkers.

“Before a walkway out along the city’s easement was even considered, the city’s preference had been to work with the Ebb Tide to have a walkway along their bulkhead,” he explained. “But the Ebb Tide has not agreed to this. This left using the easement as the only option for creating an elevated walkway to enable pedestrians to cross the beach, and the question of whether a walkway can be built there will ultimately be decided by the courts.

“But it is still my hope that we can work with the Ebb Tide ownership to identify other options to address the missing link that will enable Edmonds citizens and visitors to fully enjoy walking along our beautiful beachfront.”

For Edmonds City Councilmember Vivian Olson, the fact that the walkway is a high citizen priority dictates that the city should continue the legal process to clarify what is and is not allowed under the easement.

“Having taken it this far and with the community continuing to prioritize an uninterrupted walkway at the waterfront, it would be unwise to stop short of knowing what the city’s rights are,” she said. “And given the in-process appeal, I supported the council’s action to move the timing of the project out [to 2026]. There can be no project until the property rights are definitively established.”

With both Councilmembers Buckshnis and Teitzel raising the possibility of working with the Ebb Tide to run the walkway across the bulkhead/seawall as an alternative to building the elevated walkway, it should be noted that to go this route would entail rebuilding these structures, an expensive proposition.

The 50-year-old Ebb Tide seawall is showing visible signs of age, with cracks in several locations. (Photo by Larry Vogel)

The current Ebb Tide seawall is more than 50 years old (see 1972 Engineering drawings) and is showing visible signs of age, including cracking in several spots, posing potential risks to the Ebb Tide and its residents. Should the seawall be overtopped by wave action, the ground units would be in danger of flooding. Should it fail, the building itself could be destabilized. While in previous discussions with the city, the Ebb Tide has rejected running the walkway across the bulkhead, some have suggested that the prospect of getting a new seawall as part of the package might reopen this as a possibility.

For Ebb Tide residents, the elevated walkway issue hits close to home, raising concerns about quality of life, loss of view, beach access and property value.

Leslie Nelson, daughter-in-law of Ebb Tide builders Wylma and Lloyd Nelson, still owns a unit in the building. While she does not presently live there – she leases her unit out — she is concerned about loss of quality of life should “this monstrosity” be built.

“Ebb Tide residents just want to protect their view and their beach,” she said.

According to Ebb Tide Homeowners’ Association Treasurer Lynne McFarlane, this opinion is shared by all other residents.

“This is our property, our ownership, our yard,” she said. “When folks bought in, it was with the understanding that the private beach was part of it. It’s an intrinsic part of our property value that would be taken away. The proposed raised concrete walkway would essentially cut us off from our beach area west of the structure.”

“Ever since the Ebb Tide has been around, we’ve been paying property taxes on this beach area all the way to the low tide line,” added Homeowners’ Association President Tom Drouin. “I find it ironic that we are using our money to defend ourselves, against an entity that is using our tax money to sue us.”

Regarding the alternative of building a walkway across their bulkhead in lieu of the proposed raised walkway across the beach easement, Drouin recalled previous failed discussions with the city on this issue.

“The city wanted to come right through the middle of our patio, not on the seawall, and would not consider alternatives,” he explained. “It was not a good-faith negotiation.”

“We need to keep our privacy,” pointed out McFarlane. “That’s why the easement was put 10 feet away. If the city wants to talk, we can listen. But so far, they’ve never come up with a good proposal.”

McFarlane also stressed that the Ebb Tide property is inspected annually by an independent firm to identify critical maintenance issues, things that need replacement, etc., and at this point there are no outstanding issues regarding the seawall.

A statement prepared by the homeowners’ association bears this out and reiterates its position that the terms of the 1983 easement do not allow the elevated walkway as proposed.

In it, the owners state that, “The City paid nothing for the subject easement which makes no mention of granting the City an additional right to construct an elevated walkway which would block the Ebb Tide residents’ views and privacy, while blocking their access to the water. What the City is proposing is not a continuation of the current walkway.” They further state that they do “not want a 10 ft. wide and 17 ft. high cement structure across the beach that looks like a pier and would destroy use of the beautiful sandy beach” and would “destroy beach habitat.” The statement goes on to say that “currently people walk on the beach for their enjoyment as access has been provided over the subject easement and they have done so over the years, but with the proposed structure which will completely encompass the easement area, this ability would be destroyed.” (Read the full statement here)

With the issue now back in the courts, it’s a safe bet that no action outside of the courtroom will be taken in the near term. Appeals court rulings are not often speedy, and it could be many months before a decision is made. In the meantime, waterfront walkers remain obliged to either walk across the tide flats on the water side of the Ebb Tide, or walk around the building via Railroad Avenue.

— By Larry Vogel

  1. Complete and total gibberish, the way i read this is the city has no right to build anything. These people pay good money for privacy. public parks and trails have only proved to be havens for drugs and violence. City councils around the entire area need to clean their closets before they disrupt anyone’s lifestyle with love the one you’re with attitude. Grrrrrrr i shut up now.

  2. Thanks for writing this detailed article. I informed City Council in October that the Professional Services Agreement with Barker Landscape Architects executed May 3, 2017 represents the Ebb Tide Walkway may be constructed by barge.

    I asked City Council the following in the same email sent October 21, 2022:

    Why would the City spend 5 years in court before knowing for sure how something will be constructed? The Ebb Tide’s private tidelands extend out a significant distance from where the 10-foot-wide access easement is located. If the City is unable to construct the elevated walkway by using the portions of the beach within the 10-foot-wide easement area for construction purposes, is the City going to need to acquire more rights to use additional parts of the Ebb Tide’s private property? Is the Ebb Tide looking at more legal action from the City, possibly condemnation of a Temporary Construction Easement? When is enough, enough? Is this missing link project a public need or a public(?) want? If a Temporary Construction Easement is needed, what environmental regulations will have to be complied with before the City can use some type of Temporary Construction Easement on the beach/tidelands?

  3. I agree with Ken. I suspect that many citizens (like me) generally support the concept of extending the walkway, but have not been very clear on ‘how’ this was to be accomplished. I incorrectly assumed it would be just building an additional retaining wall against the existing Ebb Tide wall thus creating a sidewalk that extends outward at the same height. There are no railings on the sidewalks to the North of the condos. Building a raised sidewalk on pylons is wholly different story, sounds very expensive. I am not so sure I would support this elaborate plan. While the public, in principle, supports the idea of the walkway, does the public support it no matter how it is achieved and at what cost (including legal fees)? We should see a 3D rendering that shows what it really would look like aesthetically (including railings).

  4. Citing “ public interest” on a poll as a reason for pursuing this without citing the expense to the City thus far in all of the legal maneuvering is disingenuous at best. The Ebb Tide property is private. The EbbTide granted an easement to accommodate the public. Now the City wants to take that easement turning it into a multimillion dollar elevated environmentally disasterous walkway ( not including the millions spent on legal fees). The simple notion that Edmonds, having had an all inclusive legal contract with Lighthouse, meant that pursuing it legally was a cost that was relatively unseen, since the hours worked were not billed separately.
    Ebb Tide owners have been footing actual bills defending their legal property rights. Imagine how much of that money could have been used to improve existing parks (outside the bowl), gone to updating infrastructure, lighting, trails and improvements in parks. Calling it a missing link is PR. This is the EbbTide’s property, they have paid dearly for it and Edmonds has burdened them with legal fees to defend it. They pay taxes as all of us do. Unfortunately the City has a “vision” and uses PR push polls as the excuse.

  5. Dave Teitzel,
    That survey that you reference was extremely biased. You do realize that any survey is slanted to manipulate the desired outcome/answers? Here was the question: “Do you want a walkway in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums?” Of course, since the “public” considers us as entitled and, “it’s not fair” that you own a beach (which we pay taxes on it and have never received a dime for the easement), these citizens will answer, “YES”. No one at the Ebb Tide ever received this survey. In fact, I was very aware of it since a friend of mine who is a RENTER, received it in the mail.
    This walkway is NOT needed to go from point A to point B. There have always been two options: across the beach or go on the sidewalk along Railroad Avenue (of which we have offered the City to take out our bushes to widen the sidewalk).
    So Dave, this comes down to property rights. Can I sit in your yard and enjoy your private property? Can I put my trailer in your yard and block your view, your ability to access your yard, and invade your privacy?

  6. I sincerely doubt that those who responded positively to the survey about adding a walkway had any idea what was actually being proposed. Sure it would be nice to have a walkway the full length of the beach, but at what cost? Financial costs are the least of the issue in my view: the aesthetic damage would affect all of us, not just Ebb Tide residents. And possibly the biggest cost would be the environmental damage to marine life in the area. I am fine with walking around the back if the tide is too high to walk on the beach for that short distance.

    1. Good point Marjie. I emailed Council on July 23, 2022 that I believe the priority voiced by respondents to complete the Waterfront Walkway near Ebb Tide Condos provides an example of support for something that people surveyed may not fully understand.

      Also, the following is an excerpt from the February 1, 2000 Approved City Council Meeting Minutes:

      “Another option considered after meeting with the Planning Board, was an additional bulkhead in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium to mitigate flooding that occurred at the condominium and provide the elevated pathway to provide continuous access in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. This is a simple solution from a technical /design standpoint but was rejected due to Fish and Wildlife’s determination that this would impact existing marine habitat.”

      I don’t know if Fish and Wildlife’s determination subsequently changed or if the determination was discussed with City Council in Executive Session prior to the following taking place at the end of the July 31, 2017 City Council Meeting:


      Citizens have no way of knowing what the 2017 Council was told as the July 31, 2017 discussions took place behind closed doors in Executive Session.

      1. Marjie and Ken,

        You’ve made excellent points. Thank you, Ken, for the quote from Feb 1, 2000 Council meeting minutes, “a simple solution from a technical /design standpoint but was rejected due to Fish and Wildlife’s determination that this would impact existing marine habitat.”

        In the rendering of the walkway, looking down you see that the “steel pile” is marked at a depth of 30’ and also “Estimated maximum depth 50’ ” which is seriously concerning when you think of the environmental damage to the shoreline that would be done during its construction.

        This is an emotional issue for those of the mind that no one should be able to “own” a beach. And a financial issue given how much of our tax dollars have already been pumped into the lawsuits, and into design of the walkway. But the more important issue here is the environmental destruction that would result if the walkway is built. Millions of living creatures would be killed, habitat destroyed, and tons of carbon would be released into the environment.

        For those interested, here is a link to a 2007 WDFW publication on Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound:


  7. High tides notwithstanding, I recall when I first relocated to Edmonds, the sign on either side of Ebb tide stated something to the effect, this beach is private property. no stopping or sunbathing. And I recall seeing families and small children being shooed off the beach by Ebb Tide residents for violations. The sign has changed to accentuate the easement now which, I suppose is an improvement. But I can’t help comparing that to a similar waterfront community in Vancouver BC that has a sign reminding “visitors” that they are traversing private property and requesting respectfully that while crossing their grounds, they be respectful and appreciative of the residents who recognize their contribution to the sense of welcoming and community.

    If the public has a negative opinion of Ebb Tide residents and owners, maybe the residents of that community should look in the mirror before blaming a biased press. And if anyone resents using their private funds to combat an entity to which they pay their taxes, consider that many other taxpayers resent seeing their tax dollars spent defending against legal action against a reasonable city project.

    1. If you are going to compare Edmonds to Vancouver, BC then at least make a factually correct and contextually appropriate comparison. In Vancouver (and surrounding communities) a property holder can only hold title to the high-high water mark, and everything beyond that (toward the water) is Crown land. Also, while property owners hold “air rights” above them, they do not hold title to “view corridors”, nor can they assert privacy rights with respect to activities on Crown land. There are from time to time property holders that try to assert some ownership/control over what are in fact Crown lands (happens most often in West Vancouver it seems), but those assertions go nowhere (and posting a sign changes nothing). The Ebb Tide fiasco would not have ever happened in Vancouver, because they would have never, ever had title to that beach, period.

      1. That is true and in parts of the US it would also not happen. All of my life I thought the beaches around our country were actually owned by the United States Government. I was surprised to hear of what was done here to acquire this ownership??

  8. Esther, exactly. This is all about overzealous, misguided, hypocritical city government for the so called “public good.” City citizens shouldn’t be the victims of their own government functionaries. The non restaurant businesses downtown are getting similar treatment. This is just how Edmonds rolls it seems. And you don’t have any one specific city Council person that represents you based on where you reside in town – a neighbor at city hall so to speak.

  9. Again to Dave,

    I will not just be parking my trailer in your yard, but I will be bringing my dogs who will be off-leash. Even though there are signs posted along the Edmonds beaches, forbidding dogs on the “Marine Sanctuary”, this is never enforced.
    You serve on the City Council and should be aware of all the Parks and Rec signage about protecting the marine habitat and the “enforcement” of the regulations.
    This reminds me of the Connector by which the concerned citizens had to remind the City Council of their regulations protecting the habitat.
    I understand you are concerned about votes.

  10. Both Councilmember Teitzel and Olson claim that 2000 Edmond’s residents favor closing the waterfront “missing link” (as noted in the PROS plan/survey). However, if my math is correct, that is less than 5% of Edmonds current population of 45,679 (2022 census). The fact that the Edmonds City Council, mayor, et al would consider this a priority when it is not favored by the majority of Edmond’s residents is clearly overreach and foolhardy.

  11. The only “missing link” seems to be the City’s connection to reality. The City has embarked on a five year legal war, likely spent in excess of $1,000,000, to crush the private property owners at Ebb Tide, that originally and generously granted an easement to the City voluntarily for $1 in the 1980s. Since the 80s, the easement has been shared and enjoyed by the community for nearly 40 years. And now the city plans to spend even more tax money on legal fees to defeat the appeal—unlimited. Do the accountants at the City have a plaque on their desks quoting Buzz Lightyear saying, “To infinity and beyond!”? For average residents experiencing skyrocketing inflation and challenging economic times, the City’s the-sky’s-the-limit commitment to this 100′ long misadventure seems completely tone deaf. Aren’t there a million better things to spend $5 million or $10 million on these days—because that’s what it’s going to cost after the legal fees and inflation is added in. And this discussion doesn’t even take into consideration the permanent impact to the marine life and eagle habitat on the tidelands in this biologically sensitive area. NONE of this makes sense.

    1. Well said, Brian!!! You have truly captured the absurdity of the City of Edmonds pursuing this misadventure with no regard for the
      EbbTide community and the existing natural marine habitat!

  12. Sounds like someone told all the Ebb Tide residents about this article… you all sound so out of touch with the reality that 90% of us live in that it’s kind of funny.

  13. I’d like to know why such high priority was assigned to this issue by the 2017 City Council. What was the 2017 Council told during the July 31, 2017 Executive Session? Were they told all they needed to know, or did they vote under an incomplete understanding of what they were about to approve?

    The 2017 Council exited Executive Session and voted unanimously to authorize the City Attorney to initiate a Declaratory Judgement Action in Snohomish County Superior Court to resolve the dispute over the scope of the public access easement in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums.

    Instantly, our fellow citizens living at the Ebb Tide were exposed to a fight against their own city, a city they had granted an easement to for $1.

    Was any consideration given to what else 3,700 plus legal hours could accomplish? For example, is the “Missing Link” more important than the long overdue Code Rewrite?

    And of course, there is much more to come. Resolving a dispute over easement scope does not mean that the City has adequate easement rights to facilitate construction, or if construction permits can be issued.

    Is the plan really to construct from a barge?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.