— Photo by Lee Lageschulte
Leave a Reply
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.
My Edmonds News
Sign Up for Our Daily Edmonds Newsletter
I suggest everyone click on this picture and then blow it up to take a good hard look at the Ebb Tide Condo building. Then think how this picture would look with a full gale type South Westerly wind blowing three and four foot waves up onto the beach there. Then think a little about whether or not the proposed ($850,000?) missing link project; now on the books as a plan; is really a good idea. Keep in mind they will need to dig some sort of anchor pilings clear down to bedrock to make it work. Our city is basically broke right now, and yet we continue to spend legal fees to perpetuate such a really useless and probably doomed to fail project.
Posting this on behalf of Darrol Haug as he had photo and video links to share.
Clint you are quite correct to image what it would look like with wind pushing the water. I was at about the same place that the above picture was taken during a high tide and wind. The picture
shows the scene you described. But look at the video
and the full motion shows it quite dramatically.
I was at this same location during a king tide last year when it was calm and the still water covered the step in the fore ground and was only 25 inches below the top of the sea wall. We build the Waterfront Center assuming future king tides will be just below the cap on the seawall. Army Corp of Engineers estimate we could have tide levels 24 inches above todays levels.”
That’s why they are giving parking tickets out like candy, and changing rules to generate money. Oh yes!! It’s all the dogs fault. Not stupid people’s fault.
There are many reasons not to add the “missing link,” not the least of which is the major environmental damage that would be done by the construction process.
Think of all the money the City could have saved if the Ebb Tide Management/residents had not taken the City to Court but instead had embraced the idea of linking the existing walkway for the benefit of the community. Ebb Tide residents already enjoy great benefits provided by the city and community including the Waterfront Center with its cafe and programming, the public pier, steps from the ferry not to mention a beach that is maintained and kept clean. Funds spent by the city on litigation would have been better spent on designing and building a walkway built to meet everyone’s needs, including Ebb Tide residents need for privacy. Also, a future walkway is not necessarily doomed as you indicated. If you are really concerned about high tides and future storms along the Edmonds Waterfront perhaps it is time to sell your property!
The Ebb Tide Management/residents did not take the City to Court.
Edmonds City Council voted to initiate a declaratory judgement action in Snohomish County Court at the end of the July 31, 2017 City Council Meeting. The City’s action was to resolve the dispute over the scope of an Access Easement in front of the Ebb Tide that the City was granted on November 4, 1983 for consideration of one (1) dollar.
I have long wondered if the 2017 City Council had complete information before they voted to take the Ebb Tide to court. Did they know they were approving a legal effort that would exceed 4,000 hours? Did they know what the impact to the environment would be? Did they know whether the City would also need to condemn a temporary construction easement for an undetermined additional portion of the Ebb Tide beach to facilitate construction of an elevated walkway?
Did the 2017 Council have the authority to bind future city council’s to pursuing this legal action for years and years? Or, should future City Councils have been asked to authorize continuing this legal action at certain points in time?
Jane,
I need to correct your assertion that The Ebb Tide took the city to court. It was in fact the other way around. We were sued by the city. This was not a fight that we wanted.
Tom Drouin, President
I stand corrected on my assumption that the Ebb Tide HOA initiated the court review. Other information provided by various commentators indicates that the HOA rejected all proposals from the city, so it makes sense to me the city would ask for legal clarification before moving forward. Glad to read the HOA is open to meeting with the city now.
Perhaps you would like to donate your front yard as a park to the City of Edmonds—for free? And wouldn’t it be inconvenient if you filed a law suit to object to the City using your front yard—those funds could be better spent on the new swing set planned for your garden.
That’s essentially what you’re suggesting the Ebb Tide should do. The tidelands ARE their front yard.
Hey Clinton, FWIW, just yesterday the WA Supreme Court declined to accept Ebb Tide Association’s petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision. So the decision in favor of the City stands. No more opportunities for Ebb Tide to appeal. Could Ebb Tide make a run at appealing to the US Supreme Court? Yes, but since the case doesn’t raise any issues of federal law or implicate the federal constitution, the US Supreme Court would not take the case.
Hey Kim. I could care less about any of the legal aspects or nuances of doing this or not. I’m just suggesting it is and has always been a stupid waste of time and money for all concerned for very little gain or any type of real good for just about everyone living in this town or visiting here. I’m also suggesting that this project is ill advised for environmental as well as financial reasons. Our town is in financial crisis and needs to just get back to the basics for the foreseeable future. Why do we keep a project on the books that will cost way more than claimed, adversely impacts some of our city’s own citizens, molests the Salish Sea ecology, and tries to defy nature (sea level change) itself. Reasonable questions I think. Looking at that building and it’s apparently sagging lower floors I have to wonder why the city doesn’t consider trying to condemn it and purchasing it from the owners at fair market value, if this “missing link” is really so needed. Oh, that’s right, the fact is the city has no spare money to try to do things the right way.
Amen to all the above,
How cheeky is it for idiot developers to build a monstrosity at the tide line and then sue for protection? It is a boondoggle and hazard to life waiting only for the next king tide, howling storm out of the west and continuing sea level rise. That should alleviate the city’s need to condemn the disaster-in-the-process-of-becoming, after which it can plan rationally for a wide, safe and beautiful buffer to the ever encroaching sea.
David I was 14 years old and lived here with my parents when that building was built. The original plan was for it to be at least 10 stories high, which resulted in an angry general populace and the demand for building height limits in The Bowl area and beyond that exist to this day. I went with my Dad to City Council meetings where the issue was finally (more or less) decided. The population then was around 14,000 and “the city” was pretty much the area up to where the High School is now and out to Meadowdale North and Woodway South. Bottom line is that, even back then, most Edmond’s citizens did not want to see Edmonds turn into a Bellevue or a Kirkland. Although Kirkland was actually more Edmonds like back then. In the 70’s the push to “save” Edmonds started with more of a push for business development, lots of Condos and tourist attraction becoming the big drivers. “Selling” Edmonds has been a big deal ever since.
Does anyone else recall the news story and what happened to a condo on a beach somewhere in Florida just a few years ago, and how the whole structure collapsed? That was partly due to higher tides, more extreme rain events and then, if you throw in some outmoded construction methods, you end up with a very dicey situation for those living in the condo. I don’t understand why people still want to live in older structures this close to beaches threatened by climate change, or why the city of Edmonds wants to sink money into this project that will leave everybody dissatisfied in the end.
A couple of years ago, a well-placed City official told me the better solution would be to rebuild the Ebb Tide’s seawall with a walkway on top. This would be a win-win outcome~ providing a taller and stronger seawall to protect the condos, and a code-compliant walkway for the public. But this would require serious negotiations and some “give” on both sides.
The walkway currently planned (and now allowed under court decision) is world-class ugly and not ADA complaint. There is a better path forward but I’m doubtful it will be achieved.
Please think about disabled people, who have to use walkers or wheelchairs. Their sadness at not being able to continue going further like everyone else because they cannot go down and then up these stairs.
I’m with you on this one, Roger. Given the circumstances, and the fact that the city will move forward eventually with the bridge, rebuilding their seawall to integrate the walkway will provide a better designed walking path and a new wall for the Ebb Tide. In my opinion this is a better compromise for both parties, but would require a better partnership between the Ebb Tide Homeowners and the City which at this point may be severed beyond repair.
Hey Clinton, my post was just intended as an update so folks would know what the status of the legal proceeding was. Nothing more. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
And to the person who emailed me to tell me I should shut up, well, again, it was a status update. Not an opinion about the merits of the dispute or an opinion about city resources spent on litigation or taking a side. And seriously, I’m troubled that a comment that essentially says that the lawsuit phase is over merits someone taking the time to send an email like this…
Kim, I definitely would never tell you or anyone else commenting here they should “shut up.” It just seemed strange to me that you would be so concerned about everyone knowing that the city has won this deal in the courts. Like the courts have some special and valuable knowledge about what is or isn’t ultimately good for Edmonds? Courts are generally concerned about what is considered legal or illegal, not necessarily what is absolutely right in terms of fitting any given situation. Also this ADA thing is a red herring I think. As long as the walkway is safe and easily open to everyone, handicapped or otherwise, I would think the proper needs of the law would be met; whether the walkway is in front of or behind the building where it can easily be located. Mostly I just want OUR city government to quit wasting OUR money on wants instead of needs. Simple concept really.
Ken,
Thanks for clarifying that Edmonds initiated action against the Ebb Tide, not the other way around.
Mr. Buerge,
The Ebb Tide was built in 1965 with the City of Edmonds approval. If you’re looking to place blame, that’s on Edmonds, not the developer.
Roger,
Thanks for presenting “a better path forward.” Perhaps there is still a chance a reasonable solution can be achieved.
Margie,
You are correct about “the major environmental damage that would be done by the construction process.” Thank you.
For anyone interested in facts, here’s a link to Larry Vogel’s 12-28-23 article:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/12/with-latest-ebb-tide-appeal-no-quick-resolution-in-sight-for-proposed-waterfront-walkway/
Excellent comments follow the article. This one by Brian Self summarizes concerns:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/12/with-latest-ebb-tide-appeal-no-quick-resolution-in-sight-for-proposed-waterfront-walkway/#comment-488580
My LTE focused on the waterfront environment at the Ebb Tide:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/01/letter-to-the-editor-protecting-waterfront-environment-at-the-ebb-tide/
You’re absolutely right, Clinton. I should not have commented here about the status of the case.
Ms Gunning – I for one do appreciate your relevant comment and update re: WA SC ruling and case status. For whatever reason you specifically directed it toward only 1 person, that’s certainly your right to do so. Thanks again for the update.
Kim,
I appreciate that you commented on the status of the case. See today’s article: https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/01/state-supreme-court-upholds-lower-court-ruling-allowing-edmonds-to-build-elevated-walkway-across-ebb-tide-condos-private-beach/#comment-511884
Perhaps your comment had something to do with this article. Thank you for sharing the information.
Kim, especially; Matt, and Joan, I assure you all, I have no objection whatsoever to either you or MEN commenting on or doing articles about the legal status or aspects of this case as I think we are ALL big time losers regarding this whole mess and how what is supposed to be all OUR city government, particularly, has handled it. People who love this town and their homes here, just as much as you and I do, have been unfairly vilified for no good or useful reason to promote a project that is virtually unaffordable right now and environmentally very objectionable. None of this makes any sense whatsoever to me. I appreciate the freedoms we all have and all our rights to speak out in this country for what we believe in. This is precious freedom and we better be smart enough to hang on to it. Giving up freedoms for a false sense of security is a fools game. Apologies to all for digressing a bunch.