Public land, unauthorized private use? City Council briefing tomorrow on ‘park-encroachment removal’

That’s the presentation that will be shown to the City Council’s Parks, Seattle Center, Libraries & Waterfront Committee tomorrow morning, as two Parks and Recreation managers brief councilmembers on what they’re doing about encroachment – people who live next to Parks property and are encroaching on it in myriad ways, maybe something as simple as throwing yard debris over the line, maybe something larger like having a fence or a hedge that’s all or part on city land.

With so much Parks property in West Seattle, this could be a major issue, so we checked with Donald Harris, one of the Parks managers who will be at tomorrow’s meeting. He says this is something they heard from citizens on the advisory committee that put together the Park District levy approved by voters in 2014 – appreciation for acquisition but also, concern that the city isn’t fully using/appreciating what it already owns, so the levy included “encroachment removal” funding.

You’ll notice if you go through the slide deck above (or here) that the only West Seattle park mentioned is Schmitz Preserve Park. We asked Harris if that means they’re focusing on something major involving that park; he said no, but they will be looking at its boundary to see what’s happening around it. “We’re pretty methodical – we go out and do a survey to be sure we know where the boundary is.”

Overall, he said, the department “is looking to be a little more diligent in protecting the boundaries of parks where there are neighbors who might not have understood where the line is and gone over it.” If you’re interested in the topic, the briefing is scheduled during the committee’s 9:30 am Thursday meeting at City Hall; it’ll be live on Seattle Channel, seattlechannel.org or cable channel 21.

14 Replies to "Public land, unauthorized private use? City Council briefing tomorrow on 'park-encroachment removal'"

  • Joe Szilagyi March 16, 2016 (2:32 pm)

    This is the sort of thing that, to be honest, the city should be ruthless about. There was a lot of coverage about people gradually moving their fences along Cal Anderson deeper over time into the park and then making a big stink over it. Find it, cite it, make them rip it out at their cost or rip it out and bill them market rates if you must. 

  • chemist March 16, 2016 (2:50 pm)

    The pdf of the presentation, if you want to download it, is here \.

    • WSB March 16, 2016 (2:57 pm)

      yeah, thanks for catching my missed link, we were in transit. fixing now.

  • flimflam March 16, 2016 (4:49 pm)

    so what about the countless RV’s and tents set up on public land, or is that sort of question just not allowed?

    • captainDave March 16, 2016 (7:05 pm)

      I agree.  The City has other priorities that are more important that looking for ways to punish taxpayers right now.  I don’t agree with adjacent landowner encroachment on public land, but the time clock for adverse possession is not a driver because private individuals cannot adversely take public land.  The city should just deal with minor encroachments as they come up on a usage priority basis.  We don’t need another new division of jack-booted enforcers in this City.  

      Let’s first focus on making the parks safe from the rapidly increasing squaller of drug addict campers everywhere.  For the first time in my life, I experienced an attempted mugging while on my way to jury duty this morning.  The mayor needs to stop treating citizens like stupid milking cows and do his job to clean up the scum on the streets and parks!

    • KM March 16, 2016 (7:31 pm)

      A government that manages a large area such as Seattle should be able to address multiple issues at once. The Parks Department isn’t dealing with this instead of the RV issue on other public land, the city and its various departments should be able to deal with multiple issues at once. Should being the key word, of course. I’m not sure the Parks Department is involved in the homelessness issue per se, unless it is Seattle Park specific, but they have other items on their agenda to get done as well. Imagine if the city departments only did one thing at a time!

  • Loves Burien March 16, 2016 (7:01 pm)

    Flimflam, that is exactly my thought too.  While I’m not happy about a homeowner moving his fenceline back a few feet at the public’s expense, it seems to be an odd thing to focus on when there are camps that are creating tons, literally TONS of garbage and toxic waste on public property.  Drive down Myers way.  Many parcels owned by the City of Seattle with active “camping” – and by that I mean active garbage throwing / gathering / dumping, all on public land.  Oddly, this is South of the City of seattle but I looked it up, the city owns them.  Let’s focus some resources on that mess, not some misplaced shrubs and fencing.

    Yeesh!

  • old timer March 16, 2016 (7:40 pm)

    The picture that portrays a Magnolia ‘appearance of a private land extension’ looks very nice to me. 

    More of the City’s streets should look so good.

    I wonder what the City would replace it with?

    It’s a parking strip isn’t it?  

    I thought they wanted us to plant in them.

     

  • John March 16, 2016 (8:23 pm)

    Encroachment  has been a driving element for supporters and neighbors of the Orchard Street Ravine Park in Gatewood.   It is only parks and green spaces sharing property lines with private property owners that regularly get trees trimmed, encroached upon and dumped on.  Adjacent property owners, neighbors all,  ‘benefit’ from these encroachments and band together to protect their interests.  Encroachment is present in the Eddy Street Ravine, Schmitz Park, Fauntleroy Park and virtually all of our hillside Green Belts bordered by residences.

    Encroachment of public right-of-ways ( un-developed streets) is common as well with people going as far as erecting fences,  grading, building and cutting trees .

    The city even allows encroachers to maintain possession of and even build on public land for a small yearly fee!

    Currently there is no effective mechanism for dealing with property scoff-laws.   Surveys must be done to define areas, but survey markers often  disappear.

  • JulNJer March 16, 2016 (9:23 pm)

    To those saying Parks should focus on cleaning up public properties, removing criminals, and getting rid of homeless encampments: Seattle Parks Department is the department of PARKS. They’re not Seattle Police Department or Seattle Public Works or Seattle Anything But PARKS.  


    Now that that’s clear, it seems pretty reasonable for them to focus on a parks-related issue that negatively impacts the public they serve, don’t you think?

  • humanbeen March 16, 2016 (11:51 pm)

    Has anyone else noticed the massive tree removals within Schmitz Park near the 52nd street entrance ? Seems like encroachment or at the very least a likely exceptional tree removal. That thing has to be 100 years old, and is now laying in the park chopped down. 

  • Oakley34 March 26, 2016 (5:40 pm)

    I don’t understand why ‘encroachment removal funds’ should be part of any levy…shouldn’t those encroaching on city land foot the bill to square the situation?

Sorry, comment time is over.