Written by 
Coulon Park over-water trail; the Muckleshoot Tribe has sent a letter saying they would like Renton to reduce these
In the audience comment section of tonight’s council meeting we heard from several speakers with property on Lake Washington. The three speakers, and an attorney representing others, all spoke to their concerns that the Shoreline Master Plan is too restrictive. This was similar to inputs we received at earlier council meetings, as I described here.
On the other side of this issue, we heard today from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, which feels our Shoreline Master Plan allows docks which are too large, does not do enough to restore the shoreline and vegetation around the lake, and comes up short in other areas.
You can read their letter by clicking here . This letter is an important one, because old treaties and recent case law give the Muckleshoot Tribe a co-trustee role when managing our fish and waterways.
The controversy is really brewing on this topic. The Muckleshoot Letter arrived the same day that we received a hand-delivered letter from David Halinen Law Offices, who is representing AnMarCo, the owner of the old Stoneway Concrete and Gravel site on Cedar River (Next to the Henry Moses Pool). Mr. Halinen expressed concern that the Shoreline Master Plan could force his client to remove the concrete Cedar River bulkhead on this site, opening the door to river erosion and loss of some –or even most– of the old Stoneway property.
Mr. Halinen also attached a copy of a five-page listing of concerns from a group called the “Renton Shoreline Coalition,” dated May 11. This list captured many of the concerns we had heard in chambers from citizens attending our council meetings.
In many areas of this plan, I feel a little like a referee. The city of Renton is trying to find some common ground between the interests of State Department of Ecology and the Muckleshoots on the one hand, versus Renton property owners on the other. And note that property owners are not all private; property owners include all of us, the Renton public, as we own Coulon Park, Kennydale Beach Park, the Airport, and much property along the Cedar River.
A privately-owned, publicly accessible waterfront trail graces the entire frontage of Southport, from Coulon Park to the Boeing factory. Here, Renton residents are queued for a Waterways Cruise, which departs from Southport’s dock.
While normally we referee, I found myself feeling disagreement with both the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Renton Shoreline Coalition on one point this evening. The Muckleshoot Tribe says in their letter that we need to work to reduce our over-water trails (like we have at Coulon Park). But these trails are used by tens of thousands of residents each year to get their best views and enjoyment of the lake. Trail users include members of the community who often don’t have access to boats or private docks, and yet deserve access to Lake Washington. Some visitors also have mobility issues, making our ADA accessible water walks extremely valuable for ensuring all members of society can enjoy the lake. Meanwhile, the Renton Shoreline Coalition has taken issue with the Shoreline Master Plan giving priority to lakefront development projects which create more public access (like Southport did). In their issue paper they state “the shoreline Guidelines in WAC 173-26-221(4) do not require that new private shoreline development provide physical and/or visual public access for the general public.” So, on this point it feels like both the Muckleshoots and the Renton Shoreline Coalition are unreasonably lowering the importance of public access. And I disagree with both their positions on this. And while they have property rights (in the case of private property owners) and treaties (in the case of the Muckleshoots) dating back to the nineteenth century on their side, we in the general public have something dating back to the Magna Carta on our side– the Public Trust Doctrine.
In short, the Public Trust Doctrine comes from ancient English law, and dictates that certain resources (including waterways) belong to all the people. Every state in our nation recognizes the Public Trust Doctrine, and courts across the county have been increasing public access under it’s provisions. I’ll discuss it in greater detail in another blog. But in the meantime, suffice it to say that I understand the right of the inhabitants of our region to have good access to Lake Washington is of greater importance and is more-strongly rooted in older laws than any private property rights bestowed by our state, or any treaties between the federal government and the Muckleshoot Tribe.
Keep checking back for more blogs about the Shoreline Master Plan.
Sounds like a fun part of the job of City Councilmember. :>)
Sounds like a fun part of the job of City Councilmember. :>)
Randy, the only time you need to referee is when both parties have good points – in this case only the citizens have a valid viewpoint.
Thanks for sticking up for the citizens.
…
The Public Trust doctrine goes back to 5th century Justinian Code – “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.”
Washington state foolishly sold tide-lands to private individuals in the 1950’s – it’s been a real pain in the ass when jerks start putting “No Trespassing” signs on the beach. I’ve ignored them. While no case law has been set – it’s generally held that the Public Trust Doctrine would prevail.
The rest of the council should ignore those idiots. Greedy tribes and greedy landowners shouldn’t get to trump the rights of the people.
This is scary, I think we found something that RentonBen and I agree about. 🙂
This is scary, I think we found something that RentonBen and I agree about. 🙂
Thank you for posting that! “Washington state foolishly sold tide-lands to private individuals in the 1950’s” I have seen some of the sweetest, nicest people (think young kids, foreign exchange students, and elderly folks) yelled at and chased off of “private” beaches (adjacent to public parks no less!) simply for walking on them. Even when their own family owns property on that “private” beach! The ONLY thing that “ownership” should be grounds for is keeping people away who are truly destructive or dangerous.
Thank you for posting that! “Washington state foolishly sold tide-lands to private individuals in the 1950’s” I have seen some of the sweetest, nicest people (think young kids, foreign exchange students, and elderly folks) yelled at and chased off of “private” beaches (adjacent to public parks no less!) simply for walking on them. Even when their own family owns property on that “private” beach! The ONLY thing that “ownership” should be grounds for is keeping people away who are truly destructive or dangerous.
Randy, the only time you need to referee is when both parties have good points – in this case only the citizens have a valid viewpoint.
Thanks for sticking up for the citizens.
…
The Public Trust doctrine goes back to 5th century Justinian Code – “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitations, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.”
Washington state foolishly sold tide-lands to private individuals in the 1950’s – it’s been a real pain in the ass when jerks start putting “No Trespassing” signs on the beach. I’ve ignored them. While no case law has been set – it’s generally held that the Public Trust Doctrine would prevail.
The rest of the council should ignore those idiots. Greedy tribes and greedy landowners shouldn’t get to trump the rights of the people.
The Muckleshoots seem to think that rivers and lakes are just for salmon, and use their fallacious thinking to bludgeon others to do what they want.
From their document: “Piers and docks provide habitat for known salmonid predators.”
…
As anybody that’s done any hiking in nature can tell you that lakes and ponds usually have lots of dead trees on the shorelines.
Perhaps we need MORE docks and overland trails to simulate these natural features.
The Muckleshoots seem to think that rivers and lakes are just for salmon, and use their fallacious thinking to bludgeon others to do what they want.
From their document: “Piers and docks provide habitat for known salmonid predators.”
…
As anybody that’s done any hiking in nature can tell you that lakes and ponds usually have lots of dead trees on the shorelines.
Perhaps we need MORE docks and overland trails to simulate these natural features.
Good! Thank you for protecting public access! I am always in favor of protecting natural resources, but just like building roads and boardwalks in national parks and the rain forest, if no one can see and enjoy it, it’s much less likely to stay protected. And I CERTAINLY don’t think that only people that can afford million-dollar homes should get to enjoy waterfront. Thanks to Southport for opening up that waterfront for everyone!
Good! Thank you for protecting public access! I am always in favor of protecting natural resources, but just like building roads and boardwalks in national parks and the rain forest, if no one can see and enjoy it, it’s much less likely to stay protected. And I CERTAINLY don’t think that only people that can afford million-dollar homes should get to enjoy waterfront. Thanks to Southport for opening up that waterfront for everyone!
Randy, one major point of the treaties between tribes and the federal government was to cement the point that the history of Europeans is not theirs. They are free to choose their own path based on their own legacy. Even if you don’t agree with it.
Those tribes are well aware of what gentlemen agreements with the local townsfolk lead to. They sought better.
Sorry, by “you’, I meant me, you, Americans, non-Indians. I didn’t mean it to sound personal.
Sorry, by “you’, I meant me, you, Americans, non-Indians. I didn’t mean it to sound personal.
I’d think it would be awesome if the tribes acted like their forbearers! I’d be a good thing to have them start raiding parties to enslave some of our weaker citizens! Toughen us up a bit!
I’d think it would be awesome if the tribes acted like their forbearers! I’d be a good thing to have them start raiding parties to enslave some of our weaker citizens! Toughen us up a bit!
Randy, one major point of the treaties between tribes and the federal government was to cement the point that the history of Europeans is not theirs. They are free to choose their own path based on their own legacy. Even if you don’t agree with it.
Those tribes are well aware of what gentlemen agreements with the local townsfolk lead to. They sought better.