The property owner’s perspective
Our efforts on behalf of the street-end have generated a series of letters this month from an attorney hired by the homeowner to the north.
As we have done for three years, we are sharing the most recent communication in its entirety. We take issue with much of the content, but we are making it available so that you, the community, can read it for yourselves.
I am writing to follow-up on my April 11 email, specifically with respect to inaccurate information that you or other representatives of Friends of Hidden Beach (FOHB) have been posting on the FOHB website and emailing to FOHB members. Spreading inaccurate information misleads the public and is distressing and harmful to [name redacted]. We request that FOHB correct the inaccuracies on its website and stop publishing inaccurate information related to the [name redacted] and the E. Harrison Street End.
As the current Steward of the E. Harrison Street End, you are in a position of responsibility and influence, working with the community and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). It is my understanding that your email blasts to the FOHB group go out to 150+ people. The information you post and email as a Steward reaches many people and has the sway to cause others to do and say things based on what you have told them.
As I have clarified before, the [name redacted] are not trying to privatize the E. Harrison Street End. Their home was built in 1952 and has always used a driveway in the E. Harrison Street End to access the home. The only use of the E. Harrison Street End that the [name redacted] are seeking is for a driveway to continue to be able to access their garage safely and legally, using far less of the E. Harrison Street End than at any other point in the last 72 years that the home has existed next door. The [name redacted] home is their “forever” home, and they genuinely want to be good neighbors to the E. Harrison Street End.
The [name redacted] proposed driveway does not interfere with the draft FOHB plans for the E. Harrison Street End and provides some of the improvements that FOHB wants in its plan at substantial cost to the [name redacted]. The [name redacted] provided this proposal to SDOT more than nine months ago in a good faith effort to work collaboratively with SDOT and not affect FOHB’s draft plan. Marty Oppenheimer, a leader of Friends of Street Ends (FOSE), has had this information since at least September 5, 2023 when Elizabeth emailed it to him.
Despite the [name redacted] efforts to accommodate the FOHB plan and be good neighbors, the FOHB website and email blasts villainize them with untruthful and misleading statements about their involvement in the E. Harrison Street End. The [name redacted] have felt the damaging effects of FOHB’s disinformation profoundly, with people making threats and negative statements against them.
In my April 11 email, I pointed out a few of the inaccuracies on FOHB’s website as I explained why it is important to the [name redacted] that I attend any meeting with FOHB to discuss these and other issues. Marty Oppenheimer, who you included on the email thread, responded to me using capitalized profanity and belittling me. I appreciate that you personally did not respond the same way and hope that we can have a constructive dialogue to correct the inaccurate information.
It appears that one of the inaccuracies I listed has since been corrected in the FOHB blog post “Copyright? More like copywrong . . . amirite?!” to correctly show that the quoted email was from Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (SDCI) – not SDOT as originally posted by FOHB. Thank you for making that correction. But the other inaccuracies noted in my April 11 email have not been changed on the FOHB website:
The FOHB March 29 blog post “Copyright? More like copywrong . . . amirite?!” still states: “The City has responded that survey is public once it’s submitted to the City, so we are free to include it in our application materials.” Again, that was not my read of SDCI’s email reply to my inquiry regarding the survey. SDCI said they could not find authority in the code for SDCI to remove the survey from the submitted documents. That does not mean FOHB is free to use the [name redacted] survey in application materials without the [name redacted] permission.
The FOHB website still states: “More recently we have seen new attempts to create additional encroachments that restrict the public’s right to use and enjoy it.” The [name redacted] have not sought any “additional encroachments”. Moreover, “encroachments” is a misleading phrase without accurate context. The [name redacted] are seeking to permit legal access to their home via a driveway. They are not asking for anything more than what has historically existed many decades. In fact, the limited portion of the right of way that they are asking to use for legal access to their home is a substantially smaller portion of the street end than what was used by prior owners over the last 70+ years, all while people frequented the SSE. This statement should be corrected.
The FOHB website still states regarding the temporary construction fence: “The current fences (under a separate permit) may be intended to groom the public land (and public opinion) with the future intent of permanently encroaching on public land.” As my April 11 email explained, this is not true – the [name redacted] do not intend to “groom the public land” or intend to “permanently encroach” on the street end. The construction fence is legally permitted, paid for, and there only during construction. It is not there to permanently encroach on public land, and this statement should be corrected.
The [name redacted] and I provided the examples above on April 11 not to be argumentative, but to show the importance of FOHB providing accurate information. I hoped that providing the examples would prompt a correction from FOHB. The lack of correction, especially in light of the correction that FOHB made to SDCI’s quoted email, suggests that FOHB is intentionally choosing not to make corrections despite the distress it is causing the [name redacted]. Please reconsider revising the statements above and the additional inaccuracies listed below:
The FOHB website titled “FenceWatch 2023TM” calls the area enclosed by the construction fencing a “Rarely Used Fenced Area”. To the contrary, the fenced area is being used for active construction, which SDOT permitted after considerable due diligence into what area is needed. SDOT’s most recent permit renewal shrank the square footage of the construction fencing because less area was needed for this stage of the construction. FOHB’s own pictures on the website show the area enclosed by the construction fence being used for construction materials, vehicles, and active construction work at different points in time, including recently. The fenced area is not “rarely used” and that reference should be corrected. For example, please see these photos from FOHB’s website:
The map for the “North Encroachment” included on the FOHB website is inaccurate. A screen shot of the map is shown below.
As explained above, the area labeled “chain link fence” on the map is a permitted, temporary construction fence. The area of that fence is considerably smaller than what is shown in yellow on the FOHB map and is not permanent. The same map also shows “unpermitted trees” trees in green. That area of the E. Harrison Street End is not an area that the [name redacted] are seeking to use in their driveway proposal. The [name redacted] did not plant those trees. According to your August 13, 2023 email blast to FOHB and blog post, SDCI “does not agree with the need to remove” the trees. The FOHB website map should be updated to reflect the actual area of the temporary construction fencing (with that appropriate label, not “chain link fence”) and to remove the area shaded for “unpermitted trees”. The FOHB map is misleading about what is currently there and the driveway that the [name redacted] propose for accessing their home, which is smaller than the “chain link fence” area.
The FOHB website states, related to the [name redacted] property: “Unpermitted trees were installed on public property over the past few years. Our plan may incorporate some of these trees.” The [name redacted] purchased their home in 2021 and did not install any trees on public property. The representation that trees were “installed on public property over the past few years” is inaccurate and should be corrected. SDOT told the [name redacted] that they are responsible for maintaining the trees, even though they did not plant them, which the [name redacted] have done even though they do not agree they are responsible for maintaining trees they did not plant. People have tried to damage these trees by pushing them over after FOHB’s posts and email blasts about the trees.
The FOHB website states: “Long Before Encroachments . . . it was simply a public beach.”
For 72 years, since the home was built in 1952, the [name redacted] home has been accessed from the E. Harrison Street End. What is called the “driveway” is just a portion of the street used for street purposes. This portion of the street that the [name redacted] are currently seeking to use for access to their home is considerably smaller and takes up less of the E. Harrison Street End than the driveway and landscaping that has existed for over seven decades – all while people accessed and used the E. Harrison Street End, as shown in a photo from 1975 on FOHB’s website.
The E. Harrison Street End is not a “beach” – it is a “Shoreline Street End”. Shoreline Street Ends are defined by the Seattle Municipal Code as “the land portions of street segments that provide or could provide if improved, the public with visual or physical access to a body of water and its shoreline that are listed in Exhibit A to Resolution 29370 that adopted policies guiding the development of public access improvements to shoreline street ends.” SMC 15.02.046.O. The E. Harrison Street End includes a shoreline regulated by Seattle’s Shoreline Management Program. Part of the shoreline is also mapped as an Environmentally Critical Area Wetland, as shown in green on this screenshot of SDCI’s GIS map:
The E. Harrison Street End is subject to regulations under the Seattle Municipal Code and the City’s Shoreline Management Plan. Not all uses are allowed, and there are processes in the code that everyone must follow to permit certain uses. Calling the E. Harrison Shoreline Street End a “beach” is a misnomer that ignores the regulations that exist to ensure that these areas are protected both for public recreation and the environment. FOHB has ignored the critical area designation until recently, when SDCI required FOHB to account for the mapped critical area in the permitting process for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Inaccurate information disseminated by FOHB and you as the Steward of the E. Harrison Street End, such as the examples above, unfairly vilifies the [name redacted]. Based on the content of the FOHB website and email blasts, it seems that a fundamental strategy of FOHB is to wield its influence in a divisive way that ostracizes the neighbors of the E. Harrison Street End and has made the [name redacted] a target for hostility. This is not helpful to the E. Harrison Street End or the broader neighborhood community.
The [name redacted] have lived peacefully in their community for decades, yet now feel uncomfortable in their own home because of FOHB’s public animosity toward them. All they want is to safely access their home and ensure that the E. Harrison Street End is used and cared for in a manner that is consistent with the regulations that the public put in place to protect it. The [name redacted] are committed to working with the community to sustainably care for the E. Harrison Street End for the benefit of all members of the public.
Disinformation is harmful to both the [name redacted] and the public. On behalf of Elizabeth and Jonathan [name redacted], who are your neighbors and fellow community members, please correct the inaccurate information on the FOHB website and in your email blasts to FOHB and stop posting and emailing inaccurate information in the future. If there are facts or information that you feel you are missing or you need clarification on, please do not hesitate to reach out to me or the [name redacted]. We are here to address questions and provide good information to avoid the continuation of this harm in the future.
Respectfully,
Jacquie
Jacquie Quarré
Tharsis Law P.S.
