| |
My
View
Van Eaton Park
almost a Done Deal in February?
Yes, If the Mayor
Had His Way...
by Dixie A. Walter
May 30, 2005
The
Steve Van Cleve Writ of Mandamus filed in Pierce County Superior Court
May 6 has put a hold on the sale of
small, but beautiful Van Eaton Park. But if Mayor Bruce Rath had his way
the park would have been sold in mid-February. He didn't have his way
and the park remains "for sale" but unsold.
The park may be unsold but is there a buyer?
Perhaps someone who has made the deal with the mayor, perhaps
someone who has already put earnest money down to hold the controversial
piece of land.
The Van Cleve Writ has brought to light how
Eatonville Mayor Bruce Rath does business, how he operates behind
the scenes. I have before me a twelve-page, binding, legal document,
signed, initialed numerous times by Mayor Bruce Rath and dated February
16, 2005.
This document records the fact that on
February 16 Rath put $2000 earnest money
on the Mashell Avenue Terry
Van Eaton property - the property some feel should be a town
square, while others think it's a terrible idea to sell one lovely park
property for a not-so-lovely "park" property.
Not one to be hindered by proper public
procedures, this mayor decided in mid-February that he, I guess thinking
he is the
town, was selling Van Eaton Park and buying the Terry Van Eaton
property. And if you don't like it, too bad. Whatever Rath wants Rath
gets. Or at least that's the impression given. So confident was he that
he used town money to hold the Mashell Avenue property until he could
finish the sale of the little park. This may or may not be illegal, but
it's sneaky to say the very least. And violating the public trust. There
were citizens who actually thought this whole Van Eaton Park situation
was going to be carried out in a fair and honest manner. Not too likely
around here these days.
Maneuverings
Done in the Shadows...
All of these maneuverings were done in the shadows, without council
approval and twelve days before
the first open, public discussion about
the proposed sale of the park. Don't you wonder why business is done in
the shadows? I can only think of one reason. It's hard to see the
business when it's cloaked in darkness. In Eatonville the mayor may
spend $2000 without council approval. However, this $2000 in earnest
money is contingent
upon the sale of Van Eaton Park. And the mayor cannot spend one hundred
and sixty five thousand dollars without council approval.
This means the mayor, behind closed doors, weeks
before citizens even knew the little
park was in danger, committed the
town to sell the park and use the money, or part of it, to buy the
Mashell Avenue Van Eaton property.
This was six weeks prior
to the council vote declaring
the land surplus and to sell it. These actions didn't
take place until March 28 and just three councilmen voted to sell.
Very early in April I heard a rumor about earnest money being put down
on the Mashell Avenue property. I made two phone calls to owner
Terry Van Eaton, both times leaving phone messages stating I had heard
this rumor and giving him a chance to confirm, deny, or say "no
comment." These calls were not returned which left me even more
curious. My curiosity has been satisfied.
Yes, the deal was
in the works, and once we knew this for
certain other questions were answered. The most
important
one being, "Why the rush to push the sale of Van Eaton Park?"
"What is the need for speed?" ENN has asked that question a
number of times over the past few months.
Now We Know Why
Speed Was of the Essence...
Now we know why speed was of the essence throughout this whole arrangement.
The earnest money deadline is June 30 or "sooner." Is the
murky picture becoming clearer? Six weeks before the councilmen made the
decision to surplus, and sell, the land, our honorable mayor gambled
with $2000 of your tax money to secure the right to buy another piece of
land, contingent upon a sale which publicly had not even been discussed,
much less approved by your elected representatives.
And all of this hinged on getting the
sale of the park a done deal before June 30. Now let's see, that means someone
was/is apparently lined up to buy Van Eaton Park. Lined up, and ready to
spend the money so the money can be quickly transferred to Terry Van
Eaton before the
earnest money deadline. If this doesn't happen the way Rath calculated,
citizens then lose $2000. This could happen, because June 30 is only one
month away from today, and there is a whole lot of movement happening
vis-a-vis the Van Cleve Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court.
On
February 27 I wrote
in an opinion piece, "I
could be totally wrong, but I believe the sale of this land is 'wired.'
In other words, it's supposedly a done deal with
some anonymous buyer behind the curtain..." Don't pay any
attention to the man behind the curtain, says the "Wizard" in
the Land of Oz."
Well, this isn't Oz and the man behind the
curtain looks more and more like developer Jerry Nybo. Rumors have
been floating about town in the past week that Nybo bought the little
park. Maybe he will, but the park cannot be sold without council
approval, and that hasn't happened. So, if the park is eventually able
to be sold, Nybo may be the man waiting behind the curtain to snap it
up.
My statement that the sale of
Van Eaton Park may have been wired hit a nerve with a few people who promptly
went to the hard copy Eatonville newspaper to attack me...except they
can't get it right. One of these people is the mayor's wife, who said,
in an editorial March 16, that I have "done nothing but tell
half-truths..." I'm assuming she knew of the earnest money
agreement. But that's just an assumption. For some reason she gave an
apparent frightened display when her husband was served the Writ of
Mandamus during the April 9 council meeting.
Not to be outdone by Mrs. Mayor, Dispatch
publisher Mike Jeffries piled on some more insults in his April 6, editorial,
maintaining I said, "'The mayor and the town council are lining
their pockets in deals with contractors...the same source who has
claimed that the park has already been sold." He didn't use my name
but we all know he was accusing me. And his accusations are all false.
Absolute
Malarkey...
Absolute malarkey. I never said anything remotely close to this. I don't
believe the town council is
lining its pockets in deals
with contractors. If it didn't occur to me, why would I say it? And even
though I did not claim the park has already been sold...I'm not so sure
there isn't a deal under the table.
Then
on May 25 the mayor's in-laws, in a diatribe against a letter to the
editor writer, asked, "...
Have you been reading a website that does nothing but criticize the town
administration?" For some reason I just had the feeling they might
have been talking about ENN. That's a pretty broad statement, as ENN
does a lot more than criticize this administration. But when criticism
is called for in governments, large and small, I certainly am not going
to sit back and become part of the problem in my home town.
I have been lumped into a
category called "The meaner side of Eatonville" by Publisher
Jeffries. If mean indicates a responsibility to tell ENN readers the
truth, and not be intimidated by the outright lies and dirty innuendoes
thrown at me, then you bet I'm mean. And I'm going to stay mean until
this administration either cleans up its act or gets out.
Weeks ago Steve Van Cleve spoke
to Mayor Bruce Rath and said he would drop the lawsuit if Rath would save
the little park. Rath said there is no park and refused to discuss
settling the matter out of court. This begs the question: How much tax
money is this mayor willing to spend on lawyer fees, just so he can get
what he wants as he attempts to save face.
I'm not the only one in
this community who is sick, tired and fed up with being played a fool by
a few people who use slick tricks, and back room deals, to get what
they believe is best for us. Our community is not a toy for a handful of
people to play with. Those are the ones who want citizens kept in the
dark and can't stand it when they question the powers-that-be.
We want open, honest government
and elected officials who are held accountable. Maybe that's a radical idea
in the minds of some. But I don't think that's too much for any citizen
to ask. Do you?
Back
to Top
Back to Front Page
My
View...
Van
Eaton Park: More Than Just a Mountain View...
%20(OP%203%20Use)%20FEB.%2018,%202005.jpg)
(photo by Dixie A. Walter)
February 27, 2005: The view
of Mount Rainier from Van Eaton Park is spectacular, perhaps the most stunning
in Eatonville. However, there is a plan afoot to sell the little park.
If the park is sold to a developer approximately a dozen homes could
be built on dangerous ground. Concerned citizens are gathering
signatures on a petition to keep the park pristine.
The mountain view, while awesome, isn't
the major factor in the endeavor to keep the park as it is. The biggest
issue is safety. But it appears those in charge of the lives of
Eatonville's citizens aren't really that interested in the safety of
those who may buy houses on dangerous ground. Some areas of Eatonville
are located on land that could move, with or without, human intervention.
And there is already a major development, Hamner Springs/Rath
Addition, being built on another mapped hazardous landslide area.
One interesting aspect of this tempest is
that the Van Eaton family has, for decades, rallied round to protect this
small, but lovely park. Yet today, the frenzy to sell the park all
hinges on the fact that the mayor wants to take the money from the
sale of Van Eaton Park and give it to Terry Van Eaton to buy the empty
car lot across from the Tall Timber. This, some dream, will become a
"town square."
Others think a town square should be on
Center Street where the tourists will be beckoned to stop, relax and
spend money in town. A "park/town square" would be higher maintenance
than the Van Eaton Park, and would need some extra funds to plant
grass and landscape the place. Then, of course, there's always the
hidden fees of whichever consultant gets the contract to
"build" a town square. There certainly is a lot to think
about it.
It's
Also Damned Dangerous!
Hello, is Anybody in Charge, or
is a Disaster Mandatory?
.jpg)
(photo by Dixie A. Walter)
Look over the edge, past the surveyor's stake.
Is it evident in the photograph that the edge of Van Eaton Park
drops down a long, long way. Disturbance of the land in this hazard
area could result in a landslide which would likely dump tons of dirt,
and boulders, on Rainier Avenue South below the cliff. For a point of
reference the Eatonville Town Hall is on the corner of Rainier Avenue
South and Center Street. This doesn't mean the town hall would be
buried by a landslide. But it doesn't mean the town hall is completely
exempt from a slide either.
Erosion, rainfall, deforestation and development
can separately, or together, contribute to a perilous, and perhaps,
deadly slide. According to national experts even minor
"triggers" can start a massive landslide. Slides can move as
fast as 200 miles per hour or so slowly the human eye can't perceive
it in the beginning. Some indicators of this type of landslide are
tilting trees and cracks in sidewalks and foundations. After a slide
event the danger can remain for months.
In the late 1980s a landslide happened below
this lovely setting. About 200 yards of earth fell at that time. Van
Eaton Nutley, a civil engineer, offered his expertise to assist in
keeping the land at bay. Family members pitched in to help the
homeowners by building a concrete wall and back filling with quarry
rock.
For a map showing the hazardous areas in
Eatonville please see Danger
Map
Can
We Protect What's Left of our Mountain Greenery?
%20(OP%203%20Use)%20FEB.%2018,%202005.jpg)
(photo by Dixie A. Walter)
A little bit of the green space facing Orchard Avenue South, the
street you see in the upper left of this photo.
The mayor wants to sell this land so badly he can taste it. It remains
to be seen if a majority of the council approves the sale Monday
night. Homeowners on Orchard will lose their magnificent of Mount
Rainer, the "most dangerous" sleeping volcano.
But more importantly the families living near
the Van Eaton Park will always be concerned, and stressed, about
the very real consequences of a landslide which won't hurt them,
but could certainly hurt their "new" neighbors. Once the
land is sold it's gone forever. And that is also the sentiment of the
late John Van Eaton, son of town founder Thomas Cobb Van Eaton, and
John's late brother Bob Van Eaton who rallied in 1976 to keep part of
their father's "vision" of a few town parks alive.
I have heard, over and over again, that this is
a moral issue. And at first I'm thinking, I don't know why blocking
someone's view of a huge snow-covered rock would fall into the moral
issue category. Then I got a clue. Of course there is a moral issue
here. Who would sell land that is on a dangerous landslide area for
development? And why? I wouldn't, would you, if you knew there was a
very real possibility that someone could be seriously injured or killed
because of your actions?
Of course that is going on the premise that the
land will be sold to a developer. Maybe I'm way off base and the
land will be sold to a benevolent person who wants to preserve green
space, keep a magnificent view of the mountain and prevent dangerous
development on the site. Maybe I'm way off base. But I think not. The
Pierce County Assessor's Web site assesses the parcel in question at
$57,600.
To view the parcel on the assessor's site
please see Pierce
County Assessor-Treasurer ePIP
Another
View of the Edge
.jpg)
(photo by Dixie A. Walter)
Even a little distance from the edge doesn't make the land more
attractive for development, if that's who is going
to buy the pretty but dangerous piece of land. The parcel in question
is closer to Orchard Avenue South, but still not a good place to build
a home, or multiple homes. It's the rare homeowners insurance which
doesn't exclude "Earth movement, meaning: earthquake, landslide,
mudflow, earth sinking, shifting or contracting, all whether combined
with water or not, or mudslide, sinkhole, subsidence, erosion or
movement resulting from improper compaction, site selection or any
other external forces or flood or tidal wave; gaseous emission or acid
rain..."
One wonders how people who build, or buy homes, in
mapped dangerous places rebuild without financial protection - the
recent landslides in California should stand as a lesson to everyone
who builds on risky sites. If houses, garages, driveways, etc. were to
be built what would the town/developer do with increased storm water
accumulation to prevent water from causing further erosion and risk of
landslides? Then there is the question of traffic and the small,
twisting road which serves the Hilltop area.
Why
is it So Tantalizing to Obsess on Selling that Little Van Eaton Park?
by Dixie A. Walter
February 27, 2005
It's been tried twice
before, but didn't succeed. However, it appears the Bruce Rath
administration is determined
to do what two mayors, including the legendary George Smallwood, could
not do. And that is to sell the deceptively bucolic, small piece of
land high on the hill known as Van Eaton Park. I say
"deceptive" because the place is serene, green, quiet, has a
breathtaking view of Mount
Rainer and is as dangerous as a cobra without the fangs removed.
Approximately six years ago under the regime of
then Mayor Cliff Murphy another attempt to sell the pretty spot
died in the planning commission according to a local citizen who
recently fulfilled his term on the commission.
The area is not a place the average person would
even think
about developing - if
they know the dangers. And if
I was a developer I would know the dangers. And I would want to
keep as far away as possible, from building on ground that could shift at any
time.
Of course, someone could buy the little green
belt without developing it for residential homes. Some philanthropic
person, or persons, could purchase that enchanting spot and keep it as
a park in perpetuity - and this issue would become a non-issue.
I really doubt that's going to happen. The
pretty, little space is zoned residential according to the Pierce
County Assessor's Web site. So that means homes could be built on that
appealing land. But perhaps with dire consequences.
However, "the town" has made big
mistakes in the past, continues to do so, and seems to be chafing at
the bit to make another doozy of a dangerous blunder. I
could be totally wrong, but I believe the sale of this land is
"wired." In other words, it's supposedly a done deal with
some anonymous buyer behind the curtain stage right waiting to make
his entrance in the little play whose plot is get the bucks while you
can. And who cares if someone loses a house, a limb or a life? Just as long as it doesn't happen tomorrow, it apparently won't
happen, ever. Too many ostriches.
But, it's
a small town, and eventually we will know who the buyer is/was, and
who is responsible when/if there is an event which results in a
tragedy.
It's an odd, but typically small town phenomenon
- Off and on since 1976, different mayors have tried to get rid of
that land. On one occasion, recorded in the Dispatch, the
situation became so contrary the mayor, George Smallwood, pulled a
power trip during a council study session, kicked out Linda Feldtman,
then editor of the paper, because the mayor didn't like the facts she
was publishing about the endeavor to sell the slender strip of
greenery.
And in order to maintain a funky appearance of
fairness, actually unfairness, other members of the public were
also expelled from the public meeting. It's hard to count the
local, state and federal laws broken that night. But, hey, some council
members weren't happy with the editor's reporting of the attempt to
sell the Van Eaton park, or of any reporting which some of the council
at that time were trying to keep from the public.
One must find some amusement in those long ago actions,
and I would like to think it only happened because it was long
ago. Nope. I have tape recordings of one councilmember in particular
who has said, off and on through the years, that he didn't want the
public, or me, to attend sub-committee meetings because he doesn't
want you, the public, to know what the council is doing. He often said,
and I'm paraphrasing, "...When the public comes in that's when things get
sticky." However, he always hastened to add, "Just kidding."
But you know he wasn't/isn't.
Back to Front Page
|
|
|
|
