EatonvilleNews

Injunction Motion Against Sale of Van Eaton Park Filed

by Dixie A. Walter
July 15, 2005

     A motion for an injunction to halt the sale of the small Van Eaton Park was filed yesterday in Pierce County Superior Court by William Wright, attorney for Steve Van Cleve. According to Wright, Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo is scheduled to hear the motion Friday, July 22. The basis for the motion, as Wright told ENN, is that he and Van Cleve contend the "entire sale is illegal."
     The injunction is like a restraining order, Wright explained, and said it will be heard before the Declaratory Judgment to determine the validity of Resolution 2005-O. The resolution declared the park land surplus and authorized sale of the land. The highly controversial resolution was passed three to one by the town council March 28. Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted against the resolution and Councilmember Chelan Van Eaton Jarrett recused herself from the issue.
     Wright also explained, "If the judge enjoins the town from selling the park and the town goes ahead with the sale the town will be in contempt of court and it will be up to the judge to decide what action to take."The Van Cleve lawsuit had two parts, a Writ of Mandamus and the Declaratory Judgment. Judge Armijo declined to issue the Writ saying administrative remedies had not been exhausted yet.
     However, as Wright pointed out, the Declaratory Judgment part of the suit is "alive and kicking." The hearing on the judgment hasn't yet been scheduled. For more information about the Van Cleve lawsuit please see Van Cleve Suit - For more information about Van Eaton Park please see Park

Van Cleve Lawsuit Update...

by Dixie A. Walter
July 5, 2005

     It appears there are some misconceptions about the suit filed in Superior Court by Steve Van Cleve. The suit, to prevent the sale of Van Eaton Park, is not dead; in fact, presently it is very much alive, or, according to Town Attorney Bob Mack, the suit is "pending" and could "go to trial." This was Mack's answer to Councilmember Waylan Jumper during the June 27 council meeting.
    Mack's answer was prompted by Jumper's question about the sale of Van Eaton Park to generate money to buy Terry Van Eaton's property for a "town square" on Mashell Avenue. *Jumper asked when the park could be sold and Mack said he didn't know because of the "pending" Van Cleve suit.
     The Van Cleve suit consisted of two parts, the Writ of Mandamus and a declaratory judgment, which declares what rights each party in a dispute should have. The declaratory judgment has not been acted upon yet by Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo. William Wright, attorney for Van Cleve, explained that while the Writ was dismissed by the judge, the declaratory judgment was not affected by the dismissal.
      When he dismissed the Writ, Judge Armijo did not say the case had no merit, but that all administrative avenues had not yet been exhausted. He advised concerned citizens to "lobby" the town council, asking them not to sell the park. Chuck McTee stood at the last council meeting and once more asked the council to refrain from selling the park. McTee also made a suggestion to put the sale of the park on the fall ballot, and let citizens of the community make the decision about whether or not to sell the little park. This suggestion fell on deaf ears.
     Jackie Parnell, a direct descendent and granddaughter of Thomas Cobb Van Eaton, town founder, made a declaration June 22 in support of the suit to prevent sale of Van Eaton Park. Court papers show her declaration states, "Title to Van Eaton Park was transferred to the Town of Eatonville with the express understanding that it would be held as a park for the citizens of Eatonville. It is my understanding and belief that my grandfather, T. C. Van Eaton intended that Van Eaton Park be dedicated to the citizens of Eatonville in perpetuity for park use."
     The next court date for the Van Cleve suit is scheduled for July 15. Court dates are subject to last minute changes.

   * The issue of buying the Van Eaton property on Mashell Avenue was brought before the town council June 27. Councilmember Jumper had concerns about committing to buy one piece of property while the sale of another to pay for it has been stalled by the Van Cleve suit. Councilmember Bobbi Allison had the same concerns; she also voiced her worry that the Mashell Avenue property is not particularly the people's choice for a town square.
    Allison and Jumper voted against buying the Mashell Avenue property, Councilmembers Ray Harper and Mike Gallagher voted for buying the property, thus creating a tie which was broken in favor of the purchase by council-appointed Mayor Bruce Rath. The question being asked is, where will the town get the money to buy the Mashell Avenue property if Van Eaton Park cannot be sold?

Yep, the "Town" Purchased Mashell Avenue Land...

by Dixie A. Walter
July 5, 2005

     Eatonville Mayor Bruce Rath announced, during the planning commission meeting July 5, the Terry Van Eaton land on Mashell Avenue was bought. "Not the asphalt part, but the gravel part." Rath basically said the purchase was signed, sealed and "recorded."
     This land may be "dedicated" as a park (or "town square). The use of the property has never been explained publicly. However, in a public records request made a couple of weeks ago ENN sought the dedication documents of all town parks. This request included Nevitt Park (Welcome Point), Glacier View Park (think Art Festival), Smallwood Park (think Kid's Pond), and Alder Street Park.
     A letter from Town Clerk Carrie Lynn Loffelmacher said there were no documents of dedication for the parks being researched. In a conversation with Rath at town hall late last week, he said the Alder Street/Mill Pond Park was the only one "dedicated."

Van Cleve Writ Dismissed
"Back to Square One" Says Van Cleve...

by Dixie A. Walter
June 24, 2005

     Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo on Friday dismissed the Writ of Mandamus filed by local citizen Steve Van Cleve. The Writ was filed May 6 in Pierce County Superior Court in an attempt to halt the sale of Van Eaton Park to raise money for the town. Some of the money is slated to buy Terry Van Eaton's property on Mashell Avenue for a "town square" although that matter has not been brought before the town council or officially stated.
     In a nutshell the judge's ruling was in the exhaustion of remedies doctrine category. In other words, he explained that all administrative remedies within the town had not thus far been exhausted because the entire chain-of-command had not been completed within the town government. A Writ of Mandamus, or Writ of Mandate, "Orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so."
    Basically the judge's ruling said the question of selling the park land had not yet been answered as the town's Draft Comprehensive Plan hasn't been adopted. Among other issues, the comp plan covers parks and recreation. The attorney representing the town, Edward Hudson, argued that the sale of Van Eaton Park can't go forward until the comp plan is amended. That amendment would strip the small, three-acre park from the comp plan, freeing the land, declared "surplus" by three councilmen, for completion of the sale, which is already in progress.
     Judge Armijo did not say the case was without merit. His ruling was strictly on the procedural issue. William Wright, attorney for Van Cleve, said once the comp plan has been amended, "...we can go right back and file again." Van Cleve, a commercial pilot, was not able to attend the court proceedings. Reached by phone in Los Angeles, Van Cleve said it was "back to square one." He has several avenues to consider - appeal the judge's ruling, file a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) appeal, or file a new lawsuit after the comp plan is adopted by the town with an amendment to remove the park.
      Wright, a land use attorney, said in his opinion the ruling doesn't mean the town can sell the park. He suggested concerned citizens attend the next council meeting and urge the council to refrain from selling the park. "Nothing changes our resolve," he added.
      At the next council meeting there will be a public hearing starting at 7 p.m. for citizen input into the draft comprehensive plan. If a motion is made to amend the plan, it will have to be acted on before the public hearing is conducted. Although the public hearing was publicized as little as legally possible, and left out of the preliminary town agenda, proponents and opponents of the park sale and other issues covered by the comp plan are encouraged to attend the meeting to voice their opinions.
      At present the Comprehensive Plan under which the town is supposed to operate dates back to December 1993. The public hearing June 27 is the first council step toward adopting the updated plan.
      Purchase of the Terry Van Eaton property is on the council agenda. Please see below for more information regarding the public hearing and other business of the town council.

A New Lawsuit Against Town

May 10, 2005

    At the beginning of the regular Eatonville Town Council meeting May 9, Mayor Bruce Rath was served by a Summons to Superior Court by Joe Price, this was notice that a suit has been filed against the town in Pierce County Superior Court. The suit was filed Friday, May 6 by local citizen Steve Van Cleve regarding the alleged illegal actions by council members who voted to sell Van Eaton Park. One council member, Chelan Van Eaton Jarrett, recused herself, and Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted "No" on Resolution 2005-O. The resolution declared the small park surplus land and authorized the sale of the land.
      Numerous citizens spoke against sale of the park for various reasons, largely that the land is in a mapped hazardous landslide area and is unfit for housing. One hundred plus citizens signed a petition asking the council to save the park.
      The suit is in the form of a Writ of Mandamus, or Writ of Mandate, which "orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so." This suit follows another suit filed March 22 by Chuck Chappell claiming he was "discharged without cause" from the town.
      Van Cleve, a lifetime resident of Eatonville, addressed the council with his concerns. Please see excerpt from the meeting below:

Joe Price: "Good evening, my name is Joseph Price and I have a statement." (Price then walks to the mayor and hands him court papers, thanks the council and goes back to his seat.)

Steve Van Cleve: "Now you probably want to know what that piece of paper was, that was just handed to Mayor Rath…actually, he was just served.
"On March 28, this council passed Resolution 2005-O. On March 29, several citizens, including myself, filed a Petition for Review, (this was the Van Eaton Park sale), seeking to invalidate 2005-O based on the following RCWs [Revised Code of Washington] that the town violated by passing this resolution."

Van Cleve then read a lengthy list of RCWs the suit alleges were violated.

      "The hearing regarding this petition for review is scheduled for August 18. Despite this pending legal action the town continued with the sale of Van Eaton Park. Also the Association of Washington Cities [the town's insurance carrier] provided the town notice they will not cover the town for legal actions regarding the sale of this park.
       "As a result, what you just received was a filing in Superior Court, by myself on behalf of the residents. It contends that 2005-O is illegal for a multitude of additional reasons than the growth management hearing board review that is currently underway.
        "Basically, I’m not particularly fond of the idea of having to sue my hometown… but when this council, and the members who voted for this resolution, are so far outside the law that we have multiple, laundry lists of laws that you’ve broken, the way I see it, you have violated the public trust, you have knowingly and willingly operated illegally. We’re going to hold you accountable. We’ll see you in Superior Court."

Town Attorney Bob Mack: "I saw Mr. Van Cleve this morning at the growth hearings board and he didn’t tell me anything about this."

Van Cleve: "No, I did not say anything at our pre-hearing conference this morning. This is an additional issue that been filed outside of that…"

Mack: "You spoke about Superior Court action. I’m just wondering if the town has been served."

Van Cleve: "We just did…We wanted it served in a public forum… This isn’t a welfare program for you Bob, but I know it’s going to keep you busy.

Mack: "I might spend less time on it than you think…I would say that once the matter’s been filed…I’ll review it. This isn’t the proper forum to argue about it. So if Mr. Van Cleve wants to discuss it in Superior Court I guess that’s where we’ll discuss it."

Van Cleve: "This is a separate issue [from the growth management hearings board petition] …"

Mack: "I understand that."

Writ of Mandamus Summons...

Writ of Mandamus



	Injunction Motion Against Sale of Van Eaton Park Filed by Dixie A. Walter July 15, 2005 A motion for an injunction to halt the sale of the small Van Eaton Park was filed yesterday in Pierce County Superior Court by William Wright, attorney for Steve Van Cleve. According to Wright, Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo is scheduled to hear the motion Friday, July 22. The basis for the motion, as Wright told ENN, is that he and Van Cleve contend the "entire sale is illegal." The injunction is like a restraining order, Wright explained, and said it will be heard before the Declaratory Judgment to determine the validity of Resolution 2005-O. The resolution declared the park land surplus and authorized sale of the land. The highly controversial resolution was passed three to one by the town council March 28. Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted against the resolution and Councilmember Chelan Van Eaton Jarrett recused herself from the issue. Wright also explained, "If the judge enjoins the town from selling the park and the town goes ahead with the sale the town will be in contempt of court and it will be up to the judge to decide what action to take."The Van Cleve lawsuit had two parts, a Writ of Mandamus and the Declaratory Judgment. Judge Armijo declined to issue the Writ saying administrative remedies had not been exhausted yet. However, as Wright pointed out, the Declaratory Judgment part of the suit is "alive and kicking." The hearing on the judgment hasn't yet been scheduled. For more information about the Van Cleve lawsuit please see Van Cleve Suit - For more information about Van Eaton Park please see Park Van Cleve Lawsuit Update... by Dixie A. Walter July 5, 2005 It appears there are some misconceptions about the suit filed in Superior Court by Steve Van Cleve. The suit, to prevent the sale of Van Eaton Park, is not dead; in fact, presently it is very much alive, or, according to Town Attorney Bob Mack, the suit is "pending" and could "go to trial." This was Mack's answer to Councilmember Waylan Jumper during the June 27 council meeting. Mack's answer was prompted by Jumper's question about the sale of Van Eaton Park to generate money to buy Terry Van Eaton's property for a "town square" on Mashell Avenue. Jumper asked when the park could be sold and Mack said he didn't know because of the "pending" Van Cleve suit. The Van Cleve suit consisted of two parts, the Writ of Mandamus and a declaratory judgment, which* declares what rights each party in a dispute should have. The declaratory judgment has not been acted upon yet by Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo. William Wright, attorney for Van Cleve, explained that while the Writ was dismissed by the judge, the declaratory judgment was not affected by the dismissal. When he dismissed the Writ, Judge Armijo did not say the case had no merit, but that all administrative avenues had not yet been exhausted. He advised concerned citizens to "lobby" the town council, asking them not to sell the park. Chuck McTee stood at the last council meeting and once more asked the council to refrain from selling the park. McTee also made a suggestion to put the sale of the park on the fall ballot, and let citizens of the community make the decision about whether or not to sell the little park. This suggestion fell on deaf ears. Jackie Parnell, a direct descendent and granddaughter of Thomas Cobb Van Eaton, town founder, made a declaration June 22 in support of the suit to prevent sale of Van Eaton Park. Court papers show her declaration states, "Title to Van Eaton Park was transferred to the Town of Eatonville with the express understanding that it would be held as a park for the citizens of Eatonville. It is my understanding and belief that my grandfather, T. C. Van Eaton intended that Van Eaton Park be dedicated to the citizens of Eatonville in perpetuity for park use." The next court date for the Van Cleve suit is scheduled for July 15. Court dates are subject to last minute changes. * The issue of buying the Van Eaton property on Mashell Avenue was brought before the town council June 27. Councilmember Jumper had concerns about committing to buy one piece of property while the sale of another to pay for it has been stalled by the Van Cleve suit. Councilmember Bobbi Allison had the same concerns; she also voiced her worry that the Mashell Avenue property is not particularly the people's choice for a town square. Allison and Jumper voted against buying the Mashell Avenue property, Councilmembers Ray Harper and Mike Gallagher voted for buying the property, thus creating a tie which was broken in favor of the purchase by council-appointed Mayor Bruce Rath. The question being asked is, where will the town get the money to buy the Mashell Avenue property if Van Eaton Park cannot be sold? Yep, the "Town" Purchased Mashell Avenue Land... by Dixie A. Walter July 5, 2005 Eatonville Mayor Bruce Rath announced, during the planning commission meeting July 5, the Terry Van Eaton land on Mashell Avenue was bought. "Not the asphalt part, but the gravel part." Rath basically said the purchase was signed, sealed and "recorded." This land may be "dedicated" as a park (or "town square). The use of the property has never been explained publicly. However, in a public records request made a couple of weeks ago ENN sought the dedication documents of all town parks. This request included Nevitt Park (Welcome Point), Glacier View Park (think Art Festival), Smallwood Park (think Kid's Pond), and Alder Street Park. A letter from Town Clerk Carrie Lynn Loffelmacher said there were no documents of dedication for the parks being researched. In a conversation with Rath at town hall late last week, he said the Alder Street/Mill Pond Park was the only one "dedicated." Van Cleve Writ Dismissed "Back to Square One" Says Van Cleve... by Dixie A. Walter June 24, 2005 Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo on Friday dismissed the Writ of Mandamus filed by local citizen Steve Van Cleve. The Writ was filed May 6 in Pierce County Superior Court in an attempt to halt the sale of Van Eaton Park to raise money for the town. Some of the money is slated to buy Terry Van Eaton's property on Mashell Avenue for a "town square" although that matter has not been brought before the town council or officially stated. In a nutshell the judge's ruling was in the exhaustion of remedies doctrine category. In other words, he explained that all administrative remedies within the town had not thus far been exhausted because the entire chain-of-command had not been completed within the town government. A Writ of Mandamus, or Writ of Mandate, "Orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so." Basically the judge's ruling said the question of selling the park land had not yet been answered as the town's Draft Comprehensive Plan hasn't been adopted. Among other issues, the comp plan covers parks and recreation. The attorney representing the town, Edward Hudson, argued that the sale of Van Eaton Park can't go forward until the comp plan is amended. That amendment would strip the small, three-acre park from the comp plan, freeing the land, declared "surplus" by three councilmen, for completion of the sale, which is already in progress. Judge Armijo did not say the case was without merit. His ruling was strictly on the procedural issue. William Wright, attorney for Van Cleve, said once the comp plan has been amended, "...we can go right back and file again." Van Cleve, a commercial pilot, was not able to attend the court proceedings. Reached by phone in Los Angeles, Van Cleve said it was "back to square one." He has several avenues to consider - appeal the judge's ruling, file a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) appeal, or file a new lawsuit after the comp plan is adopted by the town with an amendment to remove the park. Wright, a land use attorney, said in his opinion the ruling doesn't mean the town can sell the park. He suggested concerned citizens attend the next council meeting and urge the council to refrain from selling the park. "Nothing changes our resolve," he added. At the next council meeting there will be a public hearing starting at 7 p.m. for citizen input into the draft comprehensive plan. If a motion is made to amend the plan, it will have to be acted on before the public hearing is conducted. Although the public hearing was publicized as little as legally possible, and left out of the preliminary town agenda, proponents and opponents of the park sale and other issues covered by the comp plan are encouraged to attend the meeting to voice their opinions. At present the Comprehensive Plan under which the town is supposed to operate dates back to December 1993. The public hearing June 27 is the first council step toward adopting the updated plan. Purchase of the Terry Van Eaton property is on the council agenda. Please see below for more information regarding the public hearing and other business of the town council. A New Lawsuit Against Town May 10, 2005 At the beginning of the regular Eatonville Town Council meeting May 9, Mayor Bruce Rath was served by a Summons to Superior Court by Joe Price, this was notice that a suit has been filed against the town in Pierce County Superior Court. The suit was filed Friday, May 6 by local citizen Steve Van Cleve regarding the alleged illegal actions by council members who voted to sell Van Eaton Park. One council member, Chelan Van Eaton Jarrett, recused herself, and Councilmember Bobbi Allison voted "No" on Resolution 2005-O. The resolution declared the small park surplus land and authorized the sale of the land. Numerous citizens spoke against sale of the park for various reasons, largely that the land is in a mapped hazardous landslide area and is unfit for housing. One hundred plus citizens signed a petition asking the council to save the park. The suit is in the form of a Writ of Mandamus, or Writ of Mandate, which "orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so." This suit follows another suit filed March 22 by Chuck Chappell claiming he was "discharged without cause" from the town. Van Cleve, a lifetime resident of Eatonville, addressed the council with his concerns. Please see excerpt from the meeting below: *Joe Price:* "Good evening, my name is Joseph Price and I have a statement." (Price then walks to the mayor and hands him court papers, thanks the council and goes back to his seat.) Steve Van Cleve: "Now you probably want to know what that piece of paper was, that was just handed to Mayor Rath…actually, he was just served. "On March 28, this council passed Resolution 2005-O. On March 29, several citizens, including myself, filed a Petition for Review, (this was the Van Eaton Park sale), seeking to invalidate 2005-O based on the following RCWs [Revised Code of Washington] that the town violated by passing this resolution." Van Cleve then read a lengthy list of RCWs the suit alleges were violated. "The hearing regarding this petition for review is scheduled for August 18. Despite this pending legal action the town continued with the sale of Van Eaton Park. Also the Association of Washington Cities [the town's insurance carrier] provided the town notice they will not cover the town for legal actions regarding the sale of this park. "As a result, what you just received was a filing in Superior Court, by myself on behalf of the residents. It contends that 2005-O is illegal for a multitude of additional reasons than the growth management hearing board review that is currently underway. "Basically, I’m not particularly fond of the idea of having to sue my hometown… but when this council, and the members who voted for this resolution, are so far outside the law that we have multiple, laundry lists of laws that you’ve broken, the way I see it, you have violated the public trust, you have knowingly and willingly operated illegally. We’re going to hold you accountable. We’ll see you in Superior Court." Town Attorney Bob Mack: "I saw Mr. Van Cleve this morning at the growth hearings board and he didn’t tell me anything about this." Van Cleve: "No, I did not say anything at our pre-hearing conference this morning. This is an additional issue that been filed outside of that…" *Mack:* "You spoke about Superior Court action. I’m just wondering if the town has been served." Van Cleve: "We just did…We wanted it served in a public forum… This isn’t a welfare program for you Bob, but I know it’s going to keep you busy. *Mack:* "I might spend less time on it than you think…I would say that once the matter’s been filed…I’ll review it. This isn’t the proper forum to argue about it. So if Mr. Van Cleve wants to discuss it in Superior Court I guess that’s where we’ll discuss it." *Van Cleve:* "This is a separate issue [from the growth management hearings board petition] …" *Mack:* "I understand that." *Writ of Mandamus Summons...* Writ of Mandamus Writ Page Two Back to Top Back to Front Page





	© 2002 Eatonvillenews.net We Care!