April 14, 2007 - by Dixie A. Walter: The above photograph was taken April 14 at Van Eaton  Park. Contrary to an article in another local publication the March 16 Superior Court dismissal of a lawsuit was not the "final legal challenge" in the case which was brought by Eatonville resident Steve Van Cleve. There was a thirty calendar day appeal period after the dismissal by Judge Sergio Armijo. 
      The notice of intent to appeal Armijo's dismissal was filed Friday, April 13, the appeal must be filed within thirty days of the notice. 
      Many citizens question the fact that development began on the parkland during the appeal period. As a rule work isn't done on property that is still in litigation. And, as a rule development usually doesn't start before a court decision is handed down.

     This photograph of Van Eaton Park was taken in June 2005. It shows almost the same view as the above photo. At least an hour before Pierce County Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo was scheduled to rule on a motion to dismiss Steve Van Cleve's case Friday, March 16, Jerry Nybo Construction/Summit Properties began tearing up the land.
     Van Cleve's case, which argues the town didn't have the legal authority to sell the park, was dismissed by Armijo on a technicality. Armijo had dismissed the case in 2006, however, the State Court of Appeals overturned his dismissal and sent the case back to superior court saying the case has "merit."

     Photo taken at Van Eaton Park April 14. During a recent council meeting Town Administrator Gary Armstrong reported the town had given a contract to Jerry Nybo Construction to put in a new water line going up the hill and onto Van Eaton Parkland.
     Armstrong said Nybo had been chosen from the "small works roster," which means the project didn't go out for bids. Contractors etc., are regularly picked from small works rosters in municipalities. Armstrong explained since the "developer" was already working in the area he had been picked to put in the water line.
     He also noted that a leaking water line would be replaced by the new line. One particular line has been leaking for years and didn't appear to be on a list of top priorities until Nybo began work on a proposed housing development on the dangerous hill. 
     A while back the town put in a twelve-inch water line down the hill on Prospect to replace a smaller existing line that adequately serviced the homes in that area. The new development needed a much bigger line. This new line will service the Nybo/Summit Properties lots of the old parkland. 
     A twelve-inch line was just installed to service these lots and will be connected to the new water line coming up the steep hill by the library on Orchard Avenue South. Another line was laid further down the hill on Larson to Orchard so the old line, which could be deactivated. It would seem a less expensive fix would have been to simply replace the old leaking water line. 
     However, this line was not adequate for a new development, so Nybo was hired to install a new twelve-inch line to accommodate the houses he and Summit Properties are planning to build on the parkland unless Steve Van Cleve wins his case.
     In other words the taxpaying citizens of Eatonville are paying Nybo and Summit Properties to put in a water line to service their proposed new development. Development is supposed to pay for itself - this is not always the case in Eatonville. And there is also the Appearance of Fairness issue. Is it fair for the developer to be paid by taxpayers to bring utilities to his development.

      March 25, 2007 - by Dixie A. Walter: This bucolic scene was Van Eaton Parkland June 20, 2005. At least an hour before Pierce County Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo was scheduled to rule on a motion to dismiss Steve Van Cleve's case Friday, March 16, Jerry Nybo Construction began tearing up the land. Van Cleve's case, which argued the town didn't have the legal authority to sell the park, was dismissed by Armijo on a technicality. Armijo had dismissed the case in 2006 but the State Court of Appeals overturned his dismissal and sent the case back to superior court because the case has "merit."
    

     Within a day the parkland began to look like this. Tons of rock and dirt carried by a steady stream of loaded trucks went up and down the one lane road all day, just about every day. Loaded trucks have been stacked up below the road waiting their turn. Part of the asphalt on the road has already been damaged, and more damage may follow from the heavy traffic. 
      The park is on a hazardous, landslide area mapped by soil scientists with the U. S. Department of Agriculture.  From Pierce County Geographic Information Services:  "Water ponds above the very slowly permeable, weakly cemented, compact substratum during the rainy season. Very few roots penetrate below a depth of 40 inches. The available water capacity is low to moderate. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard severe ...This soil is poorly suited to use as home sites  (emphasis added) because of the steep slope...Cut slopes expose springs or seeps. This soil is well suited to use as open space and wildlife habitat." 

     This piece of John Deere heavy equipment is only one of many pieces of heavy equipment on the hazardous land. Tons of dirt has been used in what appears to be an attempt to provide another building lot. Or more?

     Three deer seemed confused Saturday, March 24 before evening. The deer on the slope stood and looked around for a very long time. It seemed to be trying to grasp why its once protected, safe home was gone. 

     Until Friday, March 19 this hillside had trees and shrubs growing. Now it has tons of fill dirt piled on it. Would you buy a house on a dangerous hillside? Especially one that has been manipulated by people?

                                                                                                               (photo by Arlen Paranto)

     This photograph showing the Town of Eatonville from Van Eaton Park was taken December 30, 2006, the last day of the year.

Superior Court Judge Sergio *Armijo Dismisses
 Case on a Technicality...

      by Dixie A. Walter
      March 19, 2007

     Judge Armijo once again stops Eatonville citizen Steve Van Cleve from getting his day in court. The Van  Eaton Eaton Park case against the town was dismissed by Armijo Friday, March 16. Lawyers representing DN Properties LLC and Summit Properties asked for dismissal because of confusion over the filing date of an appeal regarding the Eatonville town council's passage of Resolution 2005-O. This resolution declared the small green space, 3.08 acres, as surplus land and authorized advertising to sell the land. The only council member  to vote against the  resolution was Bobbi Allison. 
      Summit Properties, owned by Michael Dunn, partners with Jerry Nybo Construction who bought the land. The final sale of the property was not brought before the council by then mayor, Bruce Rath. Rath was appointed by the council as mayor to serve out the remaining two years of Mayor Harold Parnell who became too ill to serve. 
       A recent computer search requested by ENN regarding business licenses for the past few years was done by one of the town clerks. The search did not show town business licenses for Summit Properties, DN Properties LLC or Jerry Nybo Construction. 
      The suit brought by Van Cleve alleges the park was sold illegally. Judge Armijo dismissed the case the first time because there was no playground equipment on the land, thus, he ruled it was not a designated park. The town argued that since the land had already been sold to Nybo/Summit Properties, Van Cleve's case was moot.
       Van Cleve, a former chair of the planning commission, then filed an appeal with the Washington State Court of Appeals. In November 2006 the appellate court found the suit was indeed "moot" and overturned Judge Armijo's dismissal. This decision sent the case back to Pierce County Superior Court and Armijo. 
       In part, the decision says, "The Town's 1993 Comprehensive Plan, in effect when Resolution 2005-O was adopted, referred to the 3.08 acres as undeveloped "parkland" and included the property in the Town's inventory of parks and recreation." 
      The resolution declaring the land as surplus was passed before the town council voted, in July 2005, to remove the designated "parkland" from the latest version of the Comprehensive Plan.
      An appeal is planned. To read more about this case please see Van Eaton Park Court of Appeals Decision

       To read a timeline regarding Van Eaton Park put together by a concerned citizen months ago please see
       Timeline VE Park

      (*Publisher's Note:  In August 2004 The News Tribune conducted a survey of trial lawyers as a special report - "Judging the Judges." Judge Armijo was consistently at, or near, the bottom of all the criteria. Example. "The number of Pierce County attorneys who said they probably wouldn't take a case in front of the following judges..." At the bottom of the list is Judge Armijo with 25 attorneys who would probably reject him.
      Judge Armijo is the last judge on the list in the "decision making" category; also last on the list under the "efficiency" heading; "demeanor" - third from bottom; "impartiality" second from bottom. He has been on the bench in Pierce County Superior Court since 1994. One hundred and thirteen attorneys participated in the News Tribune's evaluation which was done to assist voters.) 

For Sale Sign Installed on Van Eaton Park
Is this in Defiance of Court of Appeals Decision?

                                                                                                             (photo by Arlen Paranto)

Town Planner says Van Eaton Park Land not Mapped
But it is...

     by Dixie A. Walter
     July 25, 2005

     In his answer to SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) comments concerning the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft Critical Areas Code, Town Planner Mark Kask states, under the sub-head, "8. The Landslide and Erosion Hazards. The geologically hazardous areas map comes from Pierce County. If Pierce County thought that the former Town owned land around Orchard and Larsen [Van Eaton Park] was a geologically hazardous area, they would have mapped it as such..."
     The comments Kask countered were in a July 18 memo in response to SEPA comments made July 11 by Steve Cossalman, Arlen Paranto, Steve Van Cleve and Chuck McTee. Their comments were made hours before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the town council. Their comments were also made within the legal deadline for SEPA comments. However, the council did not receive the comments, thus did not discuss them.
      Regarding landslide and erosion hazards the group states, in part, "The Landslide and Erosion Hazards Areas map...is not adequate. This map only depicts the percentage of slope and no specific landslide hazard information..."
      The area in question was mapped by a federal agency, The U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and adopted by Pierce County. The SCS says, on mapping page 21, paragraph 19 E, "This soil is poorly suited to use as home sites because of the steep slope...Cut slopes expose springs or seeps. This soil is well suited to use as open space and wildlife habitat." 
     The soil is called "Kapowsin gravelly loam" after the Kapowsin area. Kapowsin soil is found throughout the local areas. The Pierce County Geographic Information Services describes this soil type, "Water ponds above the very slowly permeable, weakly cemented, compact substratum during the rainy season. Very few roots penetrate below a depth of 40 inches. The available water capacity is low to moderate. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard severe."
     To read both the citizen's SEPA comments and Kask's answers please see Citizen SEPA and Kask SEPA
To view the Pierce County map which was mapped by SCS please see Pierce County Map

Injunction Against Sale of Van Eaton Park Denied...

     by Dixie A. Walter
     July 22, 2005

     Pierce County Superior Court Judge *Sergio Armijo, on Friday, ruled against a motion for an injunction filed by Steve Van Cleve in an effort to halt the sale of Van Eaton Park. Although William Wright, attorney for Van Cleve, presented compelling information, such as, the park has been maintained by the town since at least 2000, the area is dangerous for development, the park has been called Van Eaton park for the past thirty years, the "intent" of the land was for public use, and the land in question is not suitable for development.
     Ed Hudson, attorney representing the town, brought up the "steep slopes" more than once. One of his arguments noted that "steep slopes" made the land unusable as a park. He also brought up the issue of the town buying the Mashell Avenue property. Hudson said, "...whether it will cause people to stop [in town] is hard to say. 
     The judge asked if "the court" knew the sale of one piece of land was dependent on the sale of Van Eaton Park. Apparently the court could/should have known since the concern has been brought up before. Another matter discussed was the dedication of the small park as a **park.  
     Van Cleve's attorney, Wright, argued passionately for preserving the park, telling the judge he had  declaration from former ***council and planning commission members. But the judge, drinking coffee, appeared not to be concerned about anything but whether or not the park had "play toys." 
     Wright explained the hiking trails and wildlife watching opportunities in the area, and pointed to the fact that parts of Mount Rainier National Park are "wilderness" and many people enjoyed hiking and getting away from structure. In the end it appeared the judge couldn't picture a "park" without "play toys" and refused to approve the injunction.
     The Declaratory Judgment that will attempt to overturn Resolution 2005-O, the resolution which turned the park into surplus land, allowing it to be sold, is still active; however, the court date has not been set for that hearing. 
      For more about the struggle to save Van Eaton Park and legal actions taken please see Park Legals

    (Publisher's Note One: *Superior Court Judge Sergio Armijo was the second judge assigned to the Van Cleve case. In August 2004 The News Tribune conducted a survey of trial lawyers as a special report - "Judging the Judges." Judge Armijo is consistently at, or near, the bottom of all the criteria. Example. "The number of Pierce County attorneys who said they probably wouldn't take a case in front of the following judges..." At the bottom of the list is Judge Armijo with 25 attorneys who would probably reject him.
     Judge Armijo is the last judge on the list in the "decision making" category; also last on the list under the "efficiency" heading; "demeanor" - third from bottom; "impartiality" second from bottom. He has been on the bench in Pierce County Superior Court since 1994. One hundred and thirteen attorneys participated in the News Tribune's evaluation which was done to assist voters.

     (Publisher's Note Two: **None of Eatonville's parks have been "dedicated" with the exception of the skateboard park now named Millpond Park.

     (Publisher's Note Three: ***Names appearing on court documents are: Steve Cossalman; Kirk Heinz; Robert Hudspeth; Harold Parnell; Bruce Morris; Ken Kildahl; Deanna Simons; Hal Burlingame; Kevin Cailler; Jackie Parnell.

  My View 

Just Ignore that Elephant in the Room...

     by Dixie A. Walter
     July 5, 2005

     There was a "town meeting" June 23 to "brainstorm for ideas regarding the downtown revitalization program." A letter of invitation from Eatonville Mayor Bruce Rath to "Property and Business Owners" states, "The Town of Eatonville has received a $150,000 planning grant for the Downtown Corridor and Town Center."
     Along with about 50 other people, I attended the meeting. It was reminiscent of the "visioning" meetings held a few years ago. Plenty of good ideas were floated, and I believe most people enjoyed their experience. I did. However, a couple of things just kept nagging at me, so I talked to several citizens who had attended the gathering. There were nine tables and I talked to folks from six of them. 
      My first question was, "Did anyone make it clear to you that this $150,000 grant was for planning along State Route 161 - Washington Avenue? And did you know the final decision on the grant won't come until October?" The answers I received all were, "No, I thought it was for the 'downtown' area." And, "No, I thought we had the grant." When asked what was considered "downtown" everyone I spoke with said Mashell Avenue. And everyone I spoke with said many of the ideas from their tables spilled over into the downtown area as opposed to staying within the scope of the grant.
     There were seven questions given to the groups: 1) What "image" best portrays Eatonville's character? 2) Are cottage industries a viable element of the future vision plan? 3) What is the biggest zoning issue? 4) Should the town require compliance with new business ordinances in harmony with its new vision, or should it be 100 percent voluntary? 5) What major business/employer does Eatonville need most? 6) Should Eatonville encourage, discourage or have no way on franchise? 7) Which traffic flow? At the end of the session there was time for comments.

Meet the Elephant in the Room...

     The elephant in the room was the "town square." I asked people if that issue was discussed at their various tables. Some said, "Yes," and some said, "No, because the question wasn't asked." Those who discussed the "town square" idea for the most part wanted it on Washington Avenue as was recommended in the original Vision Statement. 
     Now, I wonder why the gathered citizens were not asked their opinions about a "town square?" It seems like I've heard this subject discussed for years as being a big part of the original vision plan. Yet, when "visioning" began again, the subject was not on every table.  
     This strikes me as very odd. But then I guess it shouldn't, since I know the current administration has made up its mind where your "town square" will go. And nothing, not citizen input, nor the Vision Statement, nor logic will change that mind. Behind closed doors, and in whispers, financial deals were made in an attempt to insure that a "town square" will go on Mashell Avenue. And that's all there is to it. Don't bother to voice your opinions, they won't be heard. Don't bother to ask questions, they won't be answered. Don't bother to sign a petition, it won't be read. 
      The people have no say in what goes on with the "town square," because the people may say something the administration does not want to hear. A dissenting voice is seen as an enemy and labeled with outlandish titles. Yet, far and away, the majority of citizens who have discussed the "town square" with me have made it quite clear that they believe a square should be on Washington Avenue. 

A View of Rainier, What a Concept...

     At the very least there is a view of Mount Rainier. A petition signed by close to 200 citizens says don't sell Van Eaton Park to buy a "town square." Yet in front of me is the fourteen page contract dated May 5, 2005 with the buyer's signature, Jerry Nybo, to purchase Van Eaton Park for $320,000. Jerry Nybo's signature is on the line, but the buyer's address is given as 10618 SE Kent-Kangley Rd. #104, Kent, Washington 98031. 
     In order to buy the Mashell Avenue site for a "town square," Van Eaton Park must be sold, to make the money, to pay for a site most people evidently think is the wrong site for a square. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, or more like ludicrous.  Why do tourists travel through our little town?  Because we live near one of  the jewels of the West Coast, a huge, wondrous mountain that draws people to it like a magnet draws metal. Yet the spot chosen for us to be the collector of tourists doesn't even have a view of that huge, wondrous mountain.
     Either the powers-that-be have never been tourists, or there is some other motive for being blind to the idea of a square anywhere else but on Mashell Avenue. What that motive is, I don't know. But I've been a tourist many times, I'm pretty good at it. And I know if I were on my way to Mount Rainier and were looking for a spot to rest, and enjoy the scenery, I would not hunt for a place where the scenery was just buildings and vehicles. I would want a place where I could pull over easily and see green hills, trees and, a huge, wondrous mountain. Think about it.
    Some people thought about it at the "town meeting." But their voices won't be heard, they make too much sense. 
    There were lots of great ideas flying around the room, to enhance the town. Planning commissioners are scheduled to discuss the "visioning" during their meeting July 5. In a general way the folks I spoke with were mostly for some type of theme for the town, but it was difficult for some to make a theme mandatory. Franchises were a problem to some, but the fact is there are a good number of franchises in town already. Cottage industries remain "viable" in the eyes of those I chatted with. 
   An idea which didn't come up at our table, but did at some, was an attractive sign at the entrance to town. A sign which would point tourists to the various businesses in the area. This is a doable idea, far more doable than changing State Route 161 from Washington Avenue to Mashell, which some people seem inclined to wish for. Some people also wished for one-way streets to reroute traffic to "downtown." Forcing tourists to drive through town is not, in my opinion, a reasonable option. Enticing them is. But with what will we entice them? A white elephant of a "town square?" I don't think so.
   Eatonville seems to be a town with an identity crisis. Some people want to pull it one way and others want to pull it another, and some just want to clean it up and make it pretty. There is a lot to work with here; let's hope we can make it work well for the entire community. 

   My View:

       June 20, 2005: The view from Van Eaton Park as the "pink moment" begins to caress Mount Rainier on Father's Day. Although the petite park is theoretically for sale it has already been almost sold by the Rath administration - the ERA real estate Web site states, in red text, the property is "under contract." 
      According to real estate speak this means a sale has taken place, but is not yet closed. There is also speculation that Jerry Nybo, busy local developer, is the buyer. ENN has a public records request at Eatonville Town Hall asking for the "sale" information. At present ENN has received no information about this "contract." (But then ENN is often made to wait a long time, or just played off, regarding public records requests and has documentation to prove it.)
     The attempted sale of the park prompted a petition for review sent to the Growth Management Appeals Board brought by four local citizens, and a Pierce County Superior Court suit brought by Steve Van Cleve on behalf of concerned citizens.
     Supposedly there are nine buildable lots on the property. However, the site is highly dangerous according to geologists who aren't paid by the town. But the danger seems to be ignored by people who appear to love gold more than human life. 

Defenders of Van Eaton Park...

      by Dixie A. Walter
      June 20, 2005