Alki Point sidewalk project: Complete within a “week or two”

| Transportation | West Seattle news

If you went anywhere near Alki Point for low-tide exploring, you might have seen this for the first time – part of the new sidewalk along the northwesternmost curve of Alki Avenue, one section of the Alki Point sidewalk-completion and traffic-calming project. Taking the long way back to WSB HQ from low-tide photography, we noticed most of the work appears complete, and Therese Casper from the city’s Neighborhood Street Fund, which paid for this project, confirms that: “We have a few more things to button up but the contractor anticipates being complete in the next week or two.” She also sends along part of a recent multi-slide presentation on NSF projects – see it here; it’s the section with before-and-after views along the Alki stretch, which starts at the new “calming” feature at 63rd/Alki (our photograph is from earlier this month, as work on that was wrapping up) …

… and ends with the second of two raised crosswalks (like the ones in The Junction), at Alki Ave/Beach Drive, where the sidewalk previously ended. This project sparked some controversy and even a threat of legal action; some waterfront residents had concerns including the potential loss of their unusually configured street parking, but the city designed it in a way that preserved most of that parking (with a loss of some spots at the southwest end of the project) as well as working around some other features, like this:

Along much of the stretch, the new sidewalk was built in what was part of the road, which is now narrower as a result, a fact that’s expected to further discourage speeding through-traffic. This project was bid as part of a package, so Casper says the final cost total won’t be tallied till after the work’s all done. The work’s taken about a month longer than was projected right before it started.

Nulu June 23, 2009 (5:00 pm)

Now it is writ in stone, er concrete.

Is it possible that a vocal and litigious newly arrived apartment owner and a few others have extended their “rights” unlawfully into what should be a great improvement to the community?

“Since the doctrine of adverse procession does not apply to government property, I say reclaim away. The benefits of encroachment benefit the few for the expense of the many. Now is the time to reclaim the public good for the many. In my humble opinion.

Comment by JayDee — February 17, 09 8:43 pm #”

“I will be following up on these questions because it is an interesting issue … not sure until research can be done, how much of it has become a de-facto easement (if that’s the right word) over the years just because people used the land and weren’t challenged on that, much as would be the case if you built a fence a foot over your neighbor’s property line and it sat there for years unchallenged. There were a few questions asked about “encroachment” during Friday’s tour and Sam Woods — who works with one very specific area of SDOT and therefore doesn’t have jurisdiction in this anyway — had to very diplomatically repeat, that’s not in the scope of this project. Stand by for followups!!!! – TR

Comment by WSB — February 18, 09 10:05 am #”

Too bad there was not further discussion of the encroachment issue.

Dis June 23, 2009 (5:39 pm)

I’m glad you brought it up! I have also been wondering what happened to the followup to what should have been a fabulous community project but ended up being a big win for the waterfront homeowners. All they had to do was threaten a lawsuit and the city backed down. It isn’t their land! It’s public property. Other city departments are working hard to eliminate encroachments, but SDOT is GIVING AWAY public property. Shame! SDOT = no accountability.

Dis June 23, 2009 (5:42 pm)

All it takes is for someone to take a look at where the private property ends! How many FEET of public land did these people gain for their own private parking. They should pay taxes on the gift SDOT gave them!!!

Deepes June 23, 2009 (6:13 pm)

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill…

Beach drive res June 24, 2009 (8:11 am)

Great! No more heavy equipment! But can we keep the “road closed” signs? It’s be fabulous to have them up the rest of the summer– they cut down on so much traffic!

Nulu June 24, 2009 (9:10 am)

A million dollar beachfront molehill.

KSJ June 24, 2009 (9:18 am)

I walk this route frequently from my Admiral address, and I’m very happy to have a sidewalk now so that I don’t have to cross the street twice to walk around the Point. I plan to walk it as soon as it’s complete.

WSB June 24, 2009 (9:44 am)

Comment #1, I am looking for my notes, but I did follow up. I don’t believe I wrote a standalone story about it, however. Many days/weeks we don’t do as good a job as we wish we could – sometimes the time just runs out – but this is the only place this project’s been covered in detail, so at least we try – TR

WSB June 24, 2009 (9:53 am)

Found ’em.
Interviewed the city’s right of way specialist by phone on Feb. 19th.
.
raw quotes:
.
as the right of way specialist i see a lot of encroachments in the right of way
the way the city was platted originally in some places the property line is right along the sidewalk and that’s what most people in city assume
in other places it might actually be set back a few feet from the sidewalk
what looks like somebody’s front yard is actually public right of way

for public right of way there is no adverse possession
so it will and will continue to be always public right of way and always under the jurisdiction of seattle dept. of transportation

…i’ve seen some cases in sidewalks where there are some encroachments so we do work with property owners
.
what we’re really concerned about enforcing is places where the public is unable to access … … if people have built a fence partly into the sidewalk … that’s where we would use our enforcement tools …
.
**most common :
one of the biggest things i spend my time on is what we’ll call an open right of ways a lot of those in queen anne west seattle too maybe because of grade changes between different streets the right of way was never improved and people will build out into the right of way …
.
(TR summary) My takeaway from the conversation, this is not the kind of right-of-way encroachment that concerns the city much if they can work around it. But it does belong to the city in perpetuity if they ever feel they need it for something. When I covered many other stages of this project, including the tour that laid out for the first time the route the sidewalk would take, SDOT said repeatedly that the road was already so wide in the area that taking some of the existing road space for the sidewalk wasn’t a big deal – in fact, it would further enhance the “calming” sought on that stretch (which as you probably know bottlenecks when you get to the turn at Alki Point, and suddenly people who might have sped up the straightaway are in an even more dangerous situation).
.
TR

NIMBY Nulu June 24, 2009 (11:22 am)

Thanks Tracy,
I was watching for a follow-up and never saw one.
Did you have the opportunity to ask about parking “rights”?
Do the owners of the apartments, condos and SFRs have any special right to the parking spaces that are in the public right of way?
I hope that WSB follows its opportunity/responsibility on issues like this.
Limited resources of course, but I strongly feel that this one should not have gotten by.
It’s unfair, but just compare the WSB coverage of California Park Place with this.
Compare that costly fight over what To Do or Not To Do to a small lightly used patch of grass and a few trees against the absolute and permanent paving of one of Seattle’s premier walking, biking, sight-seeing routes.
All has been compromised for the selfish, litigious moneyed few.
Yes, I’ll read the defenders’ posts about how much better it is, but still wonder why we did not demand something truly great and worthy of this unique location.
What we got is a compromised and convoluted route with vague distinctions between public and private.

Pelicans June 24, 2009 (11:51 am)

Dear TR, I live at the corner of Alki Ave and Beach Drive, and no, I’m not one of the well-to-do land owners, but a renter. There are more of us on this point than most people would imagine. We’ve lost at least six parking spaces on the water side of the road at the curve, and it was for this reason I was totally against the sidewalk project on this end. I and my neighbors have had our cars hit by speeders at the curb (I had to total my vehicle and “salvage it from the insurance company-total cost to me $3000+), as well as break-ins, auto theft, and theft of my entire front wheel one night. I liked to be able to park right in front of the building under the streetlight. In the planning stages, I also sensed that at least one major proponent of this project had an illogical animosity toward the property owners on the water side simply because they were “rich” and could afford to live on the water, as well as for the “encroachment” issue (understandable). I’ll never be “rich”, and the building I live in is, to put it politely, old and not pretty. I will never be able to afford to buy property here, but I love the area, and living here is way cheaper than professional therapy. All I have to do is look out the window. Looking out now, I see people using the new sidewalk and marked, raised crosswalk. This is a good thing, and I’ve come to the conclusion that this was really a wonderful idea, despite losing my parking. Before, the roadway was routinely used by all–people with strollers, the elderly, kids-everybody. And it just made me shudder. I’ve seen cars cut off old people with canes/walkers, women holding kids’ hands, etc. while trying to cross at the little dip in the sidewalk that used to be there. Inconsiderate drivers just didn’t care. I don’t know if it’s the construction signs, the new turn at 63rd and Alki, or what, but the “traffic calming” is really working. Guess we’ll see when the signs come down.
I am happy to sacrifice losing my parking for the increased safety and access this project has made possible. Thanks for all your coverage of it.

WSB June 24, 2009 (11:52 am)

The language mentioned in my report during the sidewalk project tour preconstruction (I don’t have time to pull it up right this sec but you could search the site for “Alki Point sidewalk”) was “they are public spaces but they feel private.”

Pelicans June 24, 2009 (11:57 am)

“Inconsiderate drivers just didn’t care.”

-From the Department of Redundantcy Department.

WSB June 24, 2009 (12:45 pm)

Pelicans, thanks for the perspective! – TR

NIMBY Nulu June 24, 2009 (12:57 pm)

“I am happy to sacrifice losing my parking” – Comment by Pelicans — June 24

Pelicans’ perhaps innocent statement of entitlement illustrates the very heart of this issue.
Pelicans has no parking to sacrifice.
The apartment has no parking provided and Pelicans has no more right to the street parking than anyone else.
Pelicans and neighbors might look to the parking space abuse by the guy with the handicap reserved space who keeps half a dozen places tied up and even manages to leave a bus size motor home and a large off shore boat on the street for extended periods.
Pelicans’ sad tale of street parking crime is all to common. As best attested by WSB reports, street parked vehicles all over West Seattle are extremely common targets. We live on a “quiet” residential street in Gatewood and suffer the same problems.
As for making it safer, yes it may be a little safer than before but imagine how much safer it would be if it were consistent with and designed like other sidewalks?
Or a beautiful extension of the Alki Pathway?

alki_2008 June 24, 2009 (6:06 pm)

It’s easy to say that the Alki Point folks are just greedy, rich bastards that unlawfully use public land…but how many of you accusers have looked to see where the public property is in your own fronts yards? There are a number of houses in the “non-rich” areas where the public property line is 1-2 feet from the sidewalk. Some of those complaining about the evil Beach Drive residents (some of whom are renters) complaining about their usual space being taken for the sidewalks might also start complaining if the city wants to take out 1-2 ft of their front yard.

Dis June 24, 2009 (6:09 pm)

There are cases on that street where people have built structures, even extended their own landscaping, into the public right of way. Building the sidewalk was a perfect opportunity to reclaim the encroachments rather than create new ones. The dream was an extension of the Alki Boulevard, I believe, but it turned into a nightmare IMO, and a perversion of public policy. Although I live in North Admiral, I followed this project with great interest (far more interesting than the California Place Park near my home!). Do members of the public have standing to bring suit to reclaim public property?

NIMBY Nulu June 24, 2009 (7:57 pm)

alki 2008
Encroachment “occurs” everywhere it is not enforced.
The difference between these Alki NIMBYs and “non-rich” encroachers is that the “greedy, rich bastards that unlawfully use public land…” in Alki just got their way by threatening a lawsuit.
The “non-rich” don’t have the means to carry this out.
Once again though, it is us the Public taking back what has been used without public benefit.
The city cannot take land from a private party if that party does not own the land.
So that “1-2 ft of their front yard” was not theirs at all. And they have no rights to it.
As an accuser, I can tell you exactly where my property ends and the city’s or my neighbors’ starts.

Sorry, comment time is over.