Listen. Can you hear it? It's a cricket. Specifically, it's a female Nemobius Fasciatus, found in western Washington.
__________
Has the Bainbridge Review covered the story?
Has the Kitsap Sun covered the story?
Has the Bremerton Sun covered the story?
Has the Bainbridge Buzz, who did such excellent reporting on Peddygate, covered the story?
__________
All I hear is the sound of crickets.
Once I receive answers from the city, I will be able to fill in the blanks for this timeline of events."I am a champion of active citizen involvement in government decision making."
- Mayor K
(from the brochure and the newspaper ad, in the Dear
Islanders letter beaneath her picture)
Here are photos of the Winslow Tomorrow brochure -- the one that was mailed to all households at taxpayer expense a week and a half before the election.
Make no mistake; this was an expensive piece of advertising.
Here is the "Dear Islanders" letter contained in the brochure.
I am a champion of active citizen involvement in government decision making.
- Mayor K
Last month Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle was required to reimburse the city for using taxpayer funds to tout his accomplishments during the election.
From the Seattle Times:
Mayor Greg Nickels violated city election rules when he spent taxpayer funds to mail out a flier touting his accomplishments, the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission ruled last night.
"It appears the document is primarily promotional," said Commission Chairman Bruce Heller, noting that the panel had warned Nickels in an earlier decision that such documents "published in an election year would be subject to additional scrutiny."
I suggest that Mayor K reimburse Bainbridge Island for her taxpayer-funded campaign activity.
Just sent to the City Administrator:
__________
Dear Ms. Briggs:
I’m concerned about expenses the city recently incurred on the Winslow Tomorrow initiative that coincided with the election and hope to get the following information:
Thank you.
Mayor Kordonowy:
"I am a champion of active citizen involvement in government decision making."
October 27, 2005: Eleven days before the election. A glossy, color brochure is mailed to every household on the island -- at taxpayer expense -- containing the same "Dear Islander" letter and accompanying picture.
I just heard from city attorney Paul McMurray (thanks btw) that the libertopians have petitioned the state supreme court to review the case (which comes as no surprise). If they decline the petition then it's all over with, or so I have been assured. If they hear the petition then we must wait for the ruling.
I'm told by various people more informed than I that the wait will be months not years.
__________
For the record, I still don't understand why it is that the city enforces no-trespassing on behalf of the libertopians, and still question the lawfulness of the city's actions.
What the hell. If there's to be a pile of manure on a city street, I say it should be identified.
(Think of the children?)
Life is stranger (and funnier!) than fiction.
I swung by Fletcher Landing today and witnessed something most unexpected. There was a giant mound of dirt piled in the very spot where the Saturday get-together occurred, right smack dab on the paved city street.
I got out of my car and quickly learned -- courtesy of my olfactory senses -- this is no mere pile of dirt. It's a pile of manure.
Welcome to Libertopia, aka Fletcher Landing, a place where the boundaries are ever-shifting in stinky, comedic fashion.
(I halfway expect to awake from a dream any minute now.)
The City Attorney wrote a letter that appeared in The Review several weeks ago that sort of (?) explains the City's position on Fletcher Landing.
The same letter was posted at Fletcher Landing. Remember, the City enforces no trespassing on the road-end (though not the beach), and the purpose of the letter is to explain this bizarre fact.
I took this photograph standing on the city street immediately adjoining the road end, facing the water.
See the little piece of paper on the fence? That's the letter, written with a 10 pt font.
Yup, you got that right: In order to read the letter, one must walk onto the road-end.
You know. The road-end where trespassing is forbidden.
At least I had the common sense to post my sign on the cement post that sits on the line of demarcation.
Towards the end of today's "mayoral forum", held on the unambiguously public road adjoining Fletcher Landing, a gentleman walked up and joined the crowd of 15 or so.
As folks started to amble away, this individual approached me. Our strange conversation went something like this...
________________________
Him: Why are you doing this?
Me: I contend the City doesn't have the right to enforce...
Him: (interrupting) It's in litigation. This has no meaning.
Me: OK, but it still makes no sense for the status to default to private because...
Him: (interrupting) So what. That's your opinion.
Me: My opinion happens to be based on the state appeals court ruling which states that...
Him: (interrupting) You don't even know the facts.
Me: I know the facts as stated by the state appeals court...
Him: (interrupting) This is a waste of time.
Me: Have you even read the ruling?
Him: In detail.
Me: Good, then you know that it states...
Him: (interrupting)
Me: Why aren't you letting me talk?
Him: I'm not interested in what you have to say.
Me: Then why are you baiting me?
Him: I don't want you on my property.
Me: HUH? I'm not on your property. I checked with the City attorney and..
Him: (interrupting) You have no business here.
Me: Look, I'm standing on a paved city street. I'm going to record this conversation.
(I grab my recorder.)
(He turns and walks away.)
Me: Go piss off. (*)
Him: Now you're going too far!
Me: Yeah right.
(He continues walking away.)
________________________
Welcome to libertopia run amok, a place where the boundaries are ever-shifting.
* I doubt I help the cause by speaking in this way. I feel obligated to include this as I wish to be a fair reporter. I have a tendency towards the blunt side when confronted with this degree of obnoxious irrationality.
In order of occurrence...
#1
To my dismay, one of the two premium Free Fletcher Landing signs is gone -- the one that was located at 305 and Winslow Way in front of the licensing office. (I haven't checked it in a week or so -- I'm not sure what day it went missing.)
I assumed this was a lawful spot, especially once the sign went undisturbed for two weeks. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe the City confiscated it.
(With no small degree of amusement, I suppose I must inquire with Code Compliance Officer Will Peddy.)
Either that, or else it was stolen by a counter-democratic libertopian who doesn't believe in lawful political expression.
_______________________
#2
To my great surprise, approximately 15 enthusiastic fellow Islanders came to the "mayoral forum", mostly residents of Fletcher Landing area.
I hope we continue to build momentum, and and hope the City gets the message that access to Puget Sound is a high priority to many Islanders.
Hopefully the lack of mayoral candidates wasn't a huge disappointment. (Don't blame the candidates -- there was a big event today surrounding the cross-island trail. My mistake.)
There was a shared sense of confusion as to why Fletcher Landing has (for all practical purposes) defaulted to private status while the appeal has dragged on for two decades.
There seemed to be consensus that a get-together with the candidates would be valuable. I will try to re-boot this effort.
(For the record, I live on the water. That's in part why I feel obligated to take these actions.)
_______________________
#3
I had an odd encounter with a libertopian extraordinaire.
(See the following post.)
_______________________
#4
This one is not a surprise. The lawful sign that I deployed today on the undisputed public property adjoining Fletcher Landing was missing when I checked back two hours later.
I've always been interested in certain local issues. But until this election, my attention to local government was vague and in the abstract.
Uncharacteristically, over the past weeks I have interacted with a number of elected officials, candidates, and city employees. I have new found respect for anyone willing to run for office or otherwise be in the public eye, especially in a (not so) small (anymore) community like Bainbridge.
Anyone with integrity that is.
___________
Maybe there is a reason that citizens other than real estate developers should take the Will Peddy campaign seriously. If that reason exists, it will never be known. That's because Mr. Peddy's campaign has been polluted and obscured by the irrational individuals he surrounds himself with, principally Jim Olsen, Peddy's whacked out campaign manager.
And now to compound matters, the online publication bainbridge buzz reports troubling news about the Will Peddy campaign regarding widespread and egregious falsification of his resume.
bainbridge buzz:
the registrar at UC/Davis said the school has no record of Will Peddy attending
...
campaign manager Jim Olsen sent us an “amended” copy of Peddy’s resume which no longer contains the claim that Peddy had a bachelor’s degree from UC/Davis.
While this is good news from the standpoint of the road-ends, it's an unfortunate development in my view. I'd rather see Peddy's (diffuse) brand of private property zealotry lose out on the merits, as was destined to happen.
Per the announcement in The Review, there is a "mayoral forum" being held at Fletcher Landing on Saturday Sept 17 at 11:00.
(It is unlikely any of the candidates will be attending, for a variety of reasons including the fact there is a competing event.)
In deference to the (unlawful) orders from the police department not to trespass on the so-called road end, the event, such that it is, will take place on the street adjoining the road end. (The cement posts are the line of demarcation.)
There will be limited refreshments on a first-come, first-serve basis.
The purpose of this event is to:
Here are directions, starting at the corner of New Brooklyn and Fletcher Bay Rd:
The libertopians asked the state appeals court to reconsider, and the court summarily refused. The libertopians supposedly have 30 days (from date unknown) to appeal to the state supreme court.
____________
In my state of confusion, I lost four days of organizing time for the open forum being held at Fletcher Landing Saturday at 11:00. Haphazardly, the event is still on. Please check back for details (which I plan to post this evening).
Big news...
Apparently the State Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal. This is based on a voice message left by a knowledgeable source from the City. I'll fill in the details once I confirm the facts on Monday.
The City has previously stated the fence would come down if the state supreme court rejected the case. If they are true to their word, Fletcher Landing is on the verge of becoming a public road-end in actuality.
_______________
And guess what. The beach is already public. It's only the road-end that was in dispute. (However, without the road-end, the only access to the beach is was via the water.) Or so was explained to me today by city councilman and mayoral candidate Nazem Tooloee. Thank you for taking the time Nazem, and for providing the first coherent explanation I've yet to hear.
Last night the candidates for mayor held a debate at city hall. (It is repeatedly airing on Bainbridge Island Broadcasting. Check your local listings.)
The candidates were asked to comment on road-ends and on preservation of public lands.
Darlene Kordonowy and Nezam Tooloee spoke out strongly in support of public access to the road-ends.
Will Peddy spoke out strongly NOT in support of the road-ends:
I'm not certain that most of the people on the island want to spend the money that it takes to get the road ends accessible in accordance with how the committee has been thinking.
I think we should lessen our expectations of what those road-ends look like and not prioritize any of our spending on it.
...
I don't think that a majority of the island feels that road-ends is a big issue.
...
I just think that A majority of the islanders don't feel that road-ends are something the city should be putting a lot of effort into right now.
Forgetting Fletcher Landing for a moment, I'm not highly impressed with the Will Peddy for mayor campaign. That's because, from my perspective, despite that there's a Pedddy sign (or four) on nearly every street corner, Mr. Peddy has not communicated his positions on the issues with any specificity.
Suggestion to the Peddy campaign: Add some content to your web site. I get that you want to be mayor. I don't get what you intend to do if you become mayor, other than vague platitudes.
That said...
I deployed a sign at the corner of Miller and New Brooklyn. It was unlawfully removed a week later. The next day there were four Will Peddy signs deployed at the same intersection. (Darn. Just when I thought I had staked out a Peddy-free zone.) Yesterday, the Peddy signs had been vandalized.
The MO was not the same. The Peddy signs were thrown into the bushes, whereas the Free Fletcher Landing sign is missing in action.
Sign vandals are libertopians. They place their own ideals above the law.
Suppressing political speech in this manner is unlawful, counter-democratic, and cowardly.
Signs that I have posted regarding Fletcher Landing have been unlawfully removed.
This sign was posted at the corner of Miller and New Brooklyn a week ago. It was removed 2 to 3 days ago.
This sign was posted at the corner of Fletcher Landing and Foster on Saturday, Aug 3. It was removed yesterday. In neither case were the (numerous) other posted signs tampered with -- just the Free Fletcher Landing signs.
I went to Farmer's Market this morning and by chance met Mayor Kordonowy, who was seated behind a table and interacting with the public. We had a lively (and enjoyable) discussion.
(While waiting to speak with Mayor K, much discussion ensued regarding development on the island. Even though I wish there would be no new development, I also recognize the rule of law, including the rights of property owners. It's curious how citizens seem to think that The City is a semi-autonomous region, not bound by state or federal law.)
I asked Mayor K to state her position on Fletcher Landing. (She was not as mono-syllabic as this paraphrase indicates.)
_______________________________
Mayor K: When the court ruled in our favor, we were all set to take down the fence. Then came the supersedeas bond which tied the City's hands.
Me: Fair enough. But how does that give The City the right to prevent the public from using the beach? It's a public beach, per every court ruling. Is the public allowed to use the beach?
Mayor K: Yes.
Me: If we leave the fence alone, is there any reason why we can't clear the trail, just like citizens do trail work in Grand Forest?
Mayor K: No.
Me: I intend to quote you. And I have witnesses! [turning to the crowd of 5 or so] All of you are witnesses!
Mayor K: Go right ahead.
_______________________________
From my perspective, Mayor K said all of the right things. I only wish it were (better) on record.
I hope that each mayoral and council candidate will go on record regarding Fletcher Landing and road-ends in general. I intend to solicit and publish their positions.
...the defendants filed a "supersedeas bond" to stay carrying out and/or enforcement of the lower court decision until the appeal had run its course.
Questions for the City:
A Fletcher Landing resident posted this letter from city attorney Paul McMurray:
_____________________
August 26, 2005
Re: City of Bainbridge Island v. Brennan, et al.
Dear Citizen:
A number of citizens have expressed concern regarding why the City has not removed the gate located at the Fletcher Landing road end. This frustration is understandable as the City has pursued resolution of this issue for a number of years. However, due to the continued pending status of this matter before the Division II Court of Appeals, it appears that the City is not legally able to remove the gate and open access to the public at this time. The following is provided as a further explanation of the current legal status of the matter.
Recently, the Division II Court of Appeals issued an opinion affmning the decision of Kit sap County Superior Court Judge Leonard Costello in the case of the City of Bainbridge Island v. Brennan et al. Part of Judge Costello's decision specifically allowed the City to remove "other vegetation and the chain link: fence, gate, lock, and posts obstructing Fletcher Landing if the same [were] not removed within 120 days from entry of judgment by the defendant"
The defendants appealed Judge Costello's decision in the Fletcher Landing case. At approximately the same time and as generally allowed by appellate rules, the defendants filed a "supersedeas bond" to stay carrying out and/or enforcement of the lower court decision until the appeal had run its course. On July 20, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the decision of Judge Costello. Unfortunately, the appeal is still pending as the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals on August 9, 2005, and the supersedeas bond remains in effect As such, it appears that the City is not legally able to remove the gate and provide access at Fletcher Landing.
If the motion for reconsideration is denied and ifthe defendants do not seek review by the Washington State Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals will issue a mandate that finalizes their decision. At that time, the City will be in a position to take action to remove the gate and provide access at Fletcher Landing.
Hopefully this clarifies the situation for you. Thank you for your expressing you concerns.
_____________________
This synchs with what I was told by McMurray last week.
An article about Fletcher Landing appeared in the Kitsap Sun yesterday that succinctly outlines the City of Bainbridge Island's nonsensical libertopian position on Fletcher Landing. Here are selected quotes followed by commentary.
Sun: City Attorney Paul McMurray said the favorable ruling doesn't yet give the city the right to open the fence. "As long as the case is still pending before the state appellate court, we're really not in a position to open that gate up," he said.
Bearing in mind that Mr. McMurray has been on the job for just one week and has been thrust into an impossible situation... Notice what he did NOT say: No citation of law. No quotes from a judge. No internet links. No new facts.
Argument by repetition doesn't cut it. Unless and until The City of Bainbridge Island cites a court ruling, these words ring hollow. The legal system of this country is based on written law. "Because we say so" is unacceptable.
Let's play at libertopia for a moment. Let's pretend, as implausible as it seems, that a secret legal proceeding prevents the City from removing the fence, and that the July 20 state appeals court ruling is (inexplicably) invalid...
How in the name of Odin does shadow law compel the City to act as a private security force on behalf of land-grabbing libertopians?
The ruling of the state appeals court is crystal clear: Fletcher Landing is a public beach. We the public are allowed to use this public beach in accordance with state law and in accordance with the US constitution. The City of Bainbridge Island does not have the right to overrule state and federal law.
Sun: Should the court not reconsider, the case could be heard in the state Supreme Court.
It took almost two decades for the case to work it's way to the state appeals court. How many more decades might it take for the state supreme court to rule? And if the libertopians lose in the state supreme court, what prevents a multi-decade federal appeals process?
This is a pathetic joke.
Sun: Bainbridge Police Lt. Phil Hawkins disagrees. "Anybody who goes out there and destroys property is committing a criminal act," he said.
Based on my ongoing research, and with a tip of the hat to Kafka, it may be true that I broke the law when I cut the lock off. But even if true, that doesn't mean the public is not allowed to use the beach. It just means we aren't allowed to remove the fence.
Sun: "The right of way is in dispute." [quoting Lt. Hawkins]
Lt. Hawkins, you are parroting libertopian nonsense. The libertopians can dispute Fletcher Landing until they are blue in the face. That doesn't change the fact that, in the meantime, the beach is public. The police department is not a private security force on the beckon call of wanton, unlawful land-grabbers.
(Note to self: For a lark, dispute the ownership of Eagle Harbor.)
If I were a legitimate property owner experiencing trespassing problems, posting a No Trespassing sign would be the first logical action.
In fact, if I were a libertopian trying to create bogus facts on the ground, I'd wallpaper Fletcher Landing with No Trespassing signs.
Yet no sign. I speculate that the libertopians have been compelled not to post a No Trespassing sign.
If there are any attorneys out there, I'm all ears if someone can inform me...
If and when I am charged with trespassing, who will I have trespassed against?
Can no trespassing be enforced when there is no sign posted?
An article appeared in Bainbridge Island Review today, August 24, titled Road end opened, closed. Here are selected quotes from the article with my comments interspersed. (Sorry no link. It's not online to my knowledge.)
Review: The road end has been gated and locked for 10 years.
According to the state appeals court, the fence was erected in 1986.
Review: The gate has remained locked, while neighbors decide whether to seek reconsideration of the appellate court ruling or petition the Supreme Court for review.
Meanwhile the City of Bainbridge Island endlessly twiddles its thumbs, allowing the libertopians to define facts on the ground despite that every court ruling says the beach is public. How many more decades can this go on?
Review: Lisa Neal, one of the neighbors doing battle with the city, had previously asked the public to avoid the road end "until the matter is completely resolved, perhaps by a higher court".
Welcome to full-on libertopia, where greed and disregard for the law is unabashed.
How many more decades Ms. Neal?
Review: Chester's actions were investigated for possible charges of trespassing and malicious mischief. But Bainbridge police issued a statement Tuesday that no charges are imminent.
On August 19, the police explicitly confirmed to me (via telephone) that I was being charged with a crime. This was confirmed again by a member of the city council on the 22nd.
To the Bainbridge Police and/or prosecutor: Please communicate my status to me in writing.
Police (per the Review): Due to reports in the media of the court's initial finding that the access was open to the public and being unaware that the case had been appealed, the subject thought he had the right...
Thought and still think. The libertopians can appeal until they are blue in the face. In the meantime it's a public beach per every court ruling.
I point to state law, which the police are required to uphold. The City points to libertopian shadow law. Regardless if the City chooses to be passive about the fence, the police have no right (to the best of my knowledge) to prevent the public from enjoying this public beach.
Until a vaguely coherent argument is presented by the City, I recognize the ruling of the state appeals court as definitive: Fletcher Landing is public.
I had a pleasant and bizarrely informative meeting with the city administrator and the new city attorney. (I'm not an attorney.)
As best I understand, the administrator is the equivalent of a city manager and a virtual co-equal to the mayor in a general sense. In advance, she declined my request to tape record the meeting.
The attorney started just two days ago. Understandably, he is not well acquainted with the lengthy case. So even though he (graciously) shed some light on the City's (supposed) constraints, all of the City's rationale is (from my perspective) purely in the realm of shadow law.
I cited facts: the unequivocal WA state appeals court ruling.
They cited shadow law. No case number. No quotes. No links.
I was advised that I may have to file a freedom of information request in order to understand the "real" law.
No joke.
We had some (genuinely) fun side conversations, paraphrasing...
Me: What if I file a $1500 bond like the libertopians did, and claim that I own Eagle Harbor?
Them: You can't do that.
Me: Why not?
Me: Am I allowed to place Free Fletcher Landing signs in the same places as the election signs?
Them: Yes. In fact, the council was recently forced to liberalize the law. You can put them anywhere in the X(?) foot easement.
Me: What does that mean?
Them: Um, well, in fact, your signs are not election signs -- the ordinance does not apply here.
Me: Does that mean my signs have less, the same, or more leeway than the election signs?
Them: I don't know.
Me: OK. It's important to me that I act lawfully. How am I supposed to figure it out if you can't figure it out?
Them: Good point.
Me: Is it unlawful for ordinary citizens to remove my signs?
Them: Yes.
I was cautioned repeatedly not to set foot on Fletcher Landing, based entirely on undocumented, nonsensical shadow law.
It is most uncommon for there to be large waves in Puget Sound. It would be doubly apt, then, to think of Bainbridge Island as make-no-waves central. This was evidenced by my phone conversation with a placator extraordinaire -- a member of the Bainbridge Island City Council. Paraphrasing...
Mr. P: It's outrageous that you are being charged with a crime. I'm going to work with you and the police are going to work with the neighbors [the libertopians] and we're going to get you folks together to resolve this dispute amicably.
Me: Er, ok.
Mr. P: [all of a sudden mumbling] You'll apologize to the neighbors and then...
Me: Wait a sec! I'm not even remotely apologetic. The chances that I will apologize are exactly zero.
Pr. P: Um, ok, let me figure something out and I'll get back.
I suspect this mentality is at the heart of the City's bizarre and unlawful handling of Fletcher Landing.
All of a sudden I'm popular. The police want to talk to me. A member of the city council wants to talk to me. The city administrator wants to talk to me.
You people are confusing. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation for the City's libertopian fantasy. It is my distinct impression that none of you are as aware of the facts as am I, nor aware of the law.
Leading to a simple request: Could you please put it in writing? (Preferably with citations to the state appeals court decision.)
Especially the police. I've been ordered not to set foot on Fletcher Landing or else I will be arrested (and presumably charged again). I could use some clarity here.
Paraphrasing...
Officer: If you set foot on Fletcher Landing you will be arrested.
Me: Am I allowed to access the beach via boat?
Officer: I'm not sure. I'll check and get back to you.
Well?
Here's what a public beach looks like in Libertopia (aka Bainbridge Island, WA):
Mayor Kordonowy, how do you explain this?
It's an election year. I look forward to hearing explanations from the candidates for mayor and city council.
On August 14, 2005 I made my first visit to Fletcher Landing. I cleared blackberry bramble from the path to the beach and erected a small sign.
While I was clearing the bramble, some friendly folks ambled by and, as if a daily routine, slipped through a gaping hole in the fence, and proceeded to enjoy a sunny morning on this beautiful (and historic) public beach. (And why not? It's perfectly legal.)
I was ordered by neighboring libertopians not to clear the bramble from the path, and to leave the property. (I was also ordered not to use my video camera to record events. Funny that!)
Several hours later, the sign had been removed.
More on my personal travails later. First this gem from The Kitsap Sun, July 21, 2005:
The decision, written by Judge Christine Quinn-Brintnall of the Washington Court of Appeals, affirms an earlier ruling in 2002 from Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Leonard Costello, that the Fletcher Landing road-end was built and designed to be public.
Judges C.C. Bridgewater and J. Dean Morgan concurred.
Blair Burroughs, an attorney for the city in the case, said that he was "delighted" with the decision and that he was just finishing building a kayak. "I'm planning on using it at Fletcher Landing," he said.
Yup, that's right. This is an attorney for the City of Bainbridge Island -- the same city that is bringing charges against me.
Hey Blair, wanna go kayaking? I'll meet you at Fletcher Landing.
WA State appeals court ruling, July 20, 2005:
A dedicated right-of-way laid out to navigable waters is presumed to provide access to the water's edge, and the record owners were on notice of the public nature of the Tidelands when they purchased their properties. We hold that there was no boundary change by acquiescence and reject the record owners' asserted affirmative defenses. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that a fence encroaching on the right-of-way be removed. ...
'where a road extends to navigable water, it is presumed that the person dedicating the road intended to extend that road across the Tidelands to the water. The evidence is insufficient to rebut this presumption.' We [the appeals court] affirm.
Sourced from the WA state appeal court ruling:
1898: Peder Erlandsen purchased 32 acres on Bainbridge Island adjoining the shores of Fletcher Bay (excluding state-owned tidelands).
1899: Erlandsen and other local property owners petitioned the county to build a road across Erlandsen's property to the beach. The commissioners approved, and County Road No. 105 was built and opened within five years.
1904-1909: A wharf was built extending west into the bay.
1914: A private company began ferry service between the Fletcher Bay wharf and the Kitsap Peninsula. The public accessed the ferry via the county road and the wharf.
1923(?): The ferries began to carry cars.
1924: Erlandsen dedicated to the public a right-of-way over and across the Tidelands.
1941: Ferry service from the Fletcher Bay wharf ends.
1947: The wharf was dismantled.
1947-1985: The public continued to use the road end tidelands to access Puget Sound.
1986: Nearby property owners erected a fence and installed a gate, blocking access to the Tidelands.
1986: The lock was removed and the gate left open, and members of the public resumed using the Tidelands.
1991: The City of Bainbridge Island annexed the entire island in 1991 (from Kitsap County).
1996: The lock was reinstalled.
1999: The City of Bainbridge Island sued to quiet title to the road and Tidelands, and prevailed.
1999-2005: The neighbors refuse to take down the fence. The gate remains locked.
2005.July: The state court affirmed that Fletcher Landing is public.
(The gate remains locked.)
Fletcher Landing is a small public beach located on Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, WA, USA.
In the mid 1980's, neighbors of Fletcher Landing (aka "the libertopians") erected a fence and claimed Fletcher Landing as private property. Kitsap County fought the libertopians in court and prevailed.
Inexplicably, the fence was allowed to remain while an appeal dragged out over the following 19 years.
Finally, the case was decided by the Washington state appeals court in July, 2005. As expected, the libertopians lost. Fletcher Landing, including the access road and the beach, is still decidedly public.
Yet: The fence remains. The gate is locked. And strangest of all, the City of Bainbridge Island is (unlawfully) prosecuting "trespassers" such as me. (Or so I'm told).
I have a lot of catching up to do before I can post in real time. In the interim, the most important fact is this (lengthy) ruling by the WA state appeals court, docket number 31816-4-II: courts.wa.gov
