Forum Index > Stewardship > Threat to clearcut DeLeo Wall
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3082 | TRs

Damian
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 9:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
why Seattle people are not well liked outside of their area.

Well I spend a great deal of time outside the Seattle area and associate with many rural people.  My family is from Central and E Wa.  I have mostly observed that Seattle people are not liked by you.  Your continued marginalizing of people according to their home location does not add value to this site.

Come on over and you and I can hike DeLeo wall together.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9982 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed May 02, 2018 10:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's privately-owned land.

RodF wrote:
Suggest that King County Parks purchase this private land and add it to their adjacent Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park.  Or that a land trust purchase the logging and development rights and hold them in trust.

^ Either this, or put the money up to buy the property. It's privately-owned land. As long as the owners submit a plan that complies with current regulations, DNR will sign off on the project.

(Why's this in "Trail Talk" instead of "Stewardship"?)

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 10:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That parcel should be added to Cougar Mtn region park.  The big question is where is the money going to come from and whether the current land owner is going to demand some jacked up "greenmail" price by threatening to clear cut the property.   I also wonder if they've been paying below rate property taxes on the parcel for the last several decades -- but now want a price for the property as if it was suitable for building high rises on.

I think he property itself has marginal value for residential or other development -- the hillside is quite steep.

Much of the other lands in Cougar Mtn region park were donated -- because the landowner grew tired of paying property taxes on land that cannot be used for residential or other development -- due to the fact that coal mine shafts run under the park and as a result King county wouldn't allow subdivision and development because of the risk of mine shaft collapse.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9982 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed May 02, 2018 11:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
"...where is the money going to come from..."

I'm sure King County residents will be more than happy to pay even more for license tabs.  biggrin.gif

Yeah, owners of timber lands don't pay the same property tax rates as one would for residential or commercial property. They still pay property taxes, just not as much.
I would assume (perhaps mistakenly) that if the land is not suitable for residential development (either because of slope gradient or geological issues) that the purchase price would accordingly be somewhat depressed. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
JPH
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 727 | TRs

JPH
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 11:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I bet you could develop the southern portion of the property.  Especially if you developed it with the adjacent property to the west.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
hbb
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2009
Posts: 247 | TRs

hbb
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 1:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper wrote:
Remember, there is a market for lumber and lumber comes from trees.  Until you find a viable substitute for wood, we will need to cut trees. 

That market, by the way, is in Asia. Doug fir logs are one of Washington's biggest exports. The value of exported logs exceeds, for example, the value of the state's apple exports.

If we don't harvest our state's timber, a lot of Chinese sawmill workers will be put out of work.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
nordique
Member
Member


Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 950 | TRs

nordique
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 4:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just in:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stevens:

On behalf of King County Executive Constantine, I want to thank you for your recent email regarding the Dalpay forest practices application for the De Leo property adjacent to Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park.

As you may know, King County has worked hard for decades to preserve open spaces surrounding Cougar Mountain. Thousands of acres of open space are protected at Cougar Mountain and Talus Open Space, but many other areas continue to be subject to development
pressure and/or forest management activities.

The Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) believes well-managed commercial timberlands can provide important buffer to parks and natural area preserves. Further, parcels enrolled in Designated Forestland, as is the Dalpay application, are required to
be managed for commercial timber production. However, due to the concerns of you and others, I asked DNRP staff to review the Forest Practices application submitted for the De Leo property.

Our internal review raised concerns about steep slope and erosion hazards associated with the proposed harvest. Such concerns are particularly sensitive in the May Creek drainage given potential impacts to salmon and steelhead, sustaining agricultural uses and
potential damage to instream habitat features installed in both Long Marsh Creek and May Creek as part of the County's sediment removal investments.

Given these potential sedimentation concerns and the proximity of the proposal to a County park, King County is formally requesting the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to consider the Dalpay application for the De Leo parcel a Class IV-Special forest
practice rather than a Class III.  If DNR grants this request, additional environmental analysis and possible mitigation will be required as part of the process.

Thank you again for your attention to conservation of open space in King County. We share your interest and are working hard to preserve lands with high conservation value including farmlands, forest lands, natural areas, and trails.

If you have further questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact Richard Martin, Environmental Programs Managing Supervisor, at (206) 477-3876 or Richard.Martin@kingcounty.gov.

Sincerely,

Christie True
Director
Department of Natural Resources & Parks
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
H. Hound
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 1162 | TRs
Location: Exit 32
H. Hound
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 4:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
That parcel should be added to Cougar Mtn region park.  The big question is where is the money going to come from and whether the current land owner is going to demand some jacked up "greenmail" price by threatening to clear cut the property

Not sure where this greernmail crap is coming from, but when the DNR \  King County (don't remember which org purchased it) purchased 30 acres at high point from my mother (grand da had 90 acres up there), the processes was DNR \ King county paid for 2 assessment's of the property, their assessor and one my mother picked. They negotiated from there to make sure it was a fair price. End of the day, if the "public" wants that private property converted to  green space they need to open up their wallets and purchase the property at fair market prices.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11059 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 4:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
All this damage for only $501,075 in timber value??

If it's 'only' this much, it seems you could raise the money, and forge an agreement to not cut the trees for the duration of an average regrowth period by paying for their timber value. Everyone happy and the trees stay.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pahoehoe
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 352 | TRs

Pahoehoe
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 5:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Galbraith Mountain in Bellingham is an active tree farm.  Its practically right in town and on any given day you will find mountain bikers, gravel grinder bikers, hikers, trail runners, dog walkers (omg off leash!), horses, loggers, heavy equipment associated with logging and occassionally trail work, pick up trucks, loaded and unloaded log trucks....

We make it work.

Sure, it's no wilderness area but litter is rare, it's super accessible and most people are nice to each other...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 6:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
H. Hound wrote:
Quote:
That parcel should be added to Cougar Mtn region park.  The big question is where is the money going to come from and whether the current land owner is going to demand some jacked up "greenmail" price by threatening to clear cut the property

Not sure where this greernmail crap is coming from, but when the DNR   King County (don't remember which org purchased it) purchased 30 acres at high point from my mother (grand da had 90 acres up there), the processes was DNR  King county paid for 2 assessment's of the property, their assessor and one my mother picked. They negotiated from there to make sure it was a fair price. End of the day, if the "public" wants that private property converted to  green space they need to open up their wallets and purchase the property at fair market prices.

My earlier post in this thread I referenced the recent land acquisition needed to protect the PCT

https://www.pcta.org/2017/stevens-pass-land-purchase-protects-threatened-trail-access-55230/

Quote:
In early 2015, the property’s owner, who had been seeking to sell the land, stated an intention to place a fence across the PCT and prohibit public access

In terms of the accuracy of real estate "appraisals"  IME -- this is at best a "pseudo science".   The housing crisis of 2008 was good demonstration that appraisals can vary vastly from reason.

Anyway one organization that works very hard on acquiring and protecting "greenspace"  is https://forterra.org
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
H. Hound
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 1162 | TRs
Location: Exit 32
H. Hound
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 6:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Going  to hoist BS flag.  It's private property. Either put up the money to purchase it or shut up. I expect the owner will do the reasonable thing and put up no trespassing signs, and enforce it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 7:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
H. Hound wrote:
I expect the owner will do the reasonable thing and put up no trespassing signs, and enforce it.

I doubt that they could legally do that at this point.  The park dates from 1983 and the trail pre-dates that.  An easement has certainly been established during trail usage over the past three decades.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5414 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostWed May 02, 2018 7:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
nordique wrote:
Just in:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stevens:

On behalf of King County Executive Constantine, I want to thank you for your recent email regarding the Dalpay forest practices application for the De Leo property adjacent to Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park.

As you may know, King County has worked hard for decades to preserve open spaces surrounding Cougar Mountain. Thousands of acres of open space are protected at Cougar Mountain and Talus Open Space, but many other areas continue to be subject to development
pressure and/or forest management activities.

The Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) believes well-managed commercial timberlands can provide important buffer to parks and natural area preserves. Further, parcels enrolled in Designated Forestland, as is the Dalpay application, are required to
be managed for commercial timber production. However, due to the concerns of you and others, I asked DNRP staff to review the Forest Practices application submitted for the De Leo property.

Our internal review raised concerns about steep slope and erosion hazards associated with the proposed harvest. Such concerns are particularly sensitive in the May Creek drainage given potential impacts to salmon and steelhead, sustaining agricultural uses and
potential damage to instream habitat features installed in both Long Marsh Creek and May Creek as part of the County's sediment removal investments.

Given these potential sedimentation concerns and the proximity of the proposal to a County park, King County is formally requesting the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to consider the Dalpay application for the De Leo parcel a Class IV-Special forest
practice rather than a Class III.  If DNR grants this request, additional environmental analysis and possible mitigation will be required as part of the process.

Thank you again for your attention to conservation of open space in King County. We share your interest and are working hard to preserve lands with high conservation value including farmlands, forest lands, natural areas, and trails.

If you have further questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact Richard Martin, Environmental Programs Managing Supervisor, at (206) 477-3876 or Richard.Martin@kingcounty.gov.

Sincerely,

Christie True
Director
Department of Natural Resources & Parks

Wow, thanks Nordique. If additional environmental analysis and mitigation is required, chances are the owner will be more willing to sell the land to King County or a conservation easement.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2493 | TRs
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
  Top

Member
PostThu May 03, 2018 12:25 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
An easement has certainly been established during trail usage over the past three decades.

Not according to the Washington State Supreme Court.  Permissive use does not create a prescriptive easement.  The purpose is to encourage "neighborly sufferance or acquiescence" to others' access without any fear of losing one's property rights.  In Gamboa v. Clark, 183 Wn.2nd 38, 348 P.3d 1214 (2015), citing Roediger, 26 Wn.2d (1946) the court writes: "The law should, and does encourage acts of neighborly courtesy; a landowner who quietly acquiesces in the use of a path, or road, across his uncultivated land, resulting in no injury to him, but in great convenience to his neighbor, ought not to be held to have thereby lost his rights...  Applying a presumption of permissive use incentivizes landowners to allow neighbors to use their roads for the neighbors' convenience.  Not applying a presumption of permissive use in these circumstances punishes a courteous neighbor by taking away his or her property right. "

This is not true in most states.  Washington is more neighborly.  In the case of unenclosed lands, the regular crossing of another’s property is presumed to be with permission.  Property owners do not need to post "No Trespassing" signs and erect razor wire or fences around every piece of open land to prevent you from walking across their land, for fear you can later use that to take their property away from them, thank you very much.

Please realize the implications of the court's rulings.  H. Hound is right, the property owners could post "No Trespassing" signs and close the trail.  But if they did, but failed to prosecute trespassers, this "adverse use" could eventually enable trespassers to claim a prescriptive easement exists.  The court prevents that as a matter of public policy, explicitly to encourage private property owners to allow trails.  It makes Washington a bit more like England and Wales, and less like California.  How cool is that?

Pahoehoe epitomizes the public policy encouraged under Washington state law: "Galbraith Mountain in Bellingham is an active tree farm... We make it work. Sure, it's no wilderness area but litter is rare, it's super accessible and most people are nice to each other..."

We all benefit from this neighborly policy.  Locally, Olympic National Park's West Elwha Trail crosses several private parcels from its Herrick Road trailhead as do several trails to Olympic's coastal strip, Olympic National Forest's Mt. Jupiter trailhead is on Pope Resources land and its Tubal Cain Trail crosses private land, many sections of the Olympic Discovery Trail utilize private roads and driveways, many state and county park trails wander across private property lines, and the list goes on and on.

But abuse it, we all lose it.

--------------
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated.  It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Threat to clearcut DeLeo Wall
  Happy Birthday Nancyann!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy