Comments on: Lake Tahuyeh has been caught in a tug of war

By: Karen Monise

Karen Monise — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:46:35 +0000

Paul,

It’s all about perception. It is my understanding that the term “private” has always been used to describe a lake where no public access currently exists – not to describe a lake where the public will never have access. The word seems to mean different things to different people.

I think many people simply assume, and often do more research before buying a car than they do before buying a home. Before we bought here twenty years ago, our real estate agent told us about the state’s plan to build a boat launch down the street. We visualized a lot covered in asphalt, so we were not disappointed when the state announced its plan for a hand-launch only access. It’s all about perception.

The Public Trust Doctrine says the waterways of Washington are a public trust resource.
You can read it online: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/93054.pdf or search Ecology for “Public Trust Doctrine”

Karen Monise

By: Paul Sims

Paul Sims — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:14:14 +0000

Almost forgot, did the residents of the lake know the city of Bremerton owns most of the north end ? Look into the association history and you can pinpoint the woman who first dreamed up the “private” label for personal reasons. Neither she nor any succeeding chair has ever presented documentation to support the claim, merely complaints about the “public’.
For residents- get a clue, the public launchs around several of the lakes do have trash in them as well as abandoned trailers—left there by the RESIDENTS of the lakes in an attempt to have the public clean up after them.

By: Paul Sims

Paul Sims — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:06:00 +0000

On the tax roles the “dam” is identified as a bulkhead, not a dam, is that because the conditions to build a bulkhead are far less than to build a dam ? or is it because the Skokomish Tribe has not made a loss of resource claim against bulkheads as they have for dammed rivers ? The river and lake are in their ceded lands for resources !Either way, a clear and distinct attempt to deprive the public of rightful access to a resource is lurking in the background, as well as an attempt to deprive Native Nations lawful renumeration for denial of resource. The lake and river has always been public property, one wonders when the duped members of the LTCC will realize they have been hoodwinked into paying for the private agendas of present and past presidents of the association.

By: Tom Rosendale

Tom Rosendale — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:37:22 +0000

Bill, that is not an unreasonable idea except that those on the water are already being taxed as waterfront properties, and the lake bottom land would be assessed for “best use”. You probably have some idea of that value as it is often used in jokes to describe worthless land.

Why isn’t the City of Bremerton Developing an access for it’s tax payers or hasn’t it contributed its share to stocking, flood control, dam maintenance and cleaning out the invasive milfoil type growth?

By: Suki

Suki — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:43:12 +0000

As a former resident of the Lake Tahuyeh community it seems to me that giving public access is totally wrong. As stated only the residents have paid to maintain the lake and even when our family lived there it was a busy little lake with no public access and I’m sure it isn’t getting less usage now. Having seen public accesses at other area lakes on nice summer days it seems that the little lake would be overrun with users and lessen the quality of the use of the lake for the community that really owns it. Plus there will be the added effect of vandalism at a boat launch area (a sad but true reality at the present time.) If a government agency owns lakefront property, it should have been paying it’s allotted share of maintenance since conception.

By: Karen Monise

Karen Monise — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:07:06 +0000

The underlying problems on Lake Tahuyeh are far more sinister than a public access. Lurking behind the smokescreen this issue has provided are an abuse of power and a betrayal of trust.

The state’s plan to build a public access here likely resulted from the defiant actions of one director of the Tahuyeh Lake Community Club (TLCC).

After criminal charges against her and her husband for the removal of protected vegetation were dismissed twelve years ago, she and TLCC’s board sued the state and county in a costly two-year long legal battle. TLCC withdrew its lawsuit after the state agreed not to reopen its criminal case against her and her husband.

Following the dismissal of criminal charges against her, she wrote on behalf of TLCC telling the agencies that they had no authority on this “private” lake because there was “no public access” here. (Keep in mind that the City of Bremerton owns the entire north end of the lake.)

Whatever the original developer’s reason for deeding property to the state fifty years ago, we must never lose sight of what likely triggered the state’s decision to build a public access now, or whose legal battles TLCC has been financing.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 15:22:27 +0000

Sounds to me like the “lake” acreage should be divided among the owners and taxed as any other property, maybe and enhanced tax for waterfront property. In these tough times the county/state needs revenue, and these resources need to be exploited. Land should be either public or private, and private land is taxed.

By: Tom Rosendale

Tom Rosendale — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:37:54 +0000

Wow, Tahuyeh resident.
So Fish and Game owns some lots on a lake and won’t even contribute their share in stocking the lake? I bet they have no problem fining people for collecting the fish in an improper manner.

It doesn’t look good. There has been a direct correlation with increased controls by the Department of Fish and Game on shrimping, crabbing, shellfish, and fishing in Hood Canal and the decline of all those things coupled with an increase in the cost of management and license fees to the public. It could be a coincidence, but coincidences don’t just happen again and again and again with a department that sports such a non-sporting attitude.

By: tahuyeh resident

tahuyeh resident — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:23:26 +0000

Being realistic here…we residents stock the lake with sizable trout every year. Fishing is good, no doubt about it and that reputation has fueled this issue. But if the public is given access, residents are not going to continue to stock the lake just so the public can fish. So, that responsibility will be left up to the state who, no doubt, will not stock it with the size of fish we currently do. The state will stock it with the cheapest option they can find, fingerlings no doubt, and so in their effort to please everyone they will end up pleasing no one. The bottom line is no one will want to fish here…neither the public nor the residents.

By: Tom Rosendale

Tom Rosendale — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:53:12 +0000

It doesn’t seem right that the public owned lots didn’t contribute even their small share to Lake and Dam maintenance. It would be even less fair for all those small lots to all of a sudden supply a very disproportional amount of Lake users.

It also was likely that the real, non-stated reason the three lots were given to Fish and Game was for greasing the wheels to allow development. It was done before the Lake was created, not afterward.

Also, how eager was the developer to have public access if the condition of the Fish and Game lots had such difficult access to be never or seldom usable for all these years? It must be pretty difficult if it requires $240,000.00 to make it accessible.

In fairness to Fish and Game, who pays for stocking the lake with fish if it is done? On some private lakes, the owners contribute to that cost What is the arrangement for that and how does the State control “Its” fish?

Finally, I find it interesting that Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, is acting as a spokesperson for interests in a lake that is outside his legislative district. Why isn’t he trying to improve all the difficult to use public beach accesses on Bainbridge Inland? Doesn’t he want the public on Bainbridge as much as he wants them to go to someone else’s water access?