Ericksen/Hildebrand

It’s time for city to take some action

As a commercial real estate professional with more than 20 years experience, I find that property owners are often divided into two groups when discussing land use issues. One group thinks any attempt at imminently reasonable regulation is outrageous, unfair and un-American. The second wants to tell everyone else what to do with their property, often in pursuit of self-serving benefits.

The latter group includes people who, like Debbi Lester, want to interpret private real estate agreements between third parties. Ms. Lester and a few of her neighbors in a mixed commercial and residential neighborhood believe the community should not be allowed to drive down one public street (Hildebrand Lane) directly onto another (Ericksen Avenue). So Ms. Lester objected when a Hildebrand property owner closed off a privately owned driveway and parking lot which had been used by trespassers as a shortcut to Ms. Lester’s neighborhood.

Apparently there are private agreements in place that do not allow blocking the driveway, and even though she is not a party to those agreements, Ms. Lester does not like the way the agreements are being interpreted or implemented. But property covenants (CCRs, reciprocal easement agreements, etc.) are private agreements between private parties. Ms. Lester and her Ericksen neighbors have no more right to stick their collective nose in the private business of the owners of the Hildebrand property than they have to tell me whether or not I can let my neighbors park their car in my driveway.

Some of the Ericksen property owners apparently want the Hildebrand property owners and the public at large to pay for what are actually private benefits and amenities. They want fewer cars and slower traffic in their neighborhood. They want the right to trespass by building a picnic area on public property without so much as a proper building permit. They want to force private property owners to allow public use of their property as a thoroughfare, to change their parking, to locate and pay for stop signs in their parking lot and to incur tremendous liability by doing these things. Of course they want to take these amenities and privileges without offering the Hildebrand property owners any compensation. Much the same can be said of Winslow Way property owners, who want improved infrastructure but also want the entire island to pay for enhancing their real estate and property values. They want and they want, but they want us to foot too much of the bill.

While I am not a “majoratarian,” where it comes to decisions about using public resources like the Hildebrand/Ericksen connection, the city should consider the broader public good. Lives and property can be lost if emergency services are forced to detour around the Ericksen neighborhood. If we connect these two streets, fuel can be saved and congestion could be relieved on the other north-south routes from High School Road to Winslow Way.

With nearly unbridled development and growth on Bainbridge Island, including a marked increase in commercial uses on Ericksen Avenue, the Hildebrand/Ericksen street connection is an idea whose time has come and the city must take action. If the city will not connect Hildebrand to Ericksen, two other solutions come to mind.

The Ericksen neighbors should pay a property tax assessment to help offset the safety, social and economic cost of preserving the private amenities they covet. Alternatively, if the Ericksen owners prevail and a connection route goes through private property, the city should condemn the throughway, take on the responsibilities and, of course, charge a good deal of the cost to the property owners on Ericksen Avenue who will have had it their way.

Bainbridge Island politics seems to be held hostage by a few small but vocal special-interest groups. If, as Ms. Lester suggests, the private owners closed off their own privately owned parking lots in an effort to force the Hildebrand/Ericksen connection issue, I thank them for doing so. It’s about time someone took action.

BRIAN DANZIG

Bainbridge Island

Community

Rolling Bay turns into parking lot

Let me tell you a sweet story. We, the neighbors of Sunrise Drive, have just experienced an instant SUCCESS near the beauteous bucolic area with sheep, goats and feathered guests, and handsome flowers and plants.

Overnight, our beloved little Rolling Bay has been successfully metamorphosed into AUTO WAY, with a junkyard scene of trucks, taxis, broken down cars, you name it. Aren’t we just so lucky? Did Rolling Bay Automotive really think we would be overjoyed with this mess – or didn’t they think we would notice?

I am trying to restrain my feelings. I honestly didn’t mind your small, manageable repair shop, but this just blew my respect for you. May I suggest you take this business to Highway 305.

VENERA DI BELLA BARLES

Sunrise Drive

Judicial

Candidates guilty of conflict of interest

I am a junior officer in the U.S. military and have been trained on the issues of conflict of interest with contractors. In my opinion, it is a glaring conflict of interest for judicial candidates to accept practicing Kitsap attorneys’ campaign donations. While the law may permit this questionable practice, I believe our judicial candidates must opt to decline these contributions and stand independent of real or potential conflict.

This issue is pertinent because we have judicial candidates Jeanette Dalton and Greg Wall taking in a striking amount of campaign donations from their fellow attorneys. Judicial candidate Bruce Danielson’s principled decision to not accept contributions from area attorneys is most commendable.

The Web site http://votingforjudges.org/permits you to see the public disclosure on how much and where the three Superior Court candidates get the money to finance their campaigns as well as what they have spent the money on. You decide!

Send a message to the candidates as to which standard of behavior you endorse. I, for one, will vote for and support Mr. Danielson’s taking the high road on the noble principle of judicial independence.

CROSBY J. OLSEN

Soundview Drive