After it seemed like the final nail had been put in the coffin on SK Northwest’s development proposal, they have announced yet another appeal.
A quick look back at my coverage shows that this would be their fifth appeal since June 2006.
(Graphic via Google Earth)
According to comments on my recent post by alleged SK Northwest employees, they feel the City should pay for the trail and that a trail across their property would be a threat to public safety.
Employee “Jason” wrote,
“If the city demands we have a trail though our property then I believe they should pay for and maintain it…”
And “M” wrote,
“SK is looking out for the interest of the public. With a trail running through the property, the risk of injuries and causes to health-related issues is high…If Portland is such a bike-friendly town, why are we going to want a bike path going through a hazardous/unsafe zone where bicyclists are prone to accidents?
The city should be responsible for this considering that this particular property is privately owned.
It’s like asking Costco or some big business to build a bike path through their parking lot…who would want to do that when you got traffic going in and out constantly?”
I haven’t been able to track down the appeal document on the Bureau of Development Services website, but I’ll update this post if/when I get a copy of it.
- Here are the first three pages of their intent to appeal (not very exciting really). (PDF, thanks Ben!)
- Here is the Hearing Officer’s decision they are appealing (links to a PDF on the BTA Blog).
Stay tuned. This could go on for a long time.
For full coverage, view my SK Northwest archives.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
And they will lose, yet again.
Looking out for the public interest by preventing the public from linking together two segments of a centerpiece of sustainable urban living…That\’s the best spin I\’ve heard since Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9/11. If SK Northwest is looking out for the interests of the public, and the public believes its interests are contrary to those SK Northwest ostensibly asserts on behalf of the public, then I guess SK Northwest thinks the public is just too dumb to understand its own interests. Please. How insulting.
These people are making enemies of the public pretty quickly by being extremely selfish and then lying about their motivations. Its time they understood that their property rights are not absolute and the law clearly requires that they pay for the trail segment over the land themselves. But I hope they spend themselves into bankruptcy chasing their tail on this dead-end appeal. Then maybe we can get a landowner that actually respects the community it exists in.
SK Northwest represents everything that\’s wrong with the values of private developers who put their own profit ahead of Oregon\’s current and future well-being. Portland\’s cyclists should remember that SK Northwest fought hard to make Portland and the Springwater-Esplanade a less safe and less friendly place to ride a bike.
What companies benefit financially or otherwise from SK\’s existence?
If SK wants to continue to tie up the court\’s time (and our tax dollars as well!), perhaps regular citizens could respond by researching the above question and then organizing a boycott of every business that SK does business with. (Lots of this info should be found somewhere in the public record.) Boycotts may seem punitive to some, but they can be highly effective in changing peoples\’ minds and stopping unwise actions from going forward.
Just my two cents.
It almost seems like they could have just built the trail with the money/time they have spent on the soon to be 5 appeals…
Time to make the entrance to the Portland spirit a mass bike parking areas. Lets make it impossible for people to access the boat from the public park. The public and city allows this public area to be used for this companies private business and this is how they respond to that kindness?
Think how vengeful these people are that they put a stipulation of anyone who purchases this land that they must fight to not allow the bike path. All they have to do is sell the land and let the new owners respond as they see fit, why the strings?
\”It’s like asking Costco or some big business to build a bike path through their parking lot…who would want to do that when you got traffic going in and out constantly?” M
When and if Costco or a big business ever does decide to locate their parking lot on the edge of a big public resource like the Willamette River, asking them to locate a bike path through the parking lot would be completely reasonable and consistent with the supported vision for a continuous bike path along the river.
Look, if SK doesn\’t want the public bike path on their property, raise money to have it built over the water as was done further down on the esplanade. SK isn\’t going to like that idea either, but maybe it would help them make the right decision about what they should be doing in this situation.
If Portland wants to use SK\’s property for a bike path, why doesn\’t portland just pay for the path, or buy the small strip of property that they need for the path. I\’ve seen plenty of instances where a road needed to be built cutting into someones property, and the property owners were always generously reimbursed for the land, and not held accountable for upkeeping a public roadway
\”If Portland wants to use SK\’s property for a bike path, why doesn\’t portland just pay for the path, or buy the small strip of property that they need for the path.\”
Because they don\’t have to. Do you buy things you can legally get for free?
The bottom line is that the City of Portland, like every other local, regional, and state agency that builds and maintains transportation facilities is short on cash because of increased wear and tear on roads caused by new road construction in the suburbs, costly freeway construction, and increased wear and tear on existing roads with far less growth in fuel tax revenue (the federal and state gas tax hasn\’t increased in over 15 years, yet average travel per person has increased significantly – although the Portland region is one of the few in the country where this trend is leveling off). Thus, cities have been requiring OFF-SITE transportation improvements commensurate to the level of impact the proposed development is anticipated to have on the transportation network.
While it is unlikely that SK will generate much bike traffic, vehicles traveling to and from the development will cross and impact bike lanes off-site. This is arguably sufficient cause for the city to request the trail improvement (which will reduce the transportation conflict). In fact, this request is miniscule compared to building a road or installing a traffic signal. I\’ve worked on many development projects where far more expensive improvements were required as a result of smaller developments.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly supported these so-called \”exactions\” provided they are roughly proportional and related to the impact. However, the current make-up of the court suggests that this case might not fare well considering that they have overturned other precedents. Regardless, Portland has a very strong public interest in, and evidence of, increasing utilitarian bicycling and I think this helps the City\’s argument in the court system. The Springwater Corridor is more than just a recreational trail, it supports growing commuter bike traffic.
SK is bent because widening a road in front of the site would benefit them in addition to the public, whereas the bike trail improvement will likely provide no benefit to them whatsoever. However, this is not now, nor never has been, a consideration in the \”exactions\” process. But it\’s easy to understand SK\’s reluctance to accept the improvement, especially coupled with conservative \”Wild West-style\” property-rights dogma and a far-right leaning Supreme Court.
I believe Dustin (#6) is referring to cases where a road is proposed through a property that has no pending development approval and thus the road dedication and improvement is not the result of increased traffic caused by that property.
Why not tell SK Northwest how you feel?
http://www.sknorthwest.com/
Email: info@sknorthwest.com
Phone: 503-238-2510
SK Northwest deals directly in: Can-Am, SeaDoo, SkiDoo, and Segway.
Since nearly all of the products they sell have handlebars… I wonder how these companies would feel about SK Northwest\’s relationship skills with bicyclists.
I thought that when you sell stuff, it is a good thing if lots of people notice your store. With one of the most popular trails in town crossing the property, thousands of people would virtually walk/ride through SK\’s showroom every week. Granted you can\’t carry a Sea-Doo on a bike (or maybe you can), but I\’m sure some joggers/walkers/bikers are boaters too….
SK Northwest already freely uses the Esplanade and Springwater trails to give their customers Segway lessons on; I would think it a tremendous benefit to them to be able to do this right outside their back door.
Some of the responses here are just plain laughable. Do any of you own property? I would like to see any of you not only give up part of your private property for free, but pay for whatever improvements need to be done to make it suitable for the \”greater good\”. I agree the path should be there but the city needs to foot the bill.
Logan 5-
Actually, I do own property. And building a trail across your property as a condition of development is a well-known condition of development.
The question is, do *you* own property?
Because if you did, you would know that the sidewalks are the responsibility of the property owner. As a property owner, you pay to install them, and to maintain them.
This trail is no different. It\’s really just a big sidewalk, in legal terms.
Many workers for and customers of the new SK Northwest facility can be expected to travel there by bike or foot. A rigorous review by the city\’s traffic engineer (read the decision) estimated about 5% of all new trips. In addition, new car traffic creates new safety conflicts for existing cyclists and peds. The City found a direct relationship between these development impacts and the request for the trail. The trail is basically a way for the property owner to offset the transportation impacts he is creating.
As for a crossing, the city showed photos of numerous examples of perfectly safe trail crossings at other points on the Springwater Corridor and Esplanade, and elsewhere in the country.
Garilynn, that is apples and oranges. This is a business, and one that will have heavy equipment and customers working across the \”sidewalk\” that is full of peds and high speed cyclists. If it was so clear that SK Northwest was wrong, the appeals would be rejected without any argument. Also, the residential sidewalk theory would make sense if say, it cut through the middle of your backyard interrupting your trips to the pool or shed. I just don\’t see too much cross activity going on between somebody\’s front yard and the street.
I don\’t believe for one second that bicyclists will yield to the workers or visitors of SK Northwest on that path and believe that is probably a driving force behind the fight.
And you do not have pay to install or maintain sidewalks if you fight hard enough to keep them out of your neighborhood. Come to SW.
was this \”trail\” a condition that SK NORTHWEST was subject to when they first aquired their property. Or was it imposed on them at a later point?
Dustin, they fully knew before they bought it.
There are couple of elements people are not including in their posts.
1. The orientation of the buisness is towards the river. This means boats and pwc\’s being loaded into the river from the land, accross the alignment of the proposed bike path.
2. The slough behind Ross island has a lot of conflict between the paddlers and people in ski boats. This buisness location is only going to put more pressure onto the area.
I think if SK does set up it\’s buisness at this location and the bike path is installed, there is going to be an on-going conflict between users. With boats in an out of the water and heavy equipment moving around, there realistically will be a high chance for injury. The two uses are incompatible.
We should be carefull that the bike community does not win a victory only to develop a long term danger for them-selves. I\’m not taking sides, but people should consider this as part of the discussion.
\”Do any of you own property? I would like to see any of you not only give up part of your private property for free, but pay for whatever improvements need to be done to make it suitable for the \”greater good\”.\”
I also own property. And I would be happy to take on encumberances for the greater good within the law as it currently stands. In fact, I will encumber one parcel of my property with a conservation easement: I will legally prevent myself from developing the property for the greater good of the environment. This will cost me money, and I am happy to do it.
Also, I frequently advise businesses on this type of issue and I can assure that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits any government action that would be unfair to the property owner or take the property without just compensation. The sentiment that SK Northwest is being unfairly treated or is getting a worse deal than other property owners can only be attributed to ignorance of current property development and land use law. This is the way it works and the cost to SK Northwest for the trail segment will be a tiny blip on their profit sheet once they are allowed to develop their property the way they want.
\”I agree the path should be there but the city needs to foot the bill.\”
With all due respect, this is an uninformed opinion. The idea that the City should pay is contrary to current law, so the City does not \”need to\” pay. Moreover, as a Portland taxpayer, I do not want my money being spent unnecessarily for a project that the property owner is legally bound to pay for. That\’s unfair to me and other taxpayers. SK Northwest does not deserve preferential treatment at the expense of the citizens — and that\’s what the City paying would constitute.
\”If it was so clear that SK Northwest was wrong, the appeals would be rejected without any argument.\”
This is another sentiment that is borne of ignorance of the legal process. The tribunal is required to address arguments raised on appeal, however specious they may be. And they are indeed specious in this case. But there is little or no doubt that SK Northwest is legally (not to mention ethically) wrong here — that\’s why they continue, and will continue, to lose their appeals.
Aside from the damage to their pocketbook, continued appeals will seriously damage their relationship with their community. But some damage has already happened, and SK Northwest apparently doesn\’t care. That\’s just one more piece of evidence that they are not good corporate citizens.
I\’m tempted to believe that some actor beside/above SK Northwest is supporting their actions. Perhaps an insurance co, or libertarian group…something besides money, because the goldmine potential in combining what they sell and that location are just fricken obvious. or maybe there\’s just no accounting for simple meanness, all the while some lucky lawyer is laughing at SK NW all the way to his brand new private boat slip.
\”Applicant/Appelant: Wayne B. Kingsley and Craigievar Investments, LLC\”
SK Northwest doesn\’t appear to be the appelant; Wayne Kingsley is the current owner of the property (and the adjacent Portland Spirit property and the Portland Spirit itself). But I\’m not sure who Craigievar Investments, LLC is or represents.
It seems to me that the underlying problem here is that SK Northwest is a bad fit for that parcel. Perhaps they need a waterfront parcel because their business is water-oriented. However, if they truly intend to be moving equipment across an MUP, then they are in conflict with the users of the MUP. And because the MUP was planned before SK Northwest came along, SK Northwest is a bad fit for that particular parcel.
I think that Kingsley and SK Northwest are more interested in testing the greenway designation through the legal system than in actually locating a business at that location.
Well, given the current make-up of the Supreme Court, that\’s bad news for us. And I\’m sure Kingsley and SK know how to count…
I think a big issue is that of the attitudes of people using the path in the future if it gets built. If SK is going to be moving equipment across on a regular basis, the safety issue is a definite concern. I was at the last appeal and either SK or WK actually laughed out loud when testimony for the trail indicated that \”cyclists and peds would have no problem yielding to the business workers\”. I would have to agree that it is a strange argument as too many cyclists around here tend to have a high sense of self-entitlement without wanting to pay into the system that works for them. What is going to happen when a trail user runs into an employee or customer at SK?
I would like to see the trail too and have nothing but disdain for motorized water craft but I\’m not going to let that get in the way of sense when it comes to property rights. I do see some valid arguments here. From the pieces of that trail that I\’ve ridden, I see nowhere else where the trail cuts right through the middle of somebody\’s private property and business operations.
My understanding was that SK was privately unopposed to (if not thrilled about) the greenway, but that Kingsley had written a clause into the sale contract that required them to fight it, presumably to help whatever plans he has for the neighboring lot.
Or is that just consipiracy theory?
The design that would make the most sense would be to have the trail span a ramp, so that SK could move equipment under the trail, rather than across it. Of course, something like that would cost more to build. But not nearly as much as fighting all the way to the Roberts court.
\”What is going to happen when a trail user runs into an employee or customer at SK?\”
The question presupposes that there is something special about SK or about their situation. There isn\’t. What will happen is the same thing that happens every other time! If it works at OMSI, it can work elsewhere.
\”I would like to see the trail too and have nothing but disdain for motorized water craft but I\’m not going to let that get in the way of sense when it comes to property rights.\”
This has nothing to do with disdain for water craft. And opposing the City has nothing to do with \”sense\” related to property rights. Private property rights are not absolute. They have no right to exclude others because of the character of their use. What if the industries bordering the Springwater further out in SE Portland said, We need to cross this trail, so you have to close it? What if businesses said they couldn\’t load goods properly with sidewalks in use so those sidewalks have to be closed to pedestrian traffic? Those are ridiculous arguments and SK Northwest needs to learn to play nice with others.
These people bought knowing that the land was slated for this use. They are hypocrites for then complaining about a situation that they freely bought into. And the law does not require condemnation. Arguing for the public to pay amounts to corporate welfare.
\”From the pieces of that trail that I\’ve ridden, I see nowhere else where the trail cuts right through the middle of somebody\’s private property and business operations.\”
either you haven\’t done a lot of riding or you\’re not very observant, because Ross Island S&G has at least two trail crossings on the Springwater within about 2 miles south of the Kingsley property, at least one of which is regularly used by heavy equipment.
Tis true, the property is currently owned by Portland Spirit and it is a condition of the sale to SK Northwest that they will fight giving over an easement for a trail. It\’s also true that Portland Spirit benefits daily from the customers they pick up and drop off at their dock along the Esplanade.
Regarding the equipment/worker traffic back and forth across the potential trail…supposedly SK Northwest will only be testing equipment for repair in the water, something like 4 jet-skis per day in the water and no more than that. Does that sound fishy to anyone else but me? Like it might be difficult for them to avoid test driving for sale, for repair, or for fun using the access point to the river? Ugh…if they end up at that site, the annoying whine of motorized watercraft will only get worse, not to mention the pollution and conflict with the dragon boaters and other folks on the water…
SK Northwest wants the freedom to move Skidoos, etc., back and forth between their building and the Willamette River, without having to deal with any pesky bicyclists or pedestrians crossing \”their\” property (hence the continuing legal challenges). Once again, it\’s private property rights vs. the public good. Remember Measure 37, anybody?
People loves their private property rights, even when those supposed \”rights\” are shown to be directly in conflict with the greater good of society as a whole.
Perhaps SK Northwest is betting that if they keep appealing–all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary–they will eventually win.
Hmmm… I guess that means that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts\’ health condition now has a local news angle?
i wasn\’t aware that SK\’s business was going to be directed towards the river. I might have to agree with them a bit in that in could be a dangerous situation…. But the main problem I see here is that SK NW is a fairly large business and if they are shuttling junk to and from the water, a lot of cyclist/pedestrians are going to be stopped waiting for this stuff to cross, maybe stopped for long periods of time and rather frequently. SK is not going to build an expensive waterfront location to only shuttle 4 jet skis a day. This is a growing business, its watercraft traffic will also be growing
Now lets say this path does get built as the law provides. Well, that pretty much means the city is NOT going to ALSO provide another route around all this watercraft traffic, So instead of having a nice path around SK Northwest, we basically get a rather annoying traffic jam and get crappy view of SK\’s business affairs along with all the noise that comes with it. Is it really worth it?
Now I can\’t find it, but I remember somebody saying SK would be moving semi-trailers back and forth across the path. Doesn\’t make much sense if they\’ll just be putting jet-ski\’s in the water. Jet-ski\’s could pretty much be moved down to the water on a little trailer by hand, or…here\’s a novel idea…by bike?
Worst case is SK might have to have a couple flaggers to halt bikepath traffic when they move the jet-ski\’s across the path.
\”The design that would make the most sense would be to have the trail span a ramp, so that SK could move equipment under the trail, rather than across it…\”
My thoughts exactly.
I\’m under the impression that SK NW would build the trail if they owned the property, the problem is that the owner of the property now (portland spirit) won\’t sell to SK NW unless he agrees not to build the trail. Its purely a vengeful act by the owner of Portland Spirit. The guy has a lot of nerve considering the public allows him to run his business from a public ROW.
Good Discussion.
No. 36. If the owner of Portland Spirit is the ultimate cause of the uproar, then that is where the pressure should be applied. How about a sit down protest of the \”Outragious Jet Boat\” at 4:45 on Friday the 3rd at the Salmon Spring launch location location. https://www.portlandspirit.com/cruiseskd.php#20070803
Also, take a look at what they call personal water craft these days. Check out SK web site. The PWC can cary 4 to 5 people and are as big as a small water ski boat. At minimum there are going to be fork lifts going back and forth.
A final point, this battle is going to make the one to put in the North Portland Green way via concrete road look tame.
Hmmm… I guess that means that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts\’ health condition now has a local news angle?
You know, a few days ago I was thinking it would be decades before the far right tilt of the court would shift, due to the young ages of the far right wing of the court. Then I reminded myself that that is only true assuming every Justice in the far right wing maintains good health for the next few decades. \”You never know,\” I told myself.
Then Justice Roberts collapsed. For the second time. So you never know.
What we do know is by the time this works its way through the court system, there will be a new administration in Washington, and presumably, but not necessarily, the same Court. If SK is gambling on a big win in D.C., they may be in fact be handed a big loss.
If this were primarily about cyclist safety, or the design of a trail crossing, this whole thing could be resolved by now. Lateral crossings of bike paths occur all over the region in lots of different configurations.
According to SK NW, crossings, and therefore the chance of conflict, will be very infrequent. Here\’s a few quotes, taken directly from their Oct. 20, 2006 application narrative (pages 2, 8, and 16):
\”Dock (to be used ONLY for testing craft being repaired, NOT used in connection with retail sales/rental activities.\”
\”The dock is expected to be used only for a normal range of 0 to 4 repair-oriented test drives per day.\”
\”Use of the dock will be limited to employees of the facility\”
The dock structure is described as an aluminum gangway leading down to a floating dock. It doesn\’t look like it could withstand forklifts or trucks, but maybe.
There is no reliable evidence that Kingsley attached a stipulation to the sale agreement with SK NW that they had to fight the trail. At this point that\’s just a rumor. They are both fighting this equally hard, each with their own set of expensive lawyers, so I doubt anyone is being dragged into this involuntarily.
\”There is no reliable evidence that Kingsley attached a stipulation to the sale agreement with SK NW that they had to fight the trail. At this point that\’s just a rumor. They are both fighting this equally hard, each with their own set of expensive lawyers, so I doubt anyone is being dragged into this involuntarily.\”
I personally heard Shawn Karambelas (SK) say this to a Hosford-Abernathy Neighborhood Development (HAND) Association Meeting last year before they submitted their first application to BDS, and it would be in the HAND minutes if you wanted to research it.
The current appellant is Wayne Kingsley, not Shawn Karambelas.
And the Portland Spirit picks up and discharges passengers in Waterfront Park, not on the Esplanade; Kingley\’s east side dock is only for employees servicing the boat.
\”And the Portland Spirit picks up and discharges passengers in Waterfront Park, not on the Esplanade; Kingley\’s east side dock is only for employees servicing the boat.\”
Not true. Maybe it\’s supposed to be for employees only, but it\’s used to load passengers all the time.
I\’ve boarded a Portland Spirit boat by OMSI for a wedding reception, and a friend just attended the \”Y.A.C.H.T. on a Yacht\” concert on the Portland Spirit, and boarded on the eastside.
First off, kudos to the city for sticking to their guns.
I think it\’s time for all of us to email, call or write every business associated with this land deal and let them know we will not be visiting.
Burr, 30. I still don\’t see where the trail goes through the middle of the property. In the case of Ross Island, the trail is now just a jerrybuilt, marked off area in front of the business on a public street, no? No, I don\’t ride it often, and only as recreation. But the absolute chaos out there seems to illustrate my point because currently, trucks have to cross the bike path just to get to a public street which is bad enough but would be much worse if it went through the middle of the gravel loading area.
Lots of people have boarded the Portland Spirit at that Eastside Dock. And when I bike by I see groups of people getting on and off all the time.
But I think the Portland Spirit told the city, when they got that facility approved, that it was \”light industrial\” i.e. for servicing only! And they were specifically NOT going to load passengers there, as that would have resulted in certain requirements for that property. I don\’t have all the details but this is the gist of it.
Sounds like a possible code violation to me. If you see passengers loading there you can call BDS and report it, and if it is, as I suspect, a code violation, they will investigate. 503-823-7305
Jonathan, esteemed investigative reporter, don\’t you want to dig up the old code review documents from their original development application?
Michelle, if you\’re right, Portland Spirit may be operating in violation of their permit.
I did not hear about the neighborhood meeting where Karambelas claimed Kingsley is putting him up to this. I\’m not sure I believe him, and I\’m also not sure it matters.
The fact is that SK NW put their name on the application, threw a big team of consultants and lawyers at the case, and independently filed an appeal to LUBA, separate from Kingsley\’s appeal. (The first page of SK NW\’s appeal notice is linked to in Jonathan\’s post.) They need to take responsibility for their participation.
Would the Portland Spirit have had to install their portion of the greenway trail if they had admitted that their property would be a retail/commercial (not industrial) use?
Interesting issues being raised. I wonder if The Portland Spirit is prepared to have the white heat of daylight turned on their operation?
In one of the posts on SK\’s first application/denial last year, there was discussion about the City\’s inability to enforce against businesses that locate in industrial zones and migrate to retail/commercial. IIRC, the City Planner in charge of the application even admitted this is the case.
One of the reasons for the denial last year was related to the perceived focus of the application on retail use of the site rather than repair (which is considered an industrial use). In reading SK\’s applications (past and current) it\’s clear to me that they intend to capitalize on the lack of enforcement.
I wonder if that can be addressed through a change to the City Code, or alternatively, through conditions in the permit?