|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 14 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Laurian on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 4:42pm.
The City of Tacoma is going through a similar debate on waterfront condos. Peter Callaghan of the News Tribune has an enlightening column on the issue in today's paper in which he describes the role of the state Shorelines Hearings Board. I suspect how the board rules in the Tacoma case will have implications for the Triway project.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Isthmus 2008 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
my understanding, no
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 8:31pm.The Shorelines Hearings Board (at least my understanding) doesn't have jurisdiction with the Triway project because it is too far from the shoreline. The same issue was dealt with with the development north of the Phoenix Inn on Capitol.
Here is the entire judgement on scribd for anyone who'd want to read it.
Hmmm...
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 8:14am.This certainly isn't my understanding of the case Emmett links to... The SHB did have jurisdiction in the case - they issued a decision. They also said that the distance of the Boardwalk Apartments building from the water wasn't a reason to hold that the views of those residents weren't protected by the Shorelines Management Act (and they cited in support of that position a Port Angeles SHB case involving views from a bluff 1,000 feet away from the shore and 85 feet above it.) What they held (as I read the case) was that the views weren't protected because they'd be equally damaged by the 35 foot buildings that the Shorelines Act allowed.
Best,
Thad
Thad is probably right
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 2:13pm.