Union Shares LLC, a local property owner, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Redmond and King County, claiming the city and county have caused massive flooding of the Union Shares’ property.
This is a countersuit to a lawsuit the city has filed against Union Shares in seeking to condemn an easement across the property south of Perrigo Park along l96th Avenue Northeast.
Charlie Klinge of Stephens & Klinge LLP, the law firm representing Union Shares, said the city wants to condemn that roughly 40-acre piece of land in order to relocate Evans Creek onto the Union Shares property, which is located just outside of city limits in unincorporated King County.
“It’s really dramatic to move this creek hundreds of feet,” he said.
Klinge called this proposed relocation an improper use of condemnation because the only time it is allowed is when it would be for public use. Contrarily, he claimed, the condemnation would be for private use and this is why Union Shares has filed its lawsuit.
Klinge said this is why Union Shares is objecting to the city’s plans.
Lisa Rhodes, communications manager for the City of Redmond, said the city cannot speak on the matter at this time.
She was able to share that the city received the lawsuit information from Union Shares last week. At the time, city attorney Jim Haney was out of the office. Rhodes said Haney returned on Monday and is currently working with city staff to gather information to file their formal response.
“Until that response is filed, the only other comment I can share is that the city vehemently disputes the claims, that they are without merit, and we will demonstrate that in court,” Rhodes said.
In a press release issued by Stephens & Klinge, Union Shares owner Gordon Hoenig stated, “It is completely unfair, undemocratic, and unconstitutional to take Union Shares’ private property located outside the city limits for the express purpose of creating a massive windfall of profits to the property owners inside the city limits, and also to generate a huge increase in city tax revenues.”
Klinge said prior to the lawsuits, the city had been discussing its plans to relocate Evans Creek since about 2012. He said the Union Shares owners have offered to sell the property to the city but they did not receive any offers for what they considered a fair value.
The Union Shares lawsuit also states that Evans Creek is a shoreline of the state, which Klinge said means it should be taken care of and maintained where it is — not moved. The creek could only be relocated — if at all — after amending both the city’s and county’s shoreline master programs. This would take a months- or years-long public process and “affirmative special approval by the State Department of Ecology,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit continues, stating that Redmond’s shoreline master program designates Evans Creek through the industrial area as a Natural Environment.
In addition, according to the lawsuit, the creek is home to Chinook, coho and sockeye salmon species. With the Chinook listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, Evans Creek’s Natural Environment designation means it is a “critical natural resource system (through the industrial area) which mandates protection.”
“The city can’t relocate Evans Creek consistent with this state and city approved legislation — Evans Creek through the industrial area shall be preserved and restored,” the lawsuit continues.
In addition to attacking the city’s condemnation, the Union Shares lawsuit is also seeking damages against the city and King County “for causing the flooding of Union Shares’ property,” the Stephens & Klinge release states.
According to the release, in 2000, the city wanted to build the trail over the Union Shares property that now connects Perrigo Park to Martin Park to the south. Union Shares voluntarily agreed to this, subject to protections promised by the city. The city, the release states, signed a binding contract with Union Shares in which the city promised “not to oppose development of the Union Shares’ property and also promised not to cause any new environmental restrictions on the property.”
“Union Shares alleges that the city has breached its promises repeatedly by objecting to development of the site and by causing the property to become flooded and unusable due to new restrictions,” the release states.
