In response: Are city officials hallucinating?
I saw the article in The Leader about the “Raccoon Lodge” and was baffled by the city’s position. I’ve walked by that …
I saw the article in The Leader about the “Raccoon Lodge” and was baffled by the city’s position. I’ve walked by that structure many times and to call it a public health hazard is beyond preposterous. Also requiring a building permit and an engineering assessment seems to exist in some alternative reality of what that structure is. Are city officials hallucinating? Just because the regulations exist doesn’t mean they make sense. This seems to be a case of bureaucratic rules flying in the face of common sense and reality.
An accommodation should be made for this property owner’s imaginative and clearly benign project. If the city requires a building permit and an engineer’s opinion, they should pay for that nonsense.
2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
I walked past the tree again last week to confirm my analysis. The art construction is unlawful.
While I also appreciate the art work, it is unlawful. The cedar on which it was built is partly on private property and partly on City property. The art is on City property. It unlawful to build on the City Right-of-Way (ROW) in this manner.
The City has a rare opportunity here: to act like statesmen. To uphold the law in an unpopular case. To do the right thing in the face of public anger.
Friday, December 9, 2022 Report this
One thing that used to make made Port Townsend unique, like Leavenworth and Winthrop, was our architectural structures. Certainly the "Racoon Lodge" is one of those. I get everyone can't build on city property but there ought to be a way to let it's residence beautify this nasty dead stump. Spare me the "uphold the law" like I see happening in some of our leaders cases back east.
Saturday, December 10, 2022 Report this