Right-of-way allegations – Editorial

By Meredith N. Griffith

By Meredith N. Griffith

Journal contributor

Recently, unknown persons wrote a letter accusing three Friday Harbor residents of “fraud” (charging for parking on an unopened town right-of-way) and calling for the Town of Friday Harbor manager to engage in an “independent investigation.” These persons delivered their attack to local news outlets, the town administration, the sheriff, county council and the county prosecutor.

We are not going to publish a story about the accused community members, and here’s why.

We have a long-standing policy: we do not publish unsigned letters to the editor. We do not support those who would malign others’ reputations while trying to avoid the consequences of their own words in a community that values trust, compassion and relationships.

In certain cases, it is appropriate for sources to remain anonymous: for example, minors who are victims of sexual assault; whistle-blowers who might lose their job over allegations founded in fact; and other case-by-case situations.

In response to the letter, we have investigated the situation, and concluded that there is no merit to the accusations. Town of Friday Harbor code, Section 12.28.030B, clearly gives property owners the right to use town right-of-way areas which immediately abut their property “for any use that is not inconsistent with the public’s easement for street purposes.” As long as property owners do not build permanent structures or damage the right-of-way property, they can charge for parking, hula dancing or whatever activity they so choose that falls within the zoning code of their own property. When the area becomes an actual street, public street use takes priority over adjacent property owners.

Town of Friday Harbor administrator Duncan Wilson states that no one has contacted him with concerns regarding this particular use of right-of-way. The access is expected to be developed within the year, and no payment regarding parking has changed hands this year as a result. These facts seem to indicate that the letter was a vindictive attempt to insinuate wrongdoing, rather than a real effort to resolve a case of genuine injustice. We will never know the true motivation of the letter, as the writers are anonymous. But we are confident that the matter may be, in good conscience, laid to rest.