Earlier in the spring, Chelan County, responding to complaints from neighbors over recreationalists parking on the easement leading to the Land Trust’s property at the end of Day Drive, told the Land Trust that allowing parking on their easement might be out of compliance with county codes. The Land Trust, showing a cooperative spirit, temporarily posted ‘No Parking’ signs on the small pullout recreationalists were using.
In the intervening time, the county informed the Land Trust that they were not being forced to close their parking; they were being informed there could be a future problem. So the Land Trust removed the signs but made no fanfare about the issue, figuring that the more people who walk into the hills from their homes or from Fifth Street, the better…at least for now.
Interestingly, at least one vigilante neighbor has stretched the truth of the situation. Shortly after the ‘No Parking’ signs were first posted, WenatcheeOutdoors received accounts from recreationalists who had been walking into the hills from Day Drive and were confronted by an aggressive neighbor who told them the trails were closed. While WenatcheeOutdoors was certain this was a fabrication and the issue was about parking, not foot access, they checked with the Land Trust. Indeed, walkers, joggers, mountain bikers and horseback riders were all welcomed to access the Sage Hills through the Land Trust’s easement.
Now there’s a new wrinkle. After the Land Trust removed its ‘No Parking’ signs, a new sign, placed bv neither the Land Trust nor the county, was posted in their pullout. That sign states the following:
"
Parking Lot Closed.
By Chelan County.
Legal Parking is available No. 1 Canyon Road at the Intersection of Sage Hills Drive. Parking is illegal on Day Dr. and offenders will be ticketed."
Most of us can relate to the sentiment of wanting to protect one’s private reserve. Neighbors who lived here before the access point had any fanfare enjoyed living on the edge of undeveloped property they did not own but from which they received a huge privacy benefit. Sure, it’s disappointing when change occurs and others get to enjoy what you enjoyed alone. Sure it’s a bummer when a few more cars per hour visit your quiet dead end. It’s a double bummer when the occasional visitor has poor etiquette and plays loud music, yells early in the morning, litters, or lets his dog wander onto your property.
But dictating public behavior and trying to deny a public good by placing bogus signage on someone else’s property? Implying this edict comes from the authority of the county? Has someone lost perspective on this issue and slipped over the edge of acceptable societal behavior?
Weigh in. What do you think? Is this Hall of Shame behavior? Should the county come down on people who misrepresent its authority and who, without permission, place signage on a neighbor’s property? Or is this issue too petty to worry about? Should we simply pray for people when self-serving behavior temporarily knocks them off level ground? After all, at times all of us could use some divine intervention to question our motives and ethics.