John: I think the problem now is one of funds to appeal and the stamina to hold up against the city any longer. The people who have abused this cemetery for the last 40 years have manipulated the law and won. In 1992 the City Engineer in Snohomish told the man in charge of moving the building onto the cemetery that he couldn't do it because that property was lined for a cemetery and those lines had to be removed before anything could be built on that site, regardless of ownership which this man did not have. Reportedly, the city did not issue a building permit for the Senior Center, but that did not stop them from moving the house onto the property and pouring an asphalt parking lot. What did they get for breaking the law? The judge told them to remove the parking lot, he did not tell them to move the house they moved illegally onto the property and the Seniors are whining about the expense they are faced with. They took a chance that they would have to move the building later but they were pretty sure of themselves as they remodeled and built onto the old house. That is manipulating the law. Furthermore, after the city did own the property in 1996 (?) (we don't know who they got it from) they bull dozed and moved tombstones before they received any permission from anybody and then they posted insignificant flyers advising the public of their intent to build on the site. The Moores and Crawfords had already formally and legally asked the city to notify them before they proceeded with these plans. The city ignored this legal request - evidently, according to them, a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing, which is a strange way to run a city! This same judge back in June gave the city and the Senior Center builders an official hand slap and told them to start over with their legal notification and do it right this time. This judge seems to be in the practice of hand slapping, rather than observing and enforcing the law. For these reasons alone, the Moores and Crawfords deserve their initial expense which they could probably get in a Civil case, but who knows? Maybe the next judge will be a hand slapper too! I wasn't at the courthouse for one day of legalese but I know from knowing the facts of the case that this is what happened. The city muddied the waters by claiming the state putting the highway through the cemetery in 1947 and leaving no records was the crux of the problem. They ignored the fact that there was a lot of property left on both sides of the road containing graves because it served their purpose to do so. They ignored the fact that records did exist once because it served their purpose to do so. They ignored the fact that they didn't give the Senior Center a building permit because it served their purpose to do so. The judge toured the property and ignored the fact that everywhere he walked he was walking over gravesites, including the property now covered by the Snohomish Pioneer Village - he had his photo taken there for the Herald! The word in Snohomish, as "Victoria" so aptly told us months earlier, is that there is no cemetery there, there used to be a cemetery there, but no longer. Well, that is certainly true to a point due to the efforts of a few people in Snohomish determined to remove all traces of it. They are all ignoring the fact that the graves are still there under the ground which is where they are supposed to be. Erasing all evidence of them above ground does not remove that fact. If the Moores and the Crawfords hadn't stopped them, and if we as a group hadn't publicized the facts in our bumbling, ineffectual way, the city of Snohomish would have gone ahead with their plans to build on the cemetery without removing the existing graves, or any part of them. Hopefully, many more people now know Snohomish is the city in Washington state with the immoral gall to build civic structures on a known grave yard because they were able to manipulate the law and use politics to do so. Such is progress. I don't hold much hope for a letter writing campaign, or an e-mail campaign. Our last effort got some 5 letters to the governor which he ignored or never saw and the Cemetery Board is still waiting for its 3rd e-mail in 4 years. Our one hour on the Dorie Monson show on KIRO produced some 7 calls, one from me and one from Valerie and I think Carolynn may have called, the other 4 were from average citizens who essentially said old bones shouldn't stop progress, which Dorie agreed with. If you search the Herald on their website for articles concerning cemeteries, the number may now be slightly over 10 in the several year's history of their search engine, and at least 4 of those are letters to the editor, three from Valerie, Evelyn and Patrice from our little group. Such a few people can't fight city hall, we've tried and lost. I am personally out of steam, I don't want to be an activist. I only wanted to save a neglected cemetery on the other end of the state from where I live which I've never personally visited. When the people who live there don't care, what can we do who don't live there. And, that is not entirely true, some people in Snohomish do care, they can't fight city hall either. Maybe we can be more successful in the future with what we've learned from this experience - like John said, "its a done deal". Norma John Wm Sloniker wrote: > > > Norma > > Norma, unless someone can come up with an idea to challange/change that > judges decision, that's a done deal. > > The only way around it that I can think of is a civil case. Sue the City > and others for their misuse and lack of care for the cemetery. For now, I > don't have enough info to guess how that might turn out. A title search is > the first thing needed to see who was involved and what the intent was at > the time the title was transfered. Some of the information probably would > also be in the old newspaper files. > > At present, to know that all those areas are, or have been, used for a > cemetery is a help. However, another portion of the law allows for the > current owner to use the land as they choose. That is a key element of > the case. Unless some restrictions have been placed on the recorded deed > of title, the current owner can do as they wish with the land. > > In the Snohomish City case, a letter writing campaign might help. Send a > few to the editors as well as some to the city council mentioning their > lack of care for the citizens, past and present. Ask how the living can > depend on those in charge in years to come. > > Being up-to-date is one thing, but to change intended use is another. > > John > > *====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====* > # John Wm Sloniker <johnwms@serv.net> Seattle, WA # > # (206) 789-6663 7323 - 19th Ave NW 98117-5612 # > *====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*====*