The city has been involved for some time on shoreline management issues and has been considering legislating ordinances that would allow access to privately owned waterfront properties.

I have one question, initially, which is: What part of private property doesn't the city understand? The sanctity of property rights has deteriorated recently with the use of eminent domain, and this use has been broadened to include instances where cities can practically seize property if it can claim possible increased tax revenues.

The city of Burien has been contemplating ruling that the public suddenly has the right to use what was once formerly private property. I wonder what they would think if the situation were reversed, and suddenly it was acceptable to use their property for recreation.

Private property is one cornerstone of what makes the United States what it is. Without it, we all lose something unique as a nation.

Granted, I have often thought it would be nice to swim in Lake Burien, but to think the city would attempt to acquire that privilege through legislation I think is inappropriate and that violates the basic ideals of private property rights.

I also believe that the residents around Lake Burien would also suffer financial loss if their properties were suddenly available to the public. They would be devalued for many reasons, from the increased noise, to the inevitable damage to property and degradation in the quality of the lake. The latter has been an ongoing concern where both animal and plant invasive species have been introduced either accidentally or intentionally.

All of these negative impacts may even be a future source of litigation for these residents if the city's actions become a reality.

This is something the city cannot afford, especially in these difficult financial times.

Mark Pitzner
Burien