Grant PUD proposes to settle with Crescent Bar islanders

4 free views left!

Grant PUD proposes to settle with Crescent Bar islanders

Friday, February 24, 2012

EPHRATA — The Grant County PUD has proposed a settlement with leaseholders who are fighting eviction from Crescent Bar Island and demanded that the dispute be resolved through arbitration — a requirement of the island’s lease.

The offer requires islanders to drop their federal lawsuit and pay a lot more for rent or risk the PUD filing a claim for frivilous lawsuit against them.

The PUD mailed the settlement offer to the islanders’ attorneys Thursday.

The conditions of the proposed settlement include:

That Crescent Bar Inc., the company that manages the island, return to its original position that it has no interest in remaining involved with the island beyond June 1, 2012, one of the expiration dates stipulated in its 1979 lease with the PUD and Port of Quincy.

That position changed late last year, when the islanders took control of Crescent Bar Inc., added the company to their federal lawsuit against the PUD and port and announced that the company intended to remain on the island through 2023, the other expiration date included in the lease.

That Crescent Bar Inc. release the PUD from claims under the 1979 lease, including that the PUD had an obligation under the lease to extend the expiration date to 2023.

That Crescent Bar Inc. agrees to pay “reasonable rental value” for the property covered by the lease from April 1 until the PUD has complete control over the island.

In exchange, the PUD would allow islanders to remain on Crescent Bar past their June 1 eviction date until the dispute is resolved through arbitration.

The PUD would also agree not to file a claim against the islanders for frivilous lawsuit, the proposed settlement says.

The proposal gives the islanders 30 days to consider the settlement.

If the islanders reject the settlement the PUD demands to take the case to arbitration, a requirement of the 1979 lease.

Lew Card, one of the islanders’ attorneys, declined to comment until consulting with his clients and their other lawyers.

The 1979 lease is at the root of both sides’ arguments, because it contains two expiration dates, April 1, 2012 and Feb. 28, 2023.

The PUD claims the 2012 date is the correct, because the 2023 date required federal approval to take effect. That approval never came, PUD officials say.

The islanders claim the 2023 date is the correct one, because the lease says that federal approval was required only if the PUD considered it necessary.

The islanders hold leases to about 400 condos and RV lots on the island, which is on the Columbia River about 30 miles southeast of Wenatchee.

Islanders sued the PUD, the Port of Quincy, which leases Crescent Bar from the PUD, and Crescent Bar, Inc., which leases the island from the port and is the islanders’ direct landlord.

They sued in U.S. District Court in Spokane in January 2011.

Since then, both sides have had several hearings with the judge, including one in June, when the judge threw out a PUD motion to dismiss the suit for lack of proper jurisdiction.

PUD spokeswoman Sarah Morford said utility officials declined to explain why the utility only just now has demanded arbitration.

She said such an explanation would be part of legal strategy, which is confidential.

Christine Pratt: 665-1173

pratt@wenatcheeworld.com

» Recommend this story.

» 17 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

Rick13 1 year, 2 months ago

Once again special treatment for the 1%

kyook 1 year, 2 months ago

Define "the 1%".

cbuick 1 year, 2 months ago

How about an elderly couple I know who live out there rear round in an RV because they can't afford to live anywhere else and are devastated because may have to move on account of a possible rate increase. A rate increase at higher end resort rates.

kyook 1 year, 2 months ago

That hardly sounds like the 1%ers that the 99%ers first described doesn't it?

They seem to be playing pretty fast and loose with the definition lately, haven't they? First it was Corporate bankers and CEO's of multinational corporations, now it appears to be some schmuck that got a good deal on a glorified campsite or a mediocre condo at Crescent Bar 30 years ago.

I think that, eventually, the 1% will be anybody that makes more than they do, which is probably not a lot.

Their class envy is glaring...

jkINC 1 year, 2 months ago

How is working to have their contract with the government honored considered special treatment? Yes their current rates are cheap but that was the going rate at the time the contract was signed. The residents there have kept are good landlords and it's well maintained. Most I guarantee you are not part of the 1%, they are retirees and just hard working folks. The residents have invested in their property based on that contract, would it be fair if they lost it without any compensation? No! There is plenty of open area for anyone to come and use, beach, grass fields, a golf course, restaurant and bar. I've stayed there with friends every summer for 15 years; it's unique and affordable even for us who are solidly part of the 99%. Also in all that time I've never seen anyone be turned away from the area if they want to picnic or enjoy the open space. You could host a family reunion of 300 there in the open space behind the condos, anyone that says they can't use the island is not being truthful.

tdav225 1 year, 2 months ago

The people that live there are no where near the 1%

micheles1145 1 year, 2 months ago

I have been going to Crescent Bar for many years. The people that have property there; whether they live there or vacation there ARE the average working folks (mostly blue collar, actually). Some of these folks have taken over leases on properties that their parents signed up for. It is, and always have been, open to anyone that has a mind to make an effort toward it.

This is another case of government regulation gone haywire... Why is it that we pay taxes to incompetents???

Annsboy 1 year, 2 months ago

You can but the going rate will take into account the rents these folks have been charging as rent to vacationers, and it isn't going to be cheap.

gayles 1 year, 2 months ago

There are subsidized housing in George and Quincy. I'm sure there are more in Wenatchee, Moses Lake, Ephrata, Soap Lake, Wilson Creek, Hartline, Matawa that these alleged poor people on the island can move.

The landowners are finally putting their foot down within the legal framework of the leases.

If they don't like the rent increase -move.

Mikeh 1 year, 2 months ago

I don't care so much about the rent, although it was ridulously low for years, but I hated the fact that they dominated the usuable public shoreline and kept me and so many other members of the general public from being able to use what should have been public beach, instead being forced to use the short strip of northern scum-laden, festus ridden so-called public beach, around the corner from the boat launch, which these land owners apparently also owned.

gayles 1 year, 2 months ago

by Gayle Sorlien

mykeeb33 1 year, 2 months ago

"The offer requires islanders to drop their federal lawsuit and pay a lot more for rent or risk the PUD filing a claim for frivilous lawsuit against them."

Why on earth would the islanders agree to that? Frivilous lawsuit? Wouldn't the judge have thrown it out long ago if it was frivilous?

gayles 1 year, 2 months ago

"Wouldn't the judge have thrown it out long ago if it was frivilous?"

Not necessarily.....

gayles 1 year, 2 months ago

As a PUD ratepayer/co-owner of the PUD properties and a Port of Quincy taxpayer, I'd like the Crescent Bar Islanders not be able to rent out, but be required that the leases be used only for their own purposes. They should not be allowed to make a profit on public land. None of all of the leases that stem from the GCPUD down to the lot/condo leaseholders state they are allowed to rent period, let alone for a profit and to sublent.

After reading the GCPUD's press release (http://www.gcpud.org/blog/?p=699), I think that the signers of the 1979 lease agreement will have to be ones at the arbritration table. This would mean Hadley Properties (Crescent Bar Inc), not the current group Crescent Bar Islanders.

stoker 1 year, 2 months ago

the comments here are almost humorous. There are no beaches on the island worth enjoying! people that have units there either boat to a beach, or enjoy the pools/hottubs (which they paid and own), or use the golf course which PUD wants to remove. Camping on the island? For what purpose? If you don't have a boat and no golf course what are you going to do??? The so called beaches in front of a very few trailers is JUST LIKE the one at the firehouse, infact the fire house beach is better. Actually the best beach, infront of the camp

stoker 1 year, 2 months ago

I own off the island, so I am not impacted, other than what will 100+ camp sites bring to the community? I guess if is done nice, it could be like lincoln rock state park by Wenatchee. So all the people that want this park, do they go to lincoln rock state park now? There is really not a whole lot of beach there either! I guess I am just confused on the people wanting to make the island "public", what they expect to have there, that they couldn't have working together with the current residence?

stoker 1 year, 2 months ago

I thought the CBI management practices were horrible and probably created a lot of the anger from the local community. They mad me really mad too! No parking, don't visit us, security gates, no boat parking with payment, pay to park to go to a public beach, etc, etc, etc. They were really stupid, but that could be fixed, by addressing the issues, not changing everything to campsites!