HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2025-03-31 - Number 4.0 - Written Public Comments - Since March 26March 27, 2025
Lake Oswego City Council
City of Lake Oswego
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Members of City Council,
I am writing to urge you to make Oswego Lake accessible to the public.
Oswego Lake is a defining symbol of our community. As the closest accessible lake in the
area, it has always had the potential to serve as a place of communion between humans
and nature. Unfortunately, the privatization of the lake has fostered division and
exclusion. After years of litigation, the recent ruling has provided Lake Oswego with an
opportunity to right historic wrongs and move forward together.
The City of Lake Oswego should honor the Circuit Court ruling because appealing this
decision will harm our community.
Oswego Lake holds a special place in this city. From watching wild birds glide across its
surface to observing tiny insects dance along its shores to feeling the cooling splash of its
water in the summer heat, the lake provides a profound connection to nature. In a
society increasingly distanced from meaningful interactions with the environment, we
cannot afford to deny access to those who are not wealthy enough to live on its shores.
Oswego Lake offers serenity to its visitors and cultivates a sense of respect for nature.
Studies have repeatedly shown that access to natural spaces improves mental and
physical well-being and fosters a sense of stewardship for the environment. I have
personally turned to this lake many times for peace and inspiration, and its beauty is
something no one can truly own. Excluding certain members of our community from the
lake will only deepen divisions in a society already struggling with hostility and
disconnection. Turning the lake into a symbol of exclusion would tarnish the sense of
peace that so many, including myself, have found there.
I also urge you to remember that this lake is not ours alone. It was traditionally utilized
by the Tualatin band of the Kalapuya people, the Atfalati people, and the Chinook band
of the Clackamas tribe, among other Indigenous groups who understood it as a shared
and sacred space. To privatize the lake would once again send a clear message of
exclusion and perpetuate the deep harm inflicted on these communities when they were
first denied access to Oswego Lake. This pattern of exclusion must end now.
4.0
By keeping the lake open, we can create a future in which it stands as a positive symbol
of our city—a city that fosters connection with both nature and one another.
Thank you,
Amanda Brady
4.0
From:Brett Baumann
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Citizen Comment in Opposition to Resolution 25-16 and in Favor of Resolution 25-18
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 5:11:38 PM
Dear Lake Oswego Council Members,
I am strongly in opposition to Resolution 25-16 and urge you to vote no on authorizing
the city attorney to appeal the Clackamas County Circuit Court Judgement. Spending
any more taxpayer dollars to favor in favor of a private corporation and it’s
shareholders who represent a minority of city residents is a disservice to the majority
of Lake Oswegans and a lack of responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars at best.
Additionally, I have been appalled and embarrassed by the amount of fear publicly
displayed by those who fear that public access to the lake is a detriment to their
property and the community. As a Lake Oswegan who lives directly adjacent to Tryon
Creek State Natural Area and one of its trailheads, I have some experience with
observing and interacting with the recreating general public. It’s my experience that
the majority of people I see accessing and using the park are happy, rule abiding, and
an asset to the community. In fact, my nearly daily interactions with hikers,
photographers and bird watchers reaffirms my desire to live in our community and
celebrate public land and access. Watching happy families embarking on their
adventures brings me a smile on even the darkest winter days and on the busiest day,
Mothers’ Day, our trailhead is filled with the happy chatter and laughter of countless
families. The random conversations I have with these park users brings me both joy
and connection to the rich diversity that is our surrounding community and
occasionally, with foreign tourists, the world at large. Almost weekly a park user will
comment on what a beautiful neighborhood we have and what a treat it must be to
have such easy access. I believe such comments strengthen my property’s value and
assume the same could be said of the lakeshore properties once outdoor
recreationists can also see and appreciate the beauty within which we live.
Of course, appropriate rules for safe and environmentally responsible use of the lake
is necessary, and to facilitate that I urge you to approve Resolution 25-18.
I’d also like to mention that as the controversy around the lake has grown I’ve been
struck at the incongruity of our city’s logo representing a white sailboat on the lake. It
now appears completely disrespectful to the majority of LO residents who don’t have
lake access. In fact, it is currently a badge celebrating the exclusionary heritage of
Lake Oswego. This is the moment to change all that. Your vote on Resolution 25-16
will determine whether our city and its logo stands for exclusion or a wonderful
resource rich community. It’s your choice, but the entire region is watching.
Respectfully a proud Lake Oswego resident,
Brett Baumann
4.0
From:CHERYL MILLER LEVIE
To:Council Distribution
Cc:jeff Ward; Justin Harnish
Subject:Oswego Lake Public comment
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 10:18:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Council Members,
As a waterfront resident, here are the concerns I would like addressed:
1. Plans for access from steps:
a. ADA compliance
b. Parking/congestion
c. Drop off of gear
2. Invasive species protection:
a. How are boats, inflatables going to be cleared/cleaned?
3. Fishing
a. Who will monitor fishing/ check licenses
b. Fish populations can directly influence algal blooms and overfishing can potentially lead to
increased blooms by disrupting food web and reduce number of algae-eating species (we
already have a BIG algae issue)
4. Safety:
a. Oswego Lake rules need to apply to EVERYONE on the water; what is the plan for public
knowing rules? Using lake at own risk?
b. As an early morning skier it is incredibly difficult to see paddle boarders, small boats,
swimmers at sunrise
5. Security:
a. Security of our personal docks and yards are going to be compromised. Many folks leave
gear on their docks, leave keys in boat, don’t even lock back doors
b. Lake Patrol needs to be marshalized to be able to cite offenders for breaking rules, littering,
alcohol use, accessing swim park and easements (IE: private areas), etc. I project an increase
of theft overall
c. Waterways are subject to State patrol? We will need on-going patrol with varying and
increased hours, which currently doesn’t even happen. I NEVER see an early morning patrol
and many surf boats go out early and have illegal wake enhancements for example
6. Novelty of access:
a. I believe it is going to be a novelty to ’tour’ the lake to explore the properties, harass the
‘rich’ people, to be a disruptor, etc.
7. Cost:
a. Who will be paying for all these extra services?
b. New role of Lake Corp? Resident fees? Paying for continued/past litigation?
4.0
IN conclusion, I do agree this has being ongoing litigation and many of these areas should
have been addressed YEARS ago! There needs to be coordination between waterfront
residents, Lake Corp, the City of LO, the State, and perhaps even the Feds as FEMA was
involved in damn reconstruction. Part of most waterfront homes have property that is 'owned’
by Lake Corp. How does this feed into the debacle? Will Lake Corp be dissolved? We need
LOTS of answers. In addition, our property values could plummet as a result. We own here
because of the private, secure nature of having private waterfront. Our dream is being
dissolved before our eyes. I do not think the meeting on 3/31 is sufficient to address all of
these concerns, and as a homeowner that will be directly impacted, we need to have a say and
be involved. It is not only the fact we pay an annual assessment but we have a financial
investment at risk.
Sincerely,
Cheryl and Jim Levie
17622 Lake Haven Dr.
4.0
From:My FuzzyOtter
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lake access
Date:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:53:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I have lived in Lake Oswego since 2009. I love Lake Oswego, I am so excited to now have
Lake access. I have a kayak which I can now walk to the lake. I feel like I completely belong
now.
I do not mind if my taxes go up proportionately ,I do not mind paying my share to take care of
the lake.
However, I do not like my taxes going towards my exclusion from the Lakewood in the
middle of the town where I live.
in these current times local communities are everything.
Sincerely
Christy Clark
916-261-1514
353 Ash St
Lake Oswego
4.0
From:David S. Cohen
To:Council Distribution
Subject:End Legal Challenges and Establish Public Access to Oswego Lake
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 9:54:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
David S. Keaton-Cohen
295 3rd St, #4
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Cohen.stgmgr@gmail.com
3.31.25
Dear Members of the City Council,
As one of the approximately 77% of the Lake Oswego population who does not have lakefront
property or an easement to access the lake, I am writing to urge you to take a decisive step in
the right direction: do not join any further appeals regarding Oswego Lake’s public access and
instead direct the City Manager to begin developing park rules and safe public access plans.
The recent court ruling affirming the public’s right to access Oswego Lake is not just a legal
decision—it is an opportunity. Rather than spending more taxpayer dollars fighting a losing
battle to uphold exclusivity for a select few, the city should focus its resources on ensuring
that this transition is safe, orderly, and beneficial for all Lake Oswego residents.
Continuing to fight this ruling serves no one but a small group (approximately 23% of the
population) of lakefront/easement property owners. It is fiscally irresponsible to pour public
money into litigation that ultimately protects private interests. Taxpayer funds should be spent
on policies that enhance our community, not legal battles that divide it.
Now is the time for leadership. By proactively embracing the court’s decision, the city can
take control of how public access is implemented—ensuring that environmental protections,
safety regulations, and community interests are properly balanced. Ignoring this reality and
clinging to appeals only delays the inevitable while wasting money that could be better spent
on park improvements, infrastructure, and city services.
I ask that you vote against any further legal action and instead direct the City Manager to
begin planning for responsible and equitable public access to Oswego Lake. Let’s move
forward together, not backward into endless litigation.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
4.0
Sincerely,
David S. Keaton-Cohen
646.331.6194
Cohen.StgMgr@gmail.com
4.0
To: Lake Oswego City Council CouncilDistribution@lakeoswego.city
From: Edward Conrad, First Addition
DateL March 27, 2025
Subject: City participation with the Lake Corporation in lawsuit prohibiting public access to Oswego Lake
I recognize that Lake Oswego is very fortunate to have a hard working and dedicated City Council at a difficult time in the city’s
history. I especially appreciate one councilor who framed Lake Oswego as an aspirational community . Aspiration is a
physiological term which is a manifestation of a live organism. When applied to a city, it means that the community is continually
striving toward an ideal. If the council chooses to be aspirational, you are going to have (fortunate to have?) considerable work
ahead.
To direct my comments to city councilors on public access to Oswego Lake, I looked back at pre-election candidate statements and
other public comments regarding public access to Oswego Lake. What are the issues which are important to you? Although the
Lake Corporation Endorsement Statements have been cleared from the Lake Corporation website, they are still available with the
Way Back Machine.
4.0
City Council regarding Public Access to Oswego Lake
“The Lake Corporation does a fantastic job maintaining Oswego Lake
and keeping it safe”
Personal Safety
“I am committed to improving the partnership and communication
between the city and the Lake Corporation”
Personal Safety
“...the water quality and ecological balances are closely monitored by
knowledgeable professionals who understand the whole watershed”
Water quality
“The current system of managed access enables a safe experience for all
and helps to protect the water quality”
Personal Safety
Water quality
“The fragile ecosystem of the lake also requires careful adherence to
rules to prevent harmful organisms from entering”
Water Quality
Prevent Invasive Species
“Public Access to Oswego Lake will negatively impact property values,
thereby decreasing local option revenues, and will negatively impact the
education of Lake Oswego’s children.”
Property Values
“We currently have controlled conditions by having Oswego Lake private.
Public access to Oswego Lake would adversely impact these controlled
conditions.”
Personal Safety
4.0
The May 22, 2021 letter from Minority Law Student Association, Lewis and Clark Law School, Native American Law
Student Association, Lewis and Clark Law School, NEDC (Northwest Environmental Defense Center), OPAL (Organizing
People / Activating Leaders), Tualatin Riverkeepers, and Willamette Riverkeeper (
https://www.nedc.org/2021/06/letter-to-mayor-of-lake-oswego-regarding-public-access-to-oswego-lake/ ) addresses some of the
options which the City has to promote personal safety, privacy and inclusivity. For this city council, statements of the dangers of
racial, ethnic or income diversity needs no restatement.
Lakefront property values have continued to rise over 13 years since Resolution 12-12 was adopted. This is despite the significant
possibility that the courts would allow public access to Oswego Lake. If public access to Oswego Lake is associated with a fall in the
market property values, it is likely that this property value adjustment has been incorporated in market property values.
I know almost nothing about municipal and school funding in Oregon. Since measure 50 of 1997, assessed valuation in Lake
Oswego has fallen to less than 70% of real market value. Am I mistaken to think property RMVs would have to fall by 30% before
municipal or school funding fell?
MY POINT: This note is to address cyanobacteria and associated liver and brain toxins as a public safety issue for Oswego Lake.
Every lakefront resident of Lake Oswego is aware of the green color of Oswego Lake. This color is primarily due to cyanobacteria
previously identified as blue-green algae. Growth of cyanobacteria is promoted by warm temperatures, slow moving water, sunlight
and high concentrations of phosphorus. Phosphorus is largely from lawn fertilizer runoff within the watershed. Cyanobacteria can
produce cyanotoxins. Several hundred cyanotoxins and variants have been identified. Different toxins can cause liver, kidney, skin
and brain damage. The toxins can be harmful to fish, shellfish, pets and humans. In particular, there is concern that cyanotoxins are
associated with some dramatic local increases (50 to 100 the normal incidence) in human neurodegenerative conditions including
ALS, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer's disease. Dogs are particularly prone to deadly effects of cyanotoxins. Observation of
surface cyanobacteria is not a reliable indicator of the presence of harmful cyanotoxins in recreational waters. If human and pet
safety is a goal, water managers should test for cyanotoxins. Even the four most commonly tested cyanotoxins can only be
considered imprecise surrogate indicators for other cyanotoxins which may be the most harmful to humans.
I spoke with the knowledgeable limnologist at the Lake Corporation in 2022. He told me that the Lake Corporation has an ongoing
program to count and speciate the phytoplankton (including cyanobacteria) in Oswego Lake in order to guide application of alum to
mitigate overgrowth due to phosphorus. At that time the LOC did not send water samples to a testing laboratory for cyanotoxins.
Also in 2022, the experienced Lake Corporation General Manager told me that the Lake Corporation would follow the advice of
4.0
Oregon Health Authority regarding testing for cyanotoxins. Although there is no Oregon State mandatory cyanotoxin testing for
private recreational waters, the Oregon Health Authority details the best practices recommendations which water managers are
encouraged to follow guidance from the Oregon Health Authority. (
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RECREATION/HARMFULALGAEBLOOMS/Documents/Sampling%20G
uidelines%20for%20Harmful%20Cyanobacteria%20Blooms%20in%20Recreational%20Waters_2021%20July.pdf ) This document
provides “guidance for managers who intend to monitor freshwater bodies when potentially harmsful cyanobacter blooms are
detected.” The program is not mandatory but is considered best practices for recreational water body managers Two alternative
programs are described: a) testing for toxins only when cyanobacteria blooms are seen b) testing for toxins on a regular basis,
especially during warm months. Both options require testing water samples for toxins by an independent laboratory with all
laboratory and field observation reports sent to the Oregon Health Authority. If there is visual evidence of a cyanobacter bloom
pending toxin analysis or if the level of one or more toxins exceed the published recreational use value, the Oregon Health Authority
will issue a Recreational Use Advisory. This advisory is lifted when cyanotoxin levels fall below recreational use levels.
There are cyanobacteria growths in Oswego Lake. See photographs on the last two pages. I asked the State of Oregon if Oswego
Lake cyanotoxin testing results have been submitted to the Oregon Health Authority or Oregon EPA during calendar years 2020
through 2024. The agency reported to me that “ Neither Oregon Health Authority nor Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality received cyanotoxin reports in years 2020-2024.” I was told that, as an historically private lake, cyanotoxin
testing was not required and would be paid for by the private water body manager.
Without commenting on the City Council's legal decision regarding participation in an appeal of the March 4, 2025
Clackamas County Circuit Court ruling to allow public access to Oswego Lake, but recognizing this City Council’s
priority of lake public safety , I encourage you to be aspirational regarding public safety for Oswego Lake.
You should not remain static. I suggest:
● The present lack of cyanotoxin testing should not continue.
● Whoever is appointed as water body manager should fully participate in the voluntary Oregon Cyanobacteria
Harmful Algae Bloom Surveillance Program.
● Lake and Watershed Management be consolidated, especially to mitigate phosphorus runoff.
● The City establish a public education program
○ “When in Doubt, Stay Out!”
○ Train lifeguards
4.0
○ Have information, including products from the Oregon Health Authority, available at entries to Oswego
Lake and bordering rivers.
■ https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RECREATION/HARMFULALGAEBLOOM
S/Documents/hab-brochure.pdf
■ https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RECREATION/HARMFULALGAEBLOOM
S/Documents/HAB-dog-safety.pdf
Headlee Walkway
September 21, 2022
4.0
Northshore Bridge
September 14, 2022
4.0
From:Jay Hamachek
To:Buck, Joe
Cc:Council Distribution
Subject:LO Down & Water Safety
Date:Thursday, March 27, 2025 9:34:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Joe thank you for your service. Issues such as Lake Access can be difficult to manage.
With that said I was disappointed by the underlying tone of your recent LO Down email. I’m
in agreement with many of the items raised in your email, but it was what was missing.
You failed to acknowledge:
People’s fear of change to their way of life. You did zero to address these fears.
The huge water safety issues already being seen in Lakewood Bay. Everyday there
are paddlers going down the middle of the lake, no personal floatation devices and
the list goes on.
No mention of existing and proposed reasonable access controls that Judge Steele
stated in her ruling.
The court has ruled, I presume the city will protect its investment of taxpayers’ money and
appeal this ruling that directly attacked the city’s Home Rule rights laid out in the Oregon
Constitution.
Where are the city’s reasonable access controls to protect the safety of all lake users? This
ruling while disappointing, was not a surprise. I disappointed that my city government had
no vision to have a contingency plan for reasonable access control to protect the safety of
people accessing the lake from city property and the other lake users.
Jay Hamachek
777 Northshore Rd
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-560-6062
4.0
From:jim harvey
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Oswego Lake litigation
Date:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:05:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Council Members,
I am writing to discourage any continued use of our tax dollars in furtherance of the
Lake Corporation's litigation to exclude the public from Lake Oswego. It is obvious
from a glance at the Oregon Constitution that the lake is publicly owned and subject
to the Public Trust Doctrine of the State of Oregon. It is appearing more and more
apparent to me and many other Lake Oswego residents that the City's continued legal
efforts to exclude the public from lake access may amount to an inappropriate (at
best) collusion with the Lake Corporation. Please stop wasting the taxpayers' money
on the Lake Corporation's latest misguided attempt to delay delay delay the inevitable
and obvious outcome of this litigation.
Respectfully yours,
Jim Harvey
4.0
From:k.atwood@comcast.net
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Filing an Appeal to Judge Steele"s Ruling
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 7:53:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members
I have been a Lake Oswego resident for 30+ years and a lakeside owner for 10 years.
Living on the lake has many advantages but one of the greatest ones is the safety rules set
by the Lake Corporation and the enforcement of those rules by the Lake Patrol. These
rules have developed over the years to address changing concerns and different types of
watercraft. The requirement to create rules governing a new exposure (public) to the lake
in a 4 month period is totally unreasonable plus the education of the public to rules will take
time and who had jurisdiction and enforcement authority needs to be developed as well as
compensation sources determined.
Removing the obstacles, as pointed out by Bennett, cannot be accomplished in the time
frame required, particularly if all EPA requirements, city bidding procedures, contracting
and planning are not done in an effective and practical manner. 120 days will not allow
that.
There are approximately 13,000 Lake Oswego residents with some sort of lake access at
this time. That is roughly 1/3 of the population. Opening the lake to anyone that wants to
access it will cause many problems, some of which have not been experienced yet. These
13,000 individuals can have a voice in the access issue and some of the options could
affect the budgets for both the City of LO and Clackamas County. For example, if property
values decrease due to the exclusivity of lake property disappearing, filing property tax
appeals could become a significant issue. That reduces revenue for both parties.
All lake owners, both on-lake residents and easement holders, pay fees for the
management and safety of the lake and its use. I pay $8.50 per day to the Lake Corp, 365
days a year. Allowing the public to use the lake MUST have a fee. This is a matter that will
take time to compute taking into account the tremendous amount of money that has been
spent by the City of LO and the Lake Corp. That money should be recovered. It is
taxpayer money for the city.
There are considerable issues that need to be address and the current time frame does not
allow it to be done properly and within the City guidelines for a project of this magnitude.
Filing an appeal will allow time to determine how the multiple issues can be practically
addressed.
I urge you to appeal this latest court ruling.
Kelly Atwood
778 Cabana Lane
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
4.0
From:Leslie Soken
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Full Lake Access
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 5:18:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern:
I am in favor of opening full community access (finally) to Oswego Lake. I don't want
our community to be THAT community that clings to outdated, discriminatory policies
that deny individuals access to the lake in their own town! It's time for the city of Lake
Oswego to step up and make another departure from its unfortunate past.
"Stewardship" of the lake does not mean owning the lake to the exclusion of other
community members.
Thank you.
Leslie Soken
Kalapuya land
Lake Oswego, Oregon
4.0
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members,
My name is Mark Kramer, and I am the lead plaintiff in Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego. After
more than a decade of litigation, the court has affirmed the public’s right to access Oswego Lake
from Millennium Plaza Park—a right grounded in Oregon’s public trust doctrine and the lake’s
geography and navigable history.
I understand and appreciate the concerns raised by residents: worries about overcrowding, water
quality, and neighborhood impacts. But the court’s decision does not open the floodgates. It
simply requires reasonable access. From the beginning, my co plaintiff Todd Prager and our legal
team have been and are committed to negotiating reasonable terms and conditions for safe use of
the lake, including those set by the Oregon Marine Board. Such terms and conditions must
applied equally and consistently to residents with property on the lake, residents with easement
access and other members of the public.
The City has already spent almost $1 million this case and now faces an additional an additional
$1.3 million in attorney fees and costs. An appeal, especially one joined with the Lake
Corporation, will only prolong costly litigation with little chance of success. The Oregon Supreme
Court has already ruled on the core issue, and the trial court’s careful decisions in phase 1 and 2
of the litigation aligns with that precedent.
I urge the Council to accept this outcome and focus on collaborative solutions—not more legal
battles. If the City appeals, Todd Prager and I will continue to defend the public’s rights, but I’d
rather work with you to ensure access is safe, sustainable, and respectful of our shared lake.
I know this is a polarizing issue. After my first enjoyable and uneventful kayak on the lake after
the court’s judgment, my car was vandalized, apparently by an angry Lake Oswego resident. I
hope and trust that conduct is not representative of most residents of Lake Oswego. In that spirit,
I share and applaud Mayor Buck’s recent comments:
I encourage us to engage with harmony and understanding for all those around us. Jacques
Cousteau said, "We only protect what we love, we only love what we understand, and we only
understand what we are taught." May we all continue to be expansive in our thinking, and
curious and comprehensive in our understanding so that we love more each day.
Thank you for your time.
4.0
From:MARLIS CARSON
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Re: Opening Lake Oswego to the Public
Date:Thursday, March 27, 2025 9:54:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Council members,
Please! Pause a very big moment to have all possible problems seriously considered
and truthfully resolved, before making Lake Oswego open to the public.
Even going into a 'public' Grocery Store, you have 'rules' you naturally obey...(be dressed,
courteous, don't steal, wait your turn, leave no trash,etc.)
And they totally LOCK UP for everyone's safety every night. They also need to have
many PAID 'workers' at their store to help it function smoothly for everyone.
Added particularly now...with public usage of the Lake....
What about 'rest rooms'?
Who is liable for an injury of a public user'?
Needed.... New parking and where, for the public?
Who checks the 'required cleanlines' (on the Lake of the 'small boats/floats. etc.) to be
allowed?
How about a required 'fee' to get a 'ticket' for that day (thus no trespassers on owner properties
will be legally allowed)
and 'a biggie'...WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS HUGE CHANGE IN LAKE
OSWEGO POLICY??
City Manager Bennett has many realistic problems that must be somehow solved even before
any further thought of 'going public' is forwarded.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my questions.
May I request your thoughtful answers to my questions?
Most sincerely,
Marlis Carson
740 North Shore Rd.
(marliscc@gmail.com)
4.0
From:Mary Somera
To:Council Distribution
Subject:safety and concern
Date:Saturday, March 29, 2025 10:01:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
We moved into our home located at 831 North Shore Rd. Lake Oswego September
2023 and had felt safe and secure however on March 24 and March 25 we
experienced 2 men fishing in separate blow up boats they covered our whole area as
we are on the point of the lake that is only 25 feet wide.
As a senior citizen this caused stress to us questioning if they were casing out our
home because of this we are now looking into having a security camera system
installed and have lost the feeling of being safe.
Thank You
Mary Somera
4.0
From:Nancy
To:Council Distribution; Council Distribution
Cc:jeff.ward@lakecorp.com
Subject:Lake Oswego Open Access Concerns
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 3:48:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To whom it may concern,
My name is Nancy Kratochvil, I live at 758 Cabana Lane. We moved to Lake Oswego in 1995 with our four children.
Now thirty years later our three daughters and their families also all reside in Lake Oswego. We all love our beautiful
City and look forward to spending the rest of our lives living here.
When we first moved here we purchased a house on the Blue Heron canal and for years we lived with terrible water
quality, constant algae blooms, swim suits full of green algae, a nasty smell and unkind comments from people stating
“You don’t let your dog swim in that water, I hope!” We gladly paid our Lake Corporation dues as they continued to
find solutions with bubblers, prevention of invasive species from entering the lake, and herbicide treatments to improve
our lake quality. I am happy to say that after many years of working to improve our water quality the Lake Corporation
has done an amazing job keeping and maintaining our lake water. The Lake Corporation has also kept our lake safe by
requiring everyone to be licensed if driving a power boat, implementing safety rules when out on the lake whether in a
power boat, paddle boat, kayak, canoe or just floating on an inner tube. The Lake Corporation has had a patrol out on
the lake to assist with safety and help when needed. We shareholders of over 13,000 Lake Oswego residents have gladly
paid to keep our lake safe and clean.
Please consider, when making your decision about opening our beautiful Lake to the general public, if these important
issues of safety and water quality can still be maintained.
*What is it going to look like at Millenium Plaza during the summer? Can that small space handle the kayakers, SUP’s
and swimmers coming into the lake where it has been an area for families with small children to come run through the
water fountains.
*Can our downtown area handle the increase in traffic and parking for the increase in the public coming to use the lake,
boaters crossing State Street to enter Millenium Plaza. Isn’t our Saturday Market already bringing to much traffic into
our downtown area and parking issues that flow far out into the residential neighborhoods? What will the traffic and
parking be like on a typical sunny summer day if our lake is open? The floating docks there for boaters to tie up their
boats while visiting restaurants and downtown shops, will this area be monitored to keep swimmers off the docks and
nearby water so boaters can safely pull into the docks. Will items in boats no longer be safe because anyone is allowed
now on the docks?
Just the second day of the lake being open to the public a kayaker capsized in Lakewood Bay, he wasn’t wearing a life
jacket and didn’t have one in his boat. When he fell into the water he lost his phone and wasn’t able to call for help. He
quickly became hypothermic and required help from a homeowner near by to paddle out to rescue him and his kayak
which was floating out into the middle of the bay. What would have happened if the homeowner didn’t help him? We
are already seeing many boaters and SUP’s coming onto the lake, without life jackets.
4.0
I am concerned of my liability if a SUP boarder falls in front of my dock and hits his head on my dock, am I responsible?
Currently I can tell my friends and my neighbors to keep a little distance between my dock while paddle boarding just in
case they loose their balance, will my safety comment fall on deaf ears to someone who doesn’t know me?
I would hope that the City of Lake Oswego will continue to support the appeal to keep Oswego Lake private. If the Lake
is to be open, would it not make more sense to have the public gain access in a less congested area away from the traffic
of downtown, train tracks and floating boat docks?
Please think about the safety and long term effect of allowing the public to enter the lake and appeal the current ruling.
Thank you taking the time to read my letter.
Nancy Kratochvil
Sent from my iPad
4.0
From:Patricia Dorsa
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Appeal of Lake Decision
Date:Saturday, March 29, 2025 8:31:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
We are asking the City Council to join the Lake Corporation in their appeal of the recent decision regarding access
to Lake Oswego.
Daniel and Patricia Dorsa
791 North Shore Rd
503-475-6290
Sent from my iPad
4.0
From:PK Prado
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lake Access
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 9:51:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am a resident of Lake Oswego and support opening the lake for public access. Reasonable
guidelines for use can be developed as is the case in our other parks and public areas.
And I think it will be a boost for the local economy. Let’s be welcoming, not fearful.
Patty Prado
48 Eagle Crest Drive
Lake Oswego
4.0
From:PaulArbuthnot
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lake
Date:Saturday, March 29, 2025 10:36:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City of Lake Oswego Council Members:
I urge you not to fund litigation regarding the lake access.
Doing so would put property tax dollars toward an effort large numbers don’t support
and from which they don’t benefit.
Respectfully,
Paul Arbuthnot
Lake Oswego
4.0
From:Renee Kerr
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lakewood Bay Thoughts
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 7:40:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good Morninglegally
I thought it was time to give my thoughts on the future safety of those who access the bay either or not legally for
now.
Since we live down on the right side of the bay down from the proposed entry point , I would like to share what I
have witnessed over the last three years.
Whenever the papers post “LAKE IS OPEN TO the PUBLIC!" without any mention of safety rules, that we follow
as residents on the bay, there is a large influx of various folks that coming in wither on blow up rafts, canoes,
paddleboards, inner tubes or any thing that floats basically.
A year ago in August I witnessed a young father in his kayak( with his beer) towing his 10 year old son seated in a
blow up raft, with no life jackets in either flotation device.
He rowed down to the main lake for hot august nights I believe,
About four hours later, he came back to the bay.
His young son, laid out, sunburned and looking helpless and distressed.
The memory still haunts me.
Most of us usually call when folks are in the middle of the bay wandering around with no knowledge of the rules we
have to follow.
I am assuming if the public is allowed to enter the lake that there will be a serious effort to state the rules and
regulations
That one must follow and that the residents are not the police of the bay.
It is disappointing that not one article in the paper has mentioned that the lake is not a free for all for those that
Live her or those that come out to fish, swim or look into our homes are not aware of basic water safety rules.
Most of the folks that have come in by the park , have no flotation equipment when present with children.
Most paddle right down the middle of the lake where 5000 pound ski boats are also present all day long.
Please help us keep the lake safe for all who enter here and not leave the safety of children up to the residents on the
lake.
If it becomes a public park on water we must use all city services, state and Lake Corp services to keep
Humans and lake environment safe.
Thank you
Renee Kerr
,
4.0
From:Jelen, Seth
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Comment. NO on Res 25-16 and YES on 26-18
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 11:47:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Quick: NO on 25-16 (Authorize Appeal) and YES on 25-18 (Implement Access)
I have been dismayed that more than $ 3M has been spent (arguably, wasted)
collectively by the parties on a case that should have been quickly and easily
decided: Oswego Lake including Lakewood Bay is clearly a public waterway and
the City, as owner of a portion of inundated land (albeit small) has lawful access
to navigate the entire waterway as do a handful of other private owners. As such
the public should have access via the City property at least for entry, swimming,
and non-power boating.
The lake was undeniably navigable at statehood (parts were over 60 feet deep;
questions of commercial or interstate navigability are irrelevant attempts to
obscure the facts using language from the federal constitution regarding waters
of the US), and therefore its original extent was a public waterway, and case law is
all but unambiguous that when a public waterway is impounded, the entire
impoundment becomes public. Multiple tree stumps remaining in the now-
submerged narrows connecting “Half Moon Bay” / Lakewood Bay with the main
lake show that connection to be natural and not man-made (the trees took
decades to grow before the lake was impounded).
For decades nobody dared to question the private status of Oswego Lake, likely
because of the great political influence and wealth behind the Lake Oswego
Corporation. However, now that the question was asked, the court – eventually –
reached the right decision.
The paradigm has shifted and that shift has changed the basis behind restrictions
prohibiting any access into the water from Millennium Plaza. I was a resident
when the plaza was built and remember well that the basis for these restrictions
was that the lake was private so the public must be kept out. Safety was not the
issue nor should it have been considering the City has multiple waterfront parks
along the Willamette River among others with public access.
Even if the City appeals it will be more money wasted as there seems little doubt
about the ultimate outcome, notwithstanding loud objections to the contrary.
The City may believe it has some degree of immunity to set its own ordinances,
but this is opposed by the long history between the City and the Lake Oswego
Corporation. Even the City’s defending a third-party perceived property right
4.0
against the rights of other property rights and the City’s own property rights
speaks to that history.
My concern moving forward is two-fold: 1) I want to maximize the safety of all
lake users including those who access the water from the plaza by clear
communication and clear rules of conduct and 2) I want to protect the continued
enjoyment of those residents who have lake privileges to continue to power boat
on the lake if they choose.
So I ask that Council vote NO on Resolution 25-16 (authorizing appeal) and YES on
Resolution 25-18 (implementing access).
For the record I am a long-term resident of an “off-lake” property with access to
the lake through an easement.
Seth Jelen
228 Greenwood Road
LO 97034
4.0
From:s (null)
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lake Access
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 7:10:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
As a Lake Oswego homeowner and taxpayer I’d like to ask the city council not to continue to use our city’s taxpayer
dollars to fight lake access. Rather people that want to use the lake should work out a fee system with Lake Corp.
The city should avoid getting involved in the litigation, cost and management of the lake. It does not benefit the
majority of us who most likely would never use the lake.
4.0
From:Sue Haines
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Appealing the Judge"s Lake Accessibility Ruling.
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 7:16:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Members of the Lake Oswego City Council,
My family moved to Lake Oswego in 1959 and have been residing in Lake Oswego ever
since.
I strongly oppose spending any more taxpayer money on the losing battle to join the Lake
Corporation's appeal of the judge's ruling to keep the lake private.
To continue spending tax money from the entire city for the slim chance of a benefit to the
4,000 shareholders of the Lake Corp, is highly inappropriate! Not to mention that a win for
those 4,000 shareholders is a loss for the rest of the residents of Lake Oswego.
Years ago my parents, residents of Lake Oswego, tried to get access to the lake for their
little boat, but were completely unsuccessful. They had to buy a rental property on the lake to
do so. What's wrong with that picture!
Besides the unfairness, we have other more important issues that desperately need
addressing, and few people, even in LO, can afford higher taxes right now. PLEASE use our
hard earned tax payments on needed things that benefit the whole city.
Sincerely,
Sue Haines, 1861 Kilkenny Dr., Lake Oswego. (503) 636-5039.
4.0
From:Susan Mead
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Public Comment in response to LO Resolutions 25-16 and 25-18
Date:Thursday, March 27, 2025 3:58:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To the esteemed members of the Lake Oswego City Council,
First, thank you for the time, effort, and commitment you provide to the residents of Lake
Oswego while serving as our city councilors.
Ahead of the upcoming Special Meeting of the City Council this coming Monday, March
31st, 2025, I would like to provide my strongest opposition to the passage of Resolution 25-
16, relating to the authorization of using the City Attorney to appeal the Clackamas County
Circuit Court Judgement in the case which granted public access to the lake from which
Lake Oswego takes its name earlier this year.
Comments in Opposition to 25-16: There is no valid reason for the property taxes that I pay
to the city of Lake Oswego to continue being spent on a lawsuit that has zero impact on the
many citizens, including myself, who have never previously had access to this public
waterway.
In fact, there are many other priorities for which the city has already committed funding that
will be beneficial to all its citizens, such as public library capital improvements, operation of
the new Recreation and Aquatic Center, and perhaps most importantly, the new sewage
treatment plant planning and construction.
In contrast to my opposition to the passage of Resolution 25-16, I am providing my support
of the passage of Resolution 25-18 regarding the implementation of measures to ensure
safe access to the lake by members of the public.
Comments in Support of 25-18: The rules for safe access to the Willamette River in nearby
George Rogers Park can be a solid reference, as the risks of the deeper river with a current
clearly outweigh those found in a lake.
According to the National Safety Council, the risk of dying from a motorized vehicle
accident is 1 in 95, from a pedestrian incident, 1 in 471 and from drowning 1 in 1,073.
(Ref: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/)
Using that comparison alone, please consider city spending on public safety to be in line
with the risks from road use first, and lake use second.
I would additionally support allowing only electrically driven motorized watercraft for use on
Lake Oswego, as the two-stroke engines used on many boats create similar levels of air
pollution as gas-powered landscape equipment but also create water pollution. Since the
concern of water quality is explicitly stated in the language of this resolution, it is important
to recognize that this concern already exists by virtue of homeowners around the lake using
gas-powered boats in the lake.
We have a wonderful opportunity to break free of our glass house reputation and make the
heart of Lake Oswego, its lake, welcoming to all. Please do not disappoint future
generations from enjoying this special place free from any current or previous judgement
and prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
4.0
Susan Mead
Member, LOSN
Prior Member, LO SAB
Non-Lake Easement Holder
Lake Oswego resident, 10+ years
4.0
From:Teresa Bianco
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Re: Oswego Lake
Date:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 6:09:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor Buck and Councilors,
Instead of spending our tax dollars on legal fees to block public access to Oswego Lake, please
allocate resources to figure out a path forward that will allow access to the lake wile removing
the sole responsibility for lake maintenance from the Lake Corporation and member property
owners.
It's not unreasonable for the property owners to complain about paying for lake upkeep while
others enjoy it without contributing. This, however, is not a reason to maintain the status quo,
which is no longer justifiable given the court ruling. We need to be creative and look at
options for sharing the responsibility along with the public waters. I'm sure our excellent city
staff can come up with some ideas and our engaged citizens will be happy to weigh in.
And once again, please refrain from spending more of our tax dollars on fighting the ruling -
one million dollars is more than enough.
Thank you for your consideration and your service,
Terri Bianco
Glenmorrie
From: tmbianco@comcast.net <tmbianco@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 7:11 PM
To: CouncilDistribution@lakeoswego.city <CouncilDistribution@lakeoswego.city>
Subject: Oswego Lake
Dear Mayor Buck and Councilors,
I respectfully request that you not use our tax dollars to appeal the decision to allow access to
Oswego Lake. At this point any attempts to keep the lake private should be funded by the
property owners who claim it as their own.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service,
Terri Bianco
Glenmorrie
4.0
From:tkraemer@comcast.net
To:Council Distribution
Cc:Kraemer, Terri
Subject:Comments for the LO City Council special meeting on March 31
Date:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:43:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Council Members,
I am a resident of Lake Oswego. I am writing to express my full support of open access to Oswego
Lake. The city of Lake Oswego has a long history of exclusionary policies and practices. It is making
progress to undo those policies and practices. Opening the lake would be another piece of needed
progress.
Please show Lake Oswego residents and the public that Lake Oswego embraces inclusion. Please
vote to end support for litigation that opposes opening the lake and instead vote for open access to
the lake.
Thank you,
Terri Kraemer
505 8th
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
4.0
From:Zeil Shah
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Public Comment: Resolution 25-15, Resolution 25-18
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 7:57:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Lake Oswego City Council,
I am writing to you today to express my public comment regarding Resolutions 25-16 and 25-
18 ahead of the Special Meeting on 3/31. I am opposed to Resolution 25-16 and in favor of
Resolution 25-18.
My support for Resolution 25-18 is rooted in the fundamental belief that access to Oswego
Lake should be a priority for all Lake Oswego residents (at the very least). As has been noted,
the issue of public access to the lake has a long history, including significant legal cases,
highlighting the enduring importance of this issue for the broader community.
With approximately 17,500 households in Lake Oswego, and reportedly only 3,500 of those
having direct lake access, roughly 80% of your residents are currently unable to readily enjoy
the lake. This substantial disparity limits recreational opportunities and diminishes the sense of
shared community for a large portion of your constituents.
Expanding safe and open lake access offers numerous benefits to the Lake Oswego
community. Firstly, it promotes healthy lifestyles by providing more opportunities for
swimming, boating, kayaking, and simply enjoying the natural beauty of the lake. Increased
access can lead to improved physical and mental well-being for residents of all ages and
abilities. Public access provides invaluable recreational opportunities for residents who may
not have the financial means to own private lakefront property or join exclusive clubs.
Secondly, enhanced lake access fosters a stronger sense of community. Shared access points
and public spaces around the lake can become hubs for social interaction, bringing neighbors
together and strengthening the bonds within the city. This shared experience can help to build
a more cohesive and connected Lake Oswego for everyone who lives there.
Furthermore, providing safe and well-maintained access points ensures that residents can
enjoy the lake without creating substantial risk. This includes designated swimming areas,
accessible docks, and clear pathways, allowing everyone, regardless of their physical
capabilities, to experience the lake's tranquility and recreational opportunities.
I also acknowledge Mayor Buck's recent statement emphasizing the importance of a
welcoming community. Ensuring that the lake is accessible to a greater proportion of Lake
Oswego's own residents aligns with this sentiment by fostering a more inclusive environment
within the city itself.
By supporting Resolution 25-18, the City Council has the opportunity to improve the quality
of life for a significant portion of Lake Oswego residents and move towards a more inclusive
vision for the community's relationship with its namesake lake in the broader region. I urge
you to prioritize the needs of all Lake Oswego residents and support measures that expand
safe and open access to the lake.
4.0
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Zeil Vanden Heuvel, Resident of West Linn, Oregon (Neighbor in the broader regional
community)
--
Zeil Vanden Heuvel
4.0
From:ZOE
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Special council meeting March 31
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 9:33:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
We are residents of Lake Oswego. As such, we are requesting that the city council vote to end the litigation
regarding public access to the lake. We feel that the city has spent enough taxpayer money on this litigation. If the
residents who have homes on the lake wish to continue the litigation, they should do so at their own expense.
Respectfully
Zoe and Steve Salter
17555 Gleason Drive
Lake Oswego
4.0
From:Rebecca Green
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Resolution 25-18: Initiate Lake Safety Planning
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 10:33:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to thank you all for taking the time to read my thoughts on adopting Resolution
25-18 to Initiate Lake Safety Planning, and I would also like to thank the City Attorney's
office for getting back to me last week regarding clarity on why/how tax-payer money was
used to defend the case in the beginning. I am on the Parks, Rec & Natural Resources Board,
but am writing to you as a private citizen, Rebecca Greene.
Now for my background:
My family and I moved to Lake Oswego in 2022 from Portland, OR. We moved for the school
system, the sense of safety, and for the welcoming community. I had always heard about the
negative aspects of Lake Oswego, how it's a bit discriminatory and doesn't let most of its own
citizens into its lake, but didn't think it could be that bad....but boy was I wrong. There is a
very distinct line between the haves and the have nots, and as soon as summer rolls around,
the community dynamic shifts.
It's an uncomfortable feeling to be part of a community that is NOT inclusive, and that you
feel is actively fighting against your interest of having lake access. Yes, there is the LO Swim
Park, but it is fenced off from the rest of the community and there is a dehumanizing feeling
when you see others enjoying the entirety of the lake while you swim in algae water.
I love my home, it was an expensive purchase for us that we worked very hard to achieve.
However, I didn't realize how much not having a lake easement would affect how I feel about
my own home. It may sound silly, but I have cried over this and we have contemplated
moving. As a minority whose parents picked cotton in the fields as children, I didn't think this
feeling of discrimination would be something I would be experiencing in 2025; and I do not
want that for my child. I've been proud of how far I have come in life, given how little my
family had growing up. But this lake issue has been like hitting a brick wall in progress.
I know that at the core of the Lake Oswego community it is good, it is inclusive, and it is
welcoming....but if you want true equality you cannot pick and choose where and when to be
inclusive. It needs to be applied to all people and all natural resources.
I believe the best path forward for the city would be to adopt Resolution 25-18 and initiate
lake safety planning. I believe the city, Lake Corp and The Oregon State Marine Board can
move forward in good faith and collaboration to iron out the details of lake access & safety
without having to go back to court and spend more tax payer money when I know we need
money to improve the South Shore Fire Dept or build a better library and community center.
Let us use the money to bring the city together and not spend money to keep up the fight.
As a person with a background in acquisitions, I am programmed to look for opportunity and
to problem solve against obstacles. And what I see in front of the city is great opportunity. It
4.0
is the opportunity to show its citizens that the city council truly wants to reach its goals of
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. I see opportunity for commerce (for businesses around the
lake, for potential watercraft rentals, and maybe even the ability for LO residents to Lease
easements from neighbors who aren't actively using their easement). I see opportunity for
increased public safety. And I see the opportunity to help change the outside perspective of
Lake Oswego. Continuing to appeal the court ruling does not seem like the best use of tax
payer money, and goes against the ethos of DEI.
There is always a risk of safety with any body of water, but that shouldn't be a reason to
continue to exclude LO Citizens and visitors from safely enjoying the lake. I personally would
feel MORE safe being able to paddleboard or kayak in Oswego Lake vs the Willamette River.
I have spoken with numerous neighbors and friends who feel the same.
John Ward of Lake Corp stated in an interview with OPB on March 19th "I don't know that
having the general public have some sort of controlled access is wrong, but the devil is in the
details."
His concern is public safety and lake rules; not controlled access. Those are issues that can be
worked out and agreed upon through collaboration with the city of Lake Oswego, Lake Corp
and The Oregon State Marine Board.
There are about 3000 LO Citizens who have easements & are a part of Lake Corp (according
to their website), but almost 40,000 people are citizens of Lake Oswego.
It is time that the city council moves forward with a decision that benefits the majority of its
citizens, and not the select few. This is a moment to show the majority of LO residents that our
voice matters, and that the community will be welcoming to future residents, as we try to
make housing more affordable with new builds. Change can be scary, but it is necessary for
progress.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Rebecca Greene
4.0
Mr. Mayor and City Councilors,
I urge you to appeal Judge Steele’s ruling and to file an immediate motion to stay the court
order regarding public access to Oswego Lake. This action will halt enforcement while you
pursue the appeal.
Now is the time for you, our community leaders and representatives, to act decisively to
preserve Oswego Lake.
I moved 3,000 miles across the country to be closer to my wife’s family, bringing our two young
children with us. We chose to settle in Lake Oswego because of what it offers its residents: top-
rated public schools, a wonderful community, and access to the Lake. I specifically sought a
home with deeded easement rights to ensure my family could enjoy the Lake. Having spent my
entire career in the maritime industry, time on the water with my family is incredibly important
to me.
It is essential to uphold the proper procedures and rules governing the Lake for the benefit of
our community. Opening the Lake to more public access could lead to the introduction of
invasive species and increase the risk of accidents—issues we have already witnessed. My
experiences obtaining both my Oregon boating license and my Lake Oswego boating license
were extensive and challenging, even for someone who has boated my entire life. And no one
should be allowed to operate on the lake without following those guidelines.
Lake Corp should not stand alone in this appeal. I encourage you, Mr. Mayor and Councilors, to
take action and appeal this decision. This is a crucial moment for our community.
Thank you.
James Maitland
4.0
4.0
From:Cathy
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Lake Access
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 1:18:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good afternoon,
Moving forward, we'd request that the City of Lake Oswego not spend taxpayer dollars with
respect to pursuing and funding an appeal of the recent ruling in the Oswego Lake litigation.
Thanks very much.
Tom and Cathy
4.0
From:Rob Faxon
To:Lake Oswego Corporation; Council Distribution
Cc:Barbara Faxon; Rob Faxon
Subject:City meeting 3/31/2025; Use of Oswego Lake concerns
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 1:21:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Rob and Barbara Faxon
1657 Lake Front Rd
Lake Oswego
Questions to be addressed at the March 31 city meeting regarding new use of Lake
Oswego
SAFETY
Will there be a limitation on number of watercraft allowed on the lake at any one
time? How will it be enforced? There are numerous organized SUP and kayak
groups, as well as informal MeetUp groups, that will likely impact the lake in large
numbers. The summer of Covid many homeowners stayed home and, just the
increased number of those boats, had an impact on LakePatrol.
Currently anyone crossing the Lake must wear an orange vest for visibility & have
a floatation device. Is there going to be increased Lake Patrol boats or County, City,
or State agencies to enforce the safety rules? As a homeowner on the lake, I have
already seen numerous kayaks and SUP (even in the rain) casually paddling up and
down the center of the lake with no visible flotation device or vest. It may not be an
issue now but as soon as the sun comes out, so will the power boats…then it will be
a very dangerous issue.
There is a reason boaters have to pass 3 tests in order to drive a boat on the lake…
Safety!!! Currently anyone that has access to the lake (on any watercraft) knows the
rules, and faces the possibility of losing their rights to be on the lake if they
disregard them. I doubt posting a sign with basic rules is enough incentive for the
public to follow those rules…most won’t have a vest or a flotation device and they
won’t let that stop them.
MAINTANENCE OF THE LAKE
What provisions have been made to protect the lake from substantial increased
chance of invasive species being introduced?
What agency will be responsible for daily and overall maintenance of the lake water
levels, water quality, providing any alerts of unhealthy algae locations, drawdowns
etc.?
ADDITIONAL COSTS
4.0
Currently homeowners and easement owners pay a fee to LakeCorp related to all
the above issues. Once the public has access, will this cost be covered by the City,
County, State?
TIMING
It is irresponsible to open the lake to the public prior to these VERY important
SAFETY CONCERNS being addressed and a solution is in place. Lake Oswego is
not a Public reservoir or a glacial lake, it is a relatively small lake that has been well
cared for, protected, maintained and thriving for years. If the law says the public
must have access to the water, could it be limited to a swimming area? There is
already a limitation to power crafts so why would it be an issue to limit all water
craft. That would have minimal impact financially and safety concerns AND satisfy
the court order.
I hope the council will see these concerns worthy of consideration.
Thank you
Rob and Barbara
4.0
From:Jaime Gensler
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Public Access to Oswego Lake
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 1:58:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello -
In light of the recent Lake case, I would like to see that the LO City Council support public
access to the lake. Restricting access to the lake is blatantly exclusionary and sends a clear
message that the city is not interested in supporting or investing in members of this
community who are not extremely wealthy. Lake Oswego should be a city that represents the
interest of all members, and it is frankly embarrassing to live in a city that has so long
restricted access to the body of water the city is named for. It is a waste of time and taxpayer
money to appeal the case and I expect the council to recognize it as such.
A disappointed resident,
Jaime Gensler
4.0
P.O. Box 14039 Portland, OR 97293 ~ theintertwine.org
March 31, 2025
RE: Please do not appeal public access to Oswego Lake
Dear Mayor Joe Buck and Councilors,
I’m writing on behalf of The Intertwine Alliance to urge you to vote NO to appealing the
court decision granting public access to Oswego Lake.
The Intertwine Alliance is the Portland-Vancouver region’s coalition of 80 public,
private and nonprofit partners advocating for investments in parks, trails, greenspace
and equitable access to nature. The City of Lake Oswego has been a long and valued
partner in the coalition, and we thank you for your partnership and commendable work.
Public access to nature for the benefit of all communities is a coalition value. Oswego
Lake is a regionally significant body of water—significant in its size, location, natural
history and cultural history. We celebrate the addition of more than 400 acres of open
space to our regional system.
The Intertwine Alliance supports your ongoing efforts to make Lake Oswego a more
inclusive community and believes that allowing equitable public access to Oswego Lake
is consistent with your goals. As decided in recent court decisions, Oswego Lake is a
state-owned resource, and the City of Lake Oswego is required to provide public access
from Millenium Plaza Park. The Intertwine Alliance agrees with the petition led by the
Minority Law Student Association and Native American Law Student Association at
Lewis and Clark Law School that describes the exclusionary history of lake access
restrictions, and your current opportunity to change course for a more equitable future.
We concur also with the recent recommendation of the City of Lake Oswego Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Advisory Board that you not put further public
resources into fighting public access, but instead turn toward creating access that is safe
for both people and the environment. Non-motorized public access to the lake can be
well regulated to ensure the safety of all users while allowing equitable use of this public
4.0
resource. We believe that kind of access is possible, and we stand ready to help you
make this vision a reality.
The Intertwine Alliance recognizes that creating and managing public access adds new
work and challenges for City staff and budgets. Your coalition partners are here to help.
There’s a lot of creativity and resources within this coalition; please do not hesitate to
reach out to us if we can support the transition.
We urge the City of Lake Oswego not to join the Lake Corporation in its efforts to
perpetuate exclusionary practices, but to be forward thinking about the future of public
access to Oswego Lake.
Thanks for all your good and hard work.
Sincerely,
Tara Wilkinson, Director
The Intertwine Alliance
tara@theintertwine.org
4.0
From:Kathryn Burge
To:Council Distribution
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 2:35:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello!
Im a legacy lakefront cabin owner on a public lake in Southern Oregon. I’m also a two easement member on Lake
Oswego over a span of 25 years.
Safety is what needs to be addressed. If Lake Oswego is public a Sheriff will need to monitoring the lake.
Respectfully~
Kathryn Burge
Sent from my iPhone
4.0
I'm here to express my deep concern regarding Judge Steele's ruling and to urge the city to
take immediate action to protect Oswego Lake. I urge you to appeal Judge Steele’s ruling
and to file an immediate motion to stay the court order of public access to Oswego Lake.
This action will halt enforcement while you pursue the appeal, giving time for a proper and
thorough review.
Now is the time for you, our community leaders and representatives, to act decisively to
preserve Oswego Lake. I moved 3,000 miles across the country to be closer to my wife’s
family, bringing our two young children with us. We chose to settle in Lake Oswego because
of what it offers its residents: top-rated public schools, a strong sense of community, and
access to the Lake. I specifically sought a home with deeded easement rights to ensure my
family could enjoy the Lake. Having spent my entire career in the maritime industry, time on
the water with my family is incredibly important to me.
This ruling poses a significant threat to the property values of homes with deeded easement
access within the bay. These easements are not merely a convenience; they represent a
substantial financial investment and a key component of our property rights.
It is essential to uphold the proper procedures and rules governing the Lake for the benefit
of our community. Opening the Lake to public access poses several risks, including the
introduction of invasive species and waterway safety concerns.
On March 14, 2025, an incident occurred involving an electric-powered fishing boat
operated by a 17-year-old who was unlicensed and did not possess an Oregon State
Marine Board Boater Education Card. The boat had been out of registration for two years in
Oregon and did not have several required safety items: a life jacket, sound equipment (such
as a horn or whistle), a Type IV throwable flotation device, and the operator was unaware of
traffic flow regulations. When questioned, the operator stated, “I had no idea I needed this
stuff and thought the lake was public, so I could go out with whatever I had.”
Even with my years of boating experience, the licensing process for both Oregon state and
Lake Oswego required significant effort. This reinforces the need for strict adherence to the
local regulations that ensure safe lake operation.
The City has a responsibility to protect our community’s interests and the character of
Oswego Lake. The Lake Corp should not stand alone in this appeal. I encourage you, Mr.
Mayor and Councilors, to take action and appeal this decision. We need a long-term
solution that balances public access with preserving Oswego Lake's unique characteristics
and the safety of its residents. This is a crucial moment for our community; your decisive
action is vital.
James Maitland
4.0
From:Kurt Parker
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Request an Appeal of motion to open Lake Oswego
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 4:15:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to encourage an appeal of the recent ruling allowing for public lake access. While
I am not in support of allowing public access I do understand that keeping Lake Oswego
exclusive to our Lake Corp HOA may not be possible.
My primary concern is that the ruling did not put in place any regulations, education or safety
measures. The lake Corp has successfully kept residents and guests safe for the 15 years we
have lived on the lake. There are a number of unique regulations to deal with the dynamic
nature of the lake combined with the goal of satisfying a wide range of uses from swimming to
power boating, skiing, SUP etc. I am deeply concerned that ‘open access’ will cause
unnecessary danger to the community and the public.
Please appeal the ruling and to request a stay of the judgement.
Thank you for your continued support,
Kurt Parker & Liz Weldon
2600 Summit Dr
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential or proprietary information.
Any use or copying of this message or the information it contains other than by an intended recipient and for
the purposes for which it was sent is prohibited.
4.0
From:Drew Simrin
To:Council Distribution
Subject:Decline to appeal, implement park rules
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 6:10:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Mayor Joe Buck, City Manager Bennett, and members of the Lake Oswego City Council,
My name is Drew Simrin and I am a lifelong Oregonian that loves our treasured lands, water,
and air.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the decision to appeal regarding public access
to Lake Oswego, and implementing rules to accommodate for public access.
I would urge the council not to appeal the judgment as a potential beneficiary to the decision
myself. I would love to enjoy coming to visit the city of Lake Oswego to swim at the lake. I
currently live in Eugene and often visit the Portland metro area but I always overlook the City
of Lake Oswego in my trip planning on part because of the private access nature of the lake as
it has been managed. If public access were afforded to the lake I would be more inclined to
visit the area when I visit the Portland Metro. The appeal process can be lengthy and
expensive for taxpayers, and that impacts visitors like myself and may not result in the
outcome that the city is seeking.
Please implement park rules to accommodate terrestrial and non-terrestrial public access of all
kinds.
Thank you again for providing the opportunity for to comment.
Drew Simrin
Eugene, Oregon
4.0
March 31, 2025
Mayor Buck and Members of City Council,
On behalf of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board for the City of Lake Oswego,
we recommend that you take efforts to make Oswego Lake accessible to the public and not
appeal the recent ruling requiring the opening of the lake.
A publicly accessible lake supports the City Council’s 2025 goal to “attract and support a
diverse population where all people have civic agency, the opportunity to thrive
and have equitable access to City Services.”
The lake’s privatization was founded on principles of exclusion. In the early 20th century, when
parcels surrounding the lake were originally developed for residential use, Oregon Iron and
Steel Company included racially restrictive covenants1 in each parcel. These initial deeds did
not allow people of color to use this land except as servants. When this land was conveyed to
the Lake Oswego Corporation, these overtly racist restrictions were changed2 to “exclude the
general public from using” the lake.
A private lake serves not only as a reminder of our city’s history, but a tangible example of the
exclusion of low income and marginalized people that continues to exist today.
An open and publicly accessible lake will make our community more inclusive of all people.
With a public lake, we will see more tourism and interest from those who have historically felt
excluded from our City and our lake. This directly supports Council’s goal of attracting a
diverse population and ensuring that all people have an opportunity to thrive.
Additionally, appealing this decision would actively create inequitable access to City Services.
The City of Lake Oswego should be a place in support of all of its community members, not
simply those wealthy enough to live near the historically private lake. By discontinuing this
legal effort, the City will ensure that use of taxpayer funds and access to City Services is truly
equitable.
As the City of Lake Oswego works to create a more inclusive community, it is essential that all
people — whether residents, workers, students, or visitors — are welcomed here. We ask that
you take this opportunity to open the lake to all and show our community the path forward to
inclusion.
Respectfully,
City of Lake Oswego Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Board
1 CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR., DEED BOOK 132:166 (1913).
2 CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR., DEED BOOK 358: 676 (1945).
4.0
Board of Directors, LO for LOve
loforlove.or@gmail.com
March 31, 2025
Lake Oswego City Council
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
Subject: Request to Discontinue Legal Proceedings Restricting Public Access to Oswego Lake
Dear Mayor Buck and Members of the Lake Oswego City Council,
On behalf of the Board of Directors of LO for LOve, we urge the City of Lake Oswego to
discontinue its ongoing legal efforts to limit public access to Oswego Lake. The continuation of
this costly legal battle not only diverts valuable public funds and resources but also delays the
necessary transition toward improved public access and safety measures around the lake.
The history of exclusion in our community was not established overnight, and neither will its
transformation into a more inclusive and just future. However, meaningful progress requires
decisive action. Concerns about safety are valid and should be addressed, but these challenges
are neither new nor insurmountable. Cities across the nation regularly implement reasonable
regulations to maintain public safety in shared spaces. Lake Oswego is no exception and has
the capacity to do the same. Continuing to appeal and delay this inevitable transition is fiscally
irresponsible and does a disservice to our residents, who deserve to see their tax dollars
allocated toward initiatives that propel our city forward, rather than uphold outdated and
exclusionary policies.
We stand at a defining moment for our community. Oswego Lake represents more than a body
of water; it is a symbol of our collective values and the kind of city we strive to be. By choosing
to open the lake to public access, we take a crucial step in rectifying past injustices and
fostering a more welcoming and equitable community.
We urge you to reconsider the current approach, end the litigation, and initiate the necessary
steps to open Oswego Lake at Millenium Plaza Park. The time has come to align our policies
with the values of inclusivity, fairness, and responsible stewardship of public resources.
Together, we can create a more just and united Lake Oswego for all.
Sincerely,
Emily Lievens
Board Chair
LO for LOve
4.0
From:Annie W.
To:Council Distribution
Subject:written testimony re. keeping Oswego Lake Public
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 5:41:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
March 31, 2025
To the Mayor and City Councilors of Lake Oswego.
My name is Anne Meneakis. I am a resident of Lake Oswego. My address is PO BOX 153.
Lake Oswego, OR 97034.
I am writing to request that you please protect public access to Oswego Lake. Please
decline the Lake Corporation’s request that you use city funds for their litigation to privatize
Oswego Lake. ORS 274.430 states, “All meandered lakes are declared to be navigable
and public waters. The waters thereof are declared to be of public character.” The request
from Lake Oswego’s Lake Corporation that the city utilize public funds to help them appeal
their efforts to obtain privatization of Oswego Lake, a lake that is made possible by public
tributaries, is a request for the misuse of public funds and in violation of Oregon Law. This
is not an ethical or supportable request.
I personally benefit from access to a lake easement, but I do not support the Lake
Corporation’s efforts. I first obtained lake easement access in 1991, when I purchased a kit
house cottage - one of Lake Oswego’s affordable housing units - built by a local church in
1941 for parish members. I saw the abhorrent language that allowed me in my white
privilege to buy the house, while requiring that I certify that I would not sell or rent my home
to anyone who was Black, Japanese or Chinese. I refused to sign unless that language was
removed. It was removed immediately, allowing the sale to go through. This deed in 1991
highlights Oswego Lake’s long history of being created upon not only stolen land, but racist
deeds to exclude people of color, deeds which have continued until very recently. The Lake
Corporation’s legal effort to block public access to the lake at Millenium Park is not only
against Oregon law, it is an effort, whether with intended or unintended results, continues
the racial exclusivity for who can access the lake in a city with predominantly Caucasian
residents, in residences built upon a history of redlining and sundowning.
Lastly, the arguments that the lake will become littered with public use fails to acknowledge
the history of the marked litter upon the bottom of the lake revealed in prior decades before
Millenium Plaza was built, when the lake was drained. I believe it is fair to say that call is
coming from inside the house.
As a homeowner with lake easement access, I ask you to decline the inappropriate request
by the Lake Corporation that you perpetuate racial exclusion in the city of Lake Oswego
and disregard settled Oregon law.
Thank you most kindly for your attention and consideration,
Anne Meneakis
4.0