Judge rules Oswego Lake should be open to public

[@NMV-ej4zd]

The public should not be able to enter the lake from private property, but the homeowners should not be allowed to control access to the lake from areas they do not own. This is a similar issue to owners of beach houses along the coast in California- they may have an area of private access to the ocean, but they do not "own" the ocean.

[@grmmjhnsn2]

ABOUT TIME. Just because you can afford to live on the lake, doesn't mean you OWN IT.

[@Thehoelogdog]

They should also have to pay the state back for using tax monies for private use.

[@imadequate3376]

They were what?! Oh heck yes they should! Raise their property taxes/sue them all. Like are you ****ing kidding me? This just sounds illegal as heck.

[@Krobra91]

@@imadequate3376 as someone who lives in clackamas county, where lake oswego resides, please increase those who live on the lakes, dont punish us for these millionaires and billionaires greed

[@p.s.vanderpool6770]

If tax dollars pay for it then it belongs to the public. Funny how entitled some people are.

[@TheAlgomalo]

My dream of starting a floating tiki bar party barge on Lake Oswego is finally getting closer to becoming a reality!

[@Ivan-cr3vc]

Quite a few years back Lake Oswego wanted the state to stock the lake at no charge. The state said as it was private property and no public access, no dice. In the early days the original name was Sucker Lake.

[@Willie_dubz]

My grandfather made the law that you can't own beaches in Oregon but throughout the coastline residents construct fences put up Boulders and everything to deny access from the public

[@bruced2346]

My ears are shot from ear infections from swimming in lake O when I was a child many years ago. ‘Fed’ by the tualatin river, it is (or at least was), one of the most polluted (agri chemicals) around.

[@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists]

I think you mean lawn chemicals and street run off

[@bruced2346]

@@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists nope. agri biz stuff.

[@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists]

@@bruced2346 Your opinion is on parr with your knowledge. If you have no data, then prove your claim.

[@duane0373]

The rich want it all

[@gloriagehring8676]

Do you want people on your property?

[@ford289cid7]

@@gloriagehring8676 The lake is not on one person's property, it's owned by a private corporation of many landowners. Public tax money pays for it, the public must be allowed in.

[@Marsbars340]

I’ll be there fishing as soon as it changes! You know there’s going to be a whole bunch of Karen’s 😂

[@williamogilvie6909]

There is a park in Palo Alto, .CA that was closed to non-residents for many years. I think it was the retired judge LaDoris Cordell who started the lawsuit to open that park to non-residents. The plaintiffs won and many people who probably never thought of visiting a natural park before flocked to it. A lot of trash and litter was left. The residents got organized to clean up the park after every weekend. Not sure where things stand now, but that's how these things progress.

[@ford289cid7]

So have the Palo Alto public works department clean the park, just like they clean others. Problem solved.

[@williamogilvie6909]

@ford289cid7 The good citizens of Palo Alto were never litter bugs and don't expect their public works employees to have to clean up other people's litter. Please tell the utube audience where you live so they can do their littering there, which apparently, is your custom.

[@ford289cid7]

@@williamogilvie6909 Just about every park has the Public Works department take care of it. The good citizens of Palo Alto are to be congratulated for fastidious cleanliness, but not to the point of keeping a public park off limits to the general population. Besides, Oregon state law says lakes must be open to the public.

[@williamogilvie6909]

@@ford289cid7 People who leave trash in public parks should be excluded. The only practical way to do that is to only allow stakeholders, eg: residents. I have seen people visit parks just for the purpose of disposing of their household trash. Weekend warriors, like the people who want access to Lake Oswego, often leave trash behind. I remember seeing an unofficial camping spot used by competitive kayakers that had a white ring of trash - probably mostly tp -around it. And I have seen hikers chuck empty cans into the woods. My credo has always been "leave no trace".

[@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists]

I've seen the access point in this video many times. If the Lake Corporation built a floating wetland island there, the only public access would just be the tiny pooled areaa right at the park. It would still be public access, but that area would be about the size of a residential pool.

[@MikeInOregon]

Ha Ha Californians!!! You can’t own the water in Oregon.

[@Hoofer001]

But I do 😂

[@MikeInOregon]

@ Good luck with that. Just remember that you never hear the bullet with your name on it when you’re trespassing.

[@DrD0000M]

@@MikeInOregon But you can hear the drop of the guillotine.

[@Hoofer001]

@@MikeInOregon You may want to delete that comment it may be used against you someday

[@nitroburninfunnybong4065]

@@MikeInOregonit’s comments like yours that guarantees I’m going to be floating on that lake in my speedos while smoking blunts and drinking whisky in an apple juice bottle.. thanks for the encouragement.. 😘cope and seethe

[@mchurch3905]

Access to one of the stinkiest bodies of water known

[@JoeStanek-vu7rl]

I thought all navigatable water ways in Oregon are public.

[@CrabbyOldLady]

They are, but this lake was ruled non-navigable a long time ago. The lawsuit argues that since the lake was navigable when Oregon became a state, then the public trust law applies, even though the lake was subsequently declared non-navigable.

[@Rawbful]

how dare they try to change laws. I love how that's the best defense they have. we don't want to change something that has been a way for a time.

[@journeybrook9357]

How was the kake developed ir nade? Is there maintenance?

[@BeautifuLakesStreamsBiologists]

Yes and the private lake corporation has paid to maintain the lake for many decades. It could be argued the public owes them for this. Also, the lake is dammed so the original lake was smaller.

[@Dennis-p2l]

Open the lake for everyone. And using taxpayers money WTF!

[@mollycarr3522]

That will ruin the lake. 😂

[@alienstock]

OMG those poor folks having to put up with public access will only bring trouble ,homeless, drugs ,and garbage

[@Chilecoq]

Poor folks? I hope you are being sarcastic

[@deanfirnatine7814]

"Oh no Lovey they are letting the riff raff working class in", lol.

[@charleylammers5983]

Great take by the judge 👍

[@RoxannBoykin]

The rich are butt hurt over losing their lake awww

[@bigpappalimey5873]

Urrgh that women comment in the decision is a little strange. Judge chip on the shoulder has decided.

[@marilynlittlejohn1257]

Im going for a long swim.

[@andrewlake7992]

I guess the homeowners are probably only out 100 grand!

[@thndr_5468]

Good

[@killua_7787]

Nice no more raw corporate shots on lake issue 🙂‍↕️

[@gloriagehring8676]

That’s a bad idea because there is not enough room to park in the first place! These people have plenty of money to fight it. So some east coast entitlement person sued? You’re going to be really hated dude!!! There’s too much private property which pays their taxes! Go to public swimming areas fool!!!!

[@Chilecoq]

Hmm always the brown noses defending the wealthy

[@p.s.vanderpool6770]

😂😅

[@TVHouseHistorian]

While I somewhat agree with the ruling (I think?), I wholeheartedly disagree with the judge’s reasoning in her decision. She seems to be using “subjective “fairness-based” logic, as opposed to logic that is objectively justice-based. I wanna know more about how she arrived at her decision.

[@JesseePDX]

thank you

[@snakesRkewl]

It is justice based though, that lake is not owned by them, it was taken over. And I bet that's how it will play out in the courts too.

[@TVHouseHistorian]

@@snakesRkewl the outcome may be justice-based, I don’t really know. It’s the process she took to arrive at her decision that seems extremely questionable to me. I’m not bothered by the decision. I’m bothered by the precedent it sets. As a judge, you’re responsible for following a process, and I would hate for that same process to be repeated down the line. How does the evolution of women’s roles in society correlate to the evolution of the laws which govern public and private property? To clarify, I’m only asking a question here.

[@mrj10101]

About time

[@jmhlavac]

I didn't fully appreciate the definition of fascism until I saw this.

[@URKlewless]

Let me guess. All the people that are in favor of this took basket weaving in college and still expect us to pay their school loans

[@nitroburninfunnybong4065]

Cope harder! I’m going to wash my balls in your lake all summer Karen! 😘

[@gerryyakovleff8606]

Welcome to Communism - Socialism - Fascism - EQUITY - everyone “should have” & Must have access to the lake - but they will not cut the taxes for those lake properties - now that the court has devalued them to nothing.

[@Chilecoq]

Oh what a nonsensical comment hahaha only a wannabe brown nose pretending to be one of the club

[@madmaninoregon]

If this succeeds then lighthouse Beach should be open in Coos County as it was for decades until some new stingy landowner took over.

[@hapyharyhard0n581]

bout damn time!!!

[@basslandpdx]

Swimming party 2025! Disrupt the rich and their precious haven lol

[@bradrock7731]

Or get a real job & buy your own house on the water?

[@Chilecoq]

​@@bradrock7731why a natural lake should be private? Only those wannabe can defend this

[@lawrencecole6527]

I expect a whole lot less "Reality Denial" and furthermore keeping the lake private endangered more life than the privacy ever did.

[@JetSkiSuper7]

Wikipedia spells out the history of the “lake” and it is worth a read. Given its relatively small size (3 miles by .3 max width) it would be easily become overcrowded and as water flow is low, it would not be an ideal swim spot for most people. Most boaters find the Willamette river with numerous boat ramps much more appealing and only a few minutes away. As is, I don’t see many boaters wanting to use the lake for these reasons alone but then add the fact that you fail to see the landowners side, it’s a hard pass.

[@URKlewless]

Hmmmmm now we are all for changing decades of established law…..when it suits just what I believe in 🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@TheChinaPlay]

Not taking a side here, but I imagine this ruling will decrease the market value of those homes eventually resulting in less tax revenue for the local government there, which trickles down to less money for things like roads and public schools. So what's better a lake you will swim in once a year at most or more money for the roads and schools you use every day. Hopefully people making this decision think a few steps ahead rather than I want to swim now. In economics there's a phrase, "there are no solutions, only trade offs. Hopefully the people in that community understand the trade off they are making.

[@petergoodman1337]

@TheChinaPlay I agree this is why the property values around this lake are so high. The fact it was a public lake and the city knowingly pursued this path in hopes to attract the rich and maximize property taxes was a trade-off knowing the risks. No sympathy for the consequences; but knowing how corrupt the Oregon Supreme Court is I will not be shocked to see this get over turned.

[@snakesRkewl]

Pretty sure it was just taken over by wealthy people, now to be given back to the people of the state that rightfully own it. It never should have been "private", regardless of the loss of revenue.

[@tanhvan1]

No1 own the lake..... People live there think they own the lake, hopefully they start thinking about moving out.

[@clinton-x2u]

I think all the people with private docks ON the lake should be charged a yearly fee with taxes added . they dont own the water , or the land under the water,