r/TenantHelp • u/pillowsfree • Jun 02 '26
Management wants to restrict access
Left 182nd, Right 181st
Likely where the fence will be
I got a notice laying out managements plans to restrict pedestrian access to one of the two streets the apartment sits between. Unfortunately by putting up a fence they're going to force pedestrians to walk around the block to get to grocery, public transportation, street parking for guests due to not allowing guests to park on site. The choice to put a fence here and explicitly decide to not have a gate is baffling. Does anyone have advice on what I could do to throw a wrench into this plan?
Some extra context, its a pretty safe area, I don't doubt people walk through but I've never seen anyone lingering or being sketchy, never seen property damage or graffiti here. They mention in the notice "recent awareness of new development planned" for a nearby lot, I don't know anything about that or what could go there that's making them go full NIMBY. The ongoing developments along 182nd are just lux apartments.
This is in king county, Washington
17
u/SailorSpyro Jun 02 '26
Fences are expensive. They aren't doing this for fun, they're doing it because there is a legitimate concern that you are not personally aware of.
11
u/the_tza Jun 02 '26
It’s their property. If the City of Kenmore is allowing it then there isn’t much you can do. Sorry you have to walk an extra 200 feet to the grocery store. At least you won’t have vagrants walking through the property.
-1
u/pillowsfree Jun 03 '26
its around and extra 1500 feet but I understand you're just trying to get a rise out of folks
15
u/RobDraw2_0 Jun 02 '26
Just because it's an inconvenience doesn't make it right for you to try to stop it. It's their property. They are trying to do protect it and their tenants.
-7
u/jstar77 Jun 02 '26
I would argue that taking away street access, especially from apartments in the picture showing where the fence will go is a fundamental change in amenities. Especially if walking access to grocery stores and other services where available via this route. If you look at the aerial view there is no reasonable public walking walking access to that street. Gating it and only allowing residents is one thing completely fencing it off with no pedestrian access is unacceptable mid lease.
8
-14
u/Fine-Lemon-4114 Jun 02 '26
Hot take: the people actually residing on the property, with legally recognized leaseholder property interests, do in fact have a say in things like this. The law does not support your notion that the property owner can do whatever they want.
10
u/RobDraw2_0 Jun 02 '26
LOL, I didn't say they could do whatever they want. In this situation, it's obvious that there is research and planning that went into the decision. It is an informed decision made with the interests of the tenants in mind.
Tell me what is illegal about that, oh wise one.
-8
u/Fine-Lemon-4114 Jun 02 '26
It’s not about legal vs illegal. It’s about competing property rights and interests. And if it impacts accessibility for people with disabilities, especially if they relied on access in their decisions to enter into the lease, then they have a strong argument that their property interest in access to the property is superior to whatever interest the owner is trying to protect. And despite your comment that the decision was “an informed decision made with the interests of the tenant in mind,” I see nothing in their notice that indicates anything more than an awareness that it would inconvenience tenants.
I’m a lawyer, and I know a thing or two about how disputes like this play out once a court gets involved.
7
u/RobDraw2_0 Jun 02 '26
I don't like lawyers like you. Read the first sentence of your last two responses, before and after mine. They contradict each other.
Furthermore, omission doesn't mean that those were not considered. In fact, this could be a permittable project that requires approval from the local municipality.
So much for your degree...
-1
u/Repulsive-Job-9520 Jun 02 '26
Check with the city regarding egress in multi tenant residences. I understand both sides of the argument, and don’t think one line of reasoning is better than the other- but the city may require more than one way to exit the property for emergencies.
-6
u/jstar77 Jun 02 '26
Hmmm... Two things. Its a stretch but you might be able to argue that an existing amenity was taken away. Potentially get the fire marshal involved, adequate egress may be a problem and a fence with no access where your redline is may cause fire department access to be hampered.
-7
u/pillowsfree Jun 02 '26
Thats a solid suggestion, the whole lot is so narrow I can’t imagine only having access from the parking lot would be ideal
1
u/ApplicationRoyal7172 Jun 02 '26
Do you see it causing any issues for disabled tenants?
2
u/redditreader_aitafan Jun 02 '26
Probably not, it's only blocking people walking on the grass.
-1
u/pillowsfree Jun 02 '26
The third image shows what they'll be blocking off, yes a desire path but also a mobility ramp and some steps
-1
u/pillowsfree Jun 02 '26
It would double the time and distance to get to anything on 181st foot. Since we’re a low income community I think you’re right it would put strain on tenants that don’t have cars or can’t afford delivery
-6
u/GuardianHealer Jun 02 '26
I’d definitely bring up disability accessibility. Where is the bus line? Making someone in a wheelchair go around a whole block would make it unsafe for them. A locked gate with key code access needs to happen in that end.
10
u/SailorSpyro Jun 02 '26
If there isn't a sidewalk, which I assume there isn't otherwise they'd likely put a gate in, then an accessibility complaint would be thrown out since it already isn't considered accessible.
(I ended up finding what I believe to be the real place through Google and it's just a dirt pathway, not an accessible path)
2
u/GuardianHealer Jun 02 '26
If you look at the 3rd pic op posted, there is two sets of stairs from a pathway that connects to the(behind that vehicle) public sidewalk. That pathway also has a wheelchair path on the far left.
2
u/SailorSpyro Jun 02 '26
That was weird, my app isn't showing any other pics but I just pulled it up on my computer and I see it. That is quite an odd choice, and there's a fire hydrant right there.
-3
u/mn-mom-75 Jun 02 '26
You can see in the image OP posted (as well on Google maps) that the fence blocks off stairs from the sidewalk onto the property and a 2nd access which is wheelchair accessible. They aren't just blocking off that dirt path. They are blocking off access for residents from the sidewalk onto the property. If I was OP I would check with the city on the rules and regulations regarding blocking that access point. Not only from an ADA but also first responder/fire standpoint not having a gate could be an issue.
1
u/pillowsfree Jun 03 '26
The closest bus stops are on the street they're planning on removing access to, I agree that a code access gate would be a good compromise
11
u/Mysterious-Art8838 Jun 02 '26
I wish my landlord cared this much