Alpinfox Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Could someone please remind me of the location of that "glacial erratic" boulder in wedgewood? I don't want to go there or anything (I know it's illegal), I'm just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 The beta is in the Seattle City code. It's online, and its searchable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offwidthclimber Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=boulder&S3=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect1=IMAGE&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CODE1&d=CODE&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G SMC 12A.54.010 Climbing prohibited. It is unlawful for anyone to climb or be upon that certain rock or boulder known as the "Wedgewood Rock" located within the public street area at the intersection of Northeast 72nd Street and 28th Avenue Northeast. (Ord. 99363 Section 1(a), 1970.) having never been to the "wedgewood boulder," why did the city feel compelled to create code outlawing climbing on the formation? just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Thanks OWC. I assume they made that regulation to protect the city from liability. Little Johnny's mommy and daddy might sue the pants off the city if he fell and got an owie. It all comes down to money.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offwidthclimber Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 yeah, but little johnny might make a somewhat cushy crashpad until he limps off towards home, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Actually, Fox, I highly doubt the reason for that law was a concern for liability. The city did not build the rock and their responsibility would verly likely be zero if some idiot climbs on it and hurts themselves - its certainly much less of a risk than all kinds of hazardous situations all over town that do not have a specific statute. Much more likely is that at some point in the past, climbers made a nuisance of themselves and the neighbors didn't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrest_m Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 we had a thread about this not very long ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 mattp said: Much more likely is that at some point in the past, climbers made a nuisance of themselves and the neighbors didn't like it. Maybe with the popularization/legitimization of climbing since 1970, the Wedgewood neighbors wouldn't see boulderers as such a nuisance now? I promise to be quiet as a I plummet off the sloper.... After all, people put up with noise from little league games and we all know what a bunch of inbred, cretin, goat-fuckers those baseball players are. It's time for a revolution! Let's call the Access Fund! FREE THE WEDGEWOOD BOULDER! p.s. I still haven't made the long 10 block trek to see the damn thing. I'll rustle up the bivy gear and some powerbars for a midnight assault sometime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I'm sure that if you show up with your pad, it'll be all good. At $100.00 a pop, all you have to do is get away with it six times and you've broken even as compared to going to Vertical World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.