Readers Respond: 60-40 split on public Oswego Lake access

Published 11:21 am Thursday, March 6, 2025

A judge recently ordered that city government must remove barriers to Oswego Lake in four months, but the Lake Corporation, which has considered the lake to be private property for many decades and whose shareholders enjoy access, has stated its intention to appeal the court decision.

Your Oregon News asked readers if they agree Oswego Lake should be open to the public, or remain private.

About 57% of 230 readers said the lake should have public access, and 39% said it should remain private. About 4% of reader respondents said they are undecided.

Some readers said public access would cause destruction of habitats and unsafe crowds; some said private elitists just want to keep out “filthy homeless,” “poors” and “unwashed masses” while others pointed out that Oregon waterways should all be public according to law.

One main concern is who will pay for the upkeep — lakefront homeowners or statewide taxpayers?

Here is what reader respondents have to say about Oswego Lake’s access controversy. Responses have been edited for clarity.

“The public has no vested interest in protecting the quality and integrity of the lake whereas LO citizens have invested in it with their property values and taxes. You are essentially turning it into a public swimming pool with all the negligence, litter, and lack of care that entails. How long will it take before LO residents are cleaning up trash in their backyard properties or chasing away loiterers? Is the city going to refund the loss and property value in our property taxes? The entire access suit is an exercise in virtue signaling by plaintiffs who don’t even have a stake in LO. At the very least there should be an access fee to cover maintenance and to mitigate degradation of the Lake environment. Once again Oregonians or victimized by progressives with an axe to grind.”

“The reasons put forth for why the lake should be private are not valid.”

“Too many people on the lake is environmentally not good for the lake. There is no good access for the public to get on the lake. Where are they going to park? Are they going to haul their kayaks across 43? What about restrooms or handicap access?”

“The waters are state owned and therefore public has access to such.”

“Why should a lake be only for the wealthy?”

“We all know why people want to keep it private but people are too afraid to admit they’re racist and classist.”

“Oregon has a hundreds of lake and river options. Think if all this time and money went to helping others instead of wasting it on a little 20-foot access to a man made portion of the lake.”

“My children got sick swimming in the lake, it is Tualatin River water and is chemically treated. There is no way they can attempt to keep the water free of invasive species.”

“Its maintenance and access is all privately funded.”

“It is a manmade channel developed by the Iron Company and donated to the Lake Corp and paid for annually by shareholders.”

“Did you know the original name for Oswego Lake was Sucker Lake? Seems an apt moniker.”

“It is part of what Lake Oswego unique.”

“Allowing access to the public will created an environmental disaster.”

“Privacy for lake residents. It’s too small for public access.”

“Rich people need privacy, making it public invites crime.”

“Private….Lake Oswego residents that want to swim can access the lake from either of the swim parks that keep track of residential status so that you don’t have random people from all over coming into the lake. This will cause major issues for boaters. Random people will not know the rules of the lake that keep everyone safe. People pay a lot of money to live on the lake and have access to it. Just like a country club, only people that pay fees and agree to follow certain rules have access not just anyone who wants to go golf for the day!”

“Property owners on the lake pay to maintain the lake. Lake property owners are a corporation with shareholders being lake home owners only. Security is huge concern as well as many homes with docks make access to homes a security risk. As well if there was an accident because of private docks used by the public, whose liability is it?”

“It’s a small lake, keeping it private will manage traffic and deterioration from too much use.”

“The current cost to maintain with additional costs for upkeep due to increased public use will be high for minimal benefit. Now it isn’t a great swim location which will get worse with public over use and the lack of restrictions. Currently private owners maintain a beautiful appearance for everyone.”

“Every one of those lakeside homeowners pay (lots of money) annually to the Lake Corp. for the safety, stewardship, lake patrol, and maintenance of the lake. It’s not tax dollars. Until public access contributes towards this they should not reap the benefit.”

“Waterways belong to everyone, so everyone should have access to them.”

“The wealthy people who surround it didn’t create it, they just refuse to let other people enjoy it.”

“Because it is a public river for all to use. Also the lake should be cleaned and there should be a public access point that has parking & a boat launch ramp. Gas powered boats should not be allowed on the lake.”

“This lake is incredibly safe due to the requirements around boater safety, the patrols, etc. Letting anybody on the lake to do whatever they want would endanger everyone. In addition, the lake is already under heavy and yet restricted usage. Adding more traffic on the lake would be a safety issue.”

“I’d love to have option to go swim this lake.”

“It should be public because just as our Oregon coast belongs to everyone, so should our lakes. This should not be an exclusive lake for the rich.”

“Its a body of water within a city. No one owns that body of water who may live near by. It’s a public access for all communities to enjoy.”

“Aside from legalities, how dumb is it to have a city named after its lake that few can enjoy? Ridiculous.”

“Because when you think you own water ways that are public and access points that are publicly owned and want to keep the poors out it really says a lot about your community.”

“The people who live on the lake and have easements are the ones who pay for its maintenance. Not the state, the city, or the county.”

“All waterways should be publicly owned.”

“Historically that’s how it has been and if it becomes public it will negatively affect home values on the lake.”

“The lake is on public property.”

“The judges ruling leaves too many questions unanswered with little to no guidance except for removing a handful of objects, instead of solutions. For example, could the City provide a 10-foot-wide access point, and would that comply? Or do they have to open all areas for access? And how to address the investment of the private owners of the infrastructure that makes the Lake usable? Is the Lake Corporation liable if a public swimmer drowns since it a privately operated body of water? There are too many unanswered questions or real lack of guidance on potential allowable solutions to the problem. The Judges ruling only complicates the situation and only benefits more attorneys’ billable hours.”

“Who is going to pay for the life guards?”

“State law requires it to be public.”

“It is nearly 100% surrounded by private property, and the one local access point identified is not large enough for any meaningful public use.”

“It always should have been public. But for the illegal collusion by the City of LO all of these years, a private entity never would have been able to take over Sucker Lake which was clearly public under state law.”

“Shareholders have paid an incredible amount of money for years. If it becomes public, will the city pay? Will they tax all of Lake Oswego or all of Oregon to pay for it? The lake is quite small. Dealing with invasive species is a constant struggle.”

“Homeowners and easement members pay the lake corporation to maintain the lake and public users are not required to pay to enter. Also, public use could affect the lake corporations environmental codes and introduce safety hazards by inviting other users who don’t know the rules of the lake.”

“For generations, thousands of Lake Corporation shareholders and easement members have managed and preserved our town’s most valuable resource. It is unlikely that government would budget the millions of dollars necessary to replace the private financial commitment required to provide safe public usage while preserving Oswego Lake as we now know it.”

“One of the things that makes Oregon special is the law that all bodies of water are publicly owned and accessible. Oswego Lake never should have been allowed to be private to begin with. Exclusionary practices and lack of access to natural resources based on economic status are antithetical to Oregon’s values.”

“Navigable waterways cannot be private.”

“Privatization goes against Oregon culture and values. It perpetuates the reputation of Lake Oswego as a snooty, unwelcoming community.”

“The lake should be accessible to all residents of Lake Oswego to enjoy.”

“It is a major attraction. Paddling on the lake will raise home values and bring business and money to Lake Oswego.”

“All waterways in Oregon are public.”

“The residents pay for the lake’s maintenance, not public tax dollars.”

“It’s an artificial lake that is maintained with private funds and functions much like a private golf club.”

“Oregon has a history of public access to waterways.”

“Exclusionary practices are inherently discriminatory — water should be for everyone.”

“Let everyone enjoy the lake. All Oregonians pay taxes. Don’t let local governments, let alone any government tell the public what they can or cannot do or enjoy for their tax dollars.”

“Water is a universally shared resource.”

“The state owns all surface water and it was historically a navigable body of water.”

“It’s not that big of a lake, and it’s expensive to maintain.”

“I don’t even live on the lake and I think it should remain private. The liability issues alone should be a factor, never mind the people who will use public access for nefarious purposes.”

“I’m concerned about increase in water craft and noise on the lake.”

“The state holds title to the lakebed of the original Sucker Lake and that this land, as well as the expanded lake, are subject to public trust doctrine. It’s not a private country club lake.”

“The owners own the lake, not the public.”

“Safety is an issue.”

“Public navigable waterways were never intended to be private. It is a public recreational asset.”

“The lake should be for the benefit of the private owners who created it and provide the resources to maintain it.”

“I live in the city and it’s stupid I can’t use it, even to pay a fee to do so.”

“The public doesn’t pay to maintain it, the city and HOA does. The public can’t access HOA common area grass. A lake is no different.”

“The intent of the lake is to enhance property value, the water is unsanitary and there is not enough parking. From what I have seen people who are planning to use the waterway have malicious or spiteful behaviors and they will not respect the lake as intended.”

“It’s maintained by private funds it should remain private.”

“According to state and federal law, the lake is considered to be a public body of water accessible to the public.”

“It’s a navigable waterway that belongs to the people, not the city of Lake Oswego. Just as they can access commonwealth lake park, or Progress Lake, and any other waterway nearby, we can access Oswego Lake.”

“It’s a public waterway! Why should it be private? Just because they managed to keep people out for years. Not that many people will want to access the crappy lake anyway. They act as if it’s such a destination when the water quantity is poor and the beaches are privately owned!”

“If made public, it should be treated as a park and fees for access must be paid as well as all the costs the Lake Corp. and its shareholders incur annually must be shifted to the public! Btw, anyone who’s ever traveled from headgate to dam will tell you it was NEVER a navigable waterway!”

“It should follow the rules for all bodies of water in the state.”

“How would you maintain water quality and prevent invasive species allowing anybody to enter with their own water crafts etc. Lake owners have to pay a lot of money to maintain its quality. Not to mention more patrols would be needed to prevent trespassing on private property via the lake, having other lake users understand and obey the water safety rules, etc.”

“If there are a lot of people trying to access it, then it needs to be safe, but really I’m not sure how you would police the area with so many private homes with access to the lake and then put in danger by trespassers on the private access points.”

“If there are a lot of people trying to access it, then it needs to be safe, but really I’m not sure how you would police the area with so many private homes with access to the lake and then put in danger by trespassers on the private access points.”

“It is a navigable body of water. State law requires it be accessible. However, I think public access should be regulated. I prefer a kiosk where kayaks and stand up paddle boards could be rented. The number should be only modest.”

“No logical entry point to the main lake for users other than homeowners and neighborhoods with deeded access. Lake Bay itself is too small to accommodate a public entry.”

“The courts have ruled that the lake belongs to the public.”

“Oregon state law is clear that beaches and lakes are public and must be open. Originally called Sucker Lake, today’s Lake Oswego was long ago damed to increase the salable, privatized shoreline. None of this negates the fact that this naturally occurring lake is subject to the same rules as all such bodies of water in Oregon.”

“It should provide recreational opportunities to all, not just those who live on the lake.”

“Lake Oswego City Council should not put any more money in trying to keep the lake private. It has already spent close to a million on this. This should be paid by Lake Corp — not taxpayers, as those living on lake are primary beneficiaries in keeping the public out.”

“I still cannot believe that my tax dollars have gone to keeping me off the lake despite being a 15-year resident of Lake Oswego. Nobody owns this lake, obviously, hence the ruling, embarrassed it’s taken this long.”

“Everyone should be able to enjoy the lake, not just the people who live next to it. It is elitist and exclusionary to keep people out.”

“What is the purpose of making it public? To allow boarders & kayakers? there won’t ever be a public boat ramp. These people bought their homes on a private lake and unless you’re ready to reduce their values and taxes, it should remain that way.”

“Clearly this is complicated. A reasonable compromise is possible. Make the access four times a year and pay a fee to access on those days, and allow control of access in a reasonable fashion.”

“It is paid for and maintained by private lake owners and easements.”

“The lake safety, water quality are directly paid for by those living along the lake— and their dues are required, not optional. Everyone in Lake Oswego has access to the two swim parks, so family access is available for swimming, just not for boating.”

“The homes on the lake pay for its safety and maintenance. Though originally a small body of water, it is basically man made. The lake is too small and adding more activity will greatly increase the danger of accidents and drownings.”

“Natural features like lakes should be available to all residents. Taxpayer funds are used to maintain the lake so all taxpayers should be able to use it.”

“When it was Sucker Lake, it was public. As it was changed to Oswego Lake it became private. All Oregon water ways are public … this lake should be too!”

“It’s not that big of a lake.”

“It will be a zoo and whose funds will control it and maintain it?”

“People purchased their property with the thought that it was private.”

“If it goes public the public will be expected to help pay to maintain it. I don’t use it, don’t want to use it, don’t want to incur expenses for it.”

“In my opinion, property values will decrease. Lake maintenance will increase and the city will be taxed to aid the Lake Corp. That means my taxes might also increase.”

“They pay big taxes on owning a home on the lake and Lake Corp. ensures their boats are inspected prior to being dropped in the lake. I’ve experienced paddle boarders coming right towards our boat and crossing right in front of us under a bridge. No clue whatsoever.”

“People living on the lake pay homeowners dues to maintain it. City should not take it on. Lake is small and overcrowding could occur. Invasive species issues. No good public access.”

“It’s already crowded in nice weather, plus lake residents have paid a lot of money for their access.”

“It is the Tualatin River and no one entity should ‘own’ a river in Oregon. Restricting access must feel especially terrible to descendants (who don’t live in Lake O) of the Native people who used the river for generations.”

“If public access can be developed in a safe way the lake waters be accessible. Obviously the surrounding land is privately owned. The history of exclusion is not conducive with Lake Oswego being a forward-thinking city. If the Lake corporation is worried about maintenance at the lake with increased public usage could a small fee system or permit be instituted with the city to help pay for maintenance?”

“The judge wants more homeless, filthy people in lake Oswego like along the Willamette River, so sad.”

“It’s a waterway in Oregon and a city park on the edge of it allowing public access.”

“Impossible logistics for public access. The homeowners pay the costs for upkeep.”

“It is partially on public property at the park.”

“Oregon beaches are all public. Lakes should be public, too.”

“If it’s public, then everyone paying the annual dues for maintenance and services would need to be refunded.”

“If this becomes a public lake, then the public, all of Oregon will need to pay for the upkeep and maintenance and safety.”

“It is part of the state — it’s not a golf club.”

“Nobody should own a Public Landmark & Recreational Resource.”

“Natural resources and parks should be for everyone and I don’t feel sympathy for the shareholders.”

“It’s a navigable waterway and the public owns the water. It’s time to end this ridiculous exclusion.”

“They’ve flaunted the laws that work for all other Oregonians for decades, and their claims and privilege are ridiculous.”

“Owners purchased lakefront land as private property in good faith.”

“Everyone pays taxes to maintain the lake so everyone should have access to the lake. Why do the rest of us pay for their privileges?”

“If it were public, there would be destruction of wildlife habitats. Many ducks geese and fish use these areas for breeding grounds. Allowing swimming and other recreational use of this portion of the lake should not be allowed.”

“A body of water should not be privatized when it is large enough to allow for the entire community to enjoy it. It’s absurd. A private pond on someone’s property is much different than a shared lake.”

“This is a small lake with many homes around and near the lake, and residents should not have to withstand the possible issues and costs of public usage. If the public is allowed to use it then usage fees that cover maintenance costs should be charged.”

“Too hard to monitor public use and it would denigrate property values for people who have paid a lot to maintain the lake for many years.”

“It is a small lake with many houses around it and nearby, and those residents should not have to put up with the potential problems and costs of public usage. If it becomes public then the public can contribute to maintenance costs or be charged a substantial amount for usage. It should not be free, just as there are usage fees for many other waterway accesses.”

“There should be at least a walking path around it.”

“In Oregon doctrine it states all bodies of water are navigable by the public. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t have at least regulated public access.”

“It is not free to maintain and everyone with access today pays a lot. You can’t have some pay and others not. Safety is another issue. There are water rules to ensure safety and anyone using the lake is held to a safety standard that would not happen with public access.”

“I grew up in Lake Oswego. But I didn’t live on the Lake, so we weren’t able to go to the parks where swimming was allowed, unless accompanied by someone who ‘lived on the lake.’ I think it is unfair for a resident who lives in LO, but not on the lake that they are not able to use the swimming parks. The parks should be open to all residents of Lake Oswego, despite if you live on the lake or not. It’s time to stop the elitism of living on the lake versus not living on the lake.”

“If they pay the price to live on and maintain the lake it is theirs. Keep the unwashed masses out. Clearly someone’s going to drown and then try to sue the people that live on the lake.”

“I don’t like that the public doesn’t have access, but I also don’t like that residents who currently pay a lot of money for access would be paying for the public’s access.”

“It’s an open source lake. Why should only a few wealthy individuals claim they’re entitled to it?”

“It’s a beautiful lake because it has been cared for and has limited access for generations. The people who use it are paying for its use and upkeep. Opening it up to public use is going to destroy that lake, cost the city a lot of money, and lower property value considerably. I have no ties to this lake and do not live in Lake O.”