10-12-1977 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 ASSOCIATE: JOHN E. TROJACK JOHN E. DALIBNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 730 MINNESOTA BUILDING ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 September 14, 1977 Mayor Donald Valento and Members of the City Council City of Little Canada 515 E. Little Canada Road Little Canada, Minnesota 224.4345 Ourp F 304 D: c .:;i Honor [ Kft, S1. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mayor Valento and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Daniel J. and Irene Campanaro, the owners of the premises described as: That part of the SE,,—, of Section 31, Township 30, Range 22 lying northeasterly of Interstate Highway 697+ and south- westerly of Twin Lake and northerly of the Burlington Northern Railway right -of -way and southeasterly of a line described as follows: commencing at a point on the north - south quarter section line and 1864 feet south from the northwest corner of said SEu; thence south 64040' east 115 feet; thence north 69 °52' east 1105 feet; thence south 28038' east 150 feet to the beginning of the line to be described; thence north 77 °52' east 590 feet, more of less to the shore of Twin Lake, it is hereby requested that the City of Little Canada open a public street to their premises. The power of the City Council to open a street is under Minnesota Statutes 412.221 and 429.021(1). Both the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Statutes hold that private land may not be taken in eminent domain for a private use. How- ever, as early as 1912 in the case of Mueller v. The Supervisors of the Town of Courtland, reported in 117 Minn. Reports, page 290, 135 N. W. 996, the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically held the fact that a proposed public road to be constructed solely for the purpose of furnishing ingress and egress from the premises of a single landowner, and is to be located entirely over the premises of another, did not violate this constitutional and statutory prohibition. The Court stated at page 295: "On the other hand, when a road like the one in question is regarded from the public's viewpoint, it would seem that the mere immediate convenience thereof to the person most directly benefited threby, as distinguished from the public at large, is not conclusive of its private and against its public character, so as to render the taking of another's property thereof a taking for a private use; for the public undoubtedly has an interest, in too many ways to recite, in having access to each and everyone of the members thereof." 0011 gEVY SEP 2: 197 CITY v. LITTLE CANA