10/01/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

In re Cartway Petition September 13, 2012 Page 3 of 3 high, when considering that sometime in the future, this cartway and the property owner's use of the newly-created public road could result in an ability to devlopthad land that would not otherwise exist. If not today, that right could be of great value to this large parcel of It appears that the Council is contemplating the foltowing steps: 1. Deciding that no access is available to the [and' despite the [[ear example by the Association's bridge that the Petitioner has reasonable access by building a bridge. 2. Deciding that the City has authority to take private property for a use that is has already said will not be public. 3. Defining the size of the cartway to be something less than the Fu[( roadway despite knowing that the public will inevitably use the entire roadway if for no other reason than to turn around on the deadend road. 4. Setting a damages figure less than $747'98725. despite the fact that no evidence in the record supports any lower figure and therefore anything less would be arbitrary on its face. 5. Setting afixed'do(larannount maintenance obligation that cannot function as an equitable share of the future road maintenance and repair costs over the subsequent decades and longer. The question for the Council is why consider taking any of these steps and exposing itself as a risk agent for Mr. ]ohnson, just to solve a stated need to occasionally walk tO the land and sporadically drive and ATV or tractor. Particularly when a much smaller solution exists that does not involve the City - namely Mr. Johnson should build a small bridge that will accommodate pedestrians, ATV's and a sma(L tractor. Very truly yours, 0HNS x _�°�_ [h'puvpher nson /nnah Enclosures cc: Joe Langel, Esq. Homeowners Association Board