Chris S. Coray, reporter
Rich Civic Times
GARDEN CITY, Utah. August 20, 2016. Beginning in 2014 Garden City made a claim that 6 of the
access lanes between Highway 30 and the lake on the south side of the city were
in fact public property, removed the existing gates, and put up signs that
indicated public beach access. In two
legal events, the first being the organization of the Shore Lodge Estates HOA,
the second seeking a summary judgment ruling that in fact the lanes were
private property and not public property, Judge Thomas Willmore of the 1st
Utah Judicial District issued a summary judgment on July 26, 2016, in favor of
Shore Lodge Estates.
Absent an appeal
from the city the issue is now resolved.
Summary judgments can be made by a judge when he believes
there is no factual dispute or ambiguity in the circumstances, language, or
law. Judge Willmore was clear in his
ruling and Shore Lodge Estates has asked the city to return and reinstall the
returned gates. The public access signs
put up by the city have been wrapped in opaque plastic for the time being.
6 comments:
Once again, the voiceless majority loses to private interest (with money). Hawaii and California recognize the public's right to regular intervals of access to the ocean and beaches, but by blocking what were once city roads when private homes were built, long stretches of road access to Bear Lake's beaches, for miles and miles, make our public beaches (from the high water line down, as I understand it) effectively inaccessible. The judge either didn't care or maybe has his own beach front property to "protect". Citizens Unite! We have one more opportunity to appeal this apparently uncontested decision; and there are many more of us without beach access than those who have conveniently added the once public roads to their own property.
Hi Maureen,
There are a lot of incorrect assumptions out there in regards to this case, but the crux of this whole thing is that these lanes were never public, nor are they "roads". The land was a swampy mess when it was purchased in the 60's, and there never were city streets here. Ever. We didn't "add once public roads" to our property. There were no roads here to acquire.These are narrow driveways between our homes that don't have street names, aren't capable of handling heavy traffic, and have been maintained at the expense of the homeowners since the community was first created in the early 60's. They have always been ours.
Residents here are not wealthy elitists trying to keep the public from accessing public land, I can honestly tell you that most are elderly folks and original home owners who bought this land in the 60's and 70's and they're simply fighting for their property rights, which any property owner anywhere should understand. This has been extremely difficult to fund, but I have a feeling if the city took out your fencing, or gate, and told you your land was not your own and going to be used as a means for the public to travel to a tourist attraction, you wouldn't just accept it--you'd find a way to protect your property, no matter what the cost.
I agree that Bear Lake is difficult to access within Garden City. Unfortunately, early developers didn't plan for the demand of future public use. People didn't recreate then like we do now. No one had boats and ATV's and paddle boards and jet skis and the demand for outdoor space just didn't exist like it does now. It really does put the city, county and state in a difficult position, but taking private property isn't the way to solve this issue.
Lastly, you are not a "voiceless" majority, the city presented their case on your behalf. Both sides were able to present evidence in court. The city had two years to get their case together. The judge saw written evidence and heard oral arguments from both sides and made his decision. These residents didn't pull a sneak attack, they didn't steal anything, they simply asked the court for help, and they got it. Had the city won, you would have thanked them for fighting for your interests, but because they lost, that doesn't mean you're silent. Luckily, laws and the courts are in place to protect those on the right side of the law, and cases are not decided based on popular public opinion. The judge's decision was well written and included the following: "...evidence strongly supports a finding that neither the Plaintiffs (Shore Lodge) or the Defendants (Garden City) ever intended or believed the driveways to be public city streets."
Private property rights matter, and no sane person would ever let a city claim ownership of their land, no matter how close it is to a lake.
-Jenny
The way to handle public access is going forward. It was my proposal to the city that future developments plan for public access that led to the new access point being opened up in the new development just north of our location. The problem with the mayor's plan was that it attempted to force access across private land that hadn't been set up for that use. Had these requirements been in place when the subdivision was planned it would have been easy enough to provide access on the north end of the sub division, without encroaching on the rights of the property owners. But it wasn't. So we are left with typical government overreach without a well thought our future plan.
Post a Comment