Olsen Letter To Garden City Residents

Anita Weston, reporter

Rich Civic Times 

The following letter was received by most of the Garden City residents.  It was sent by Phil and Connie Olsen.  Apparently they own a home in Shore Lodge Estates.  This is for your information in case you did not receive a copy of the letter:

Dear Garden City Resident,

Our names are Phil and Connie Olsen.  We’re your neighbors and we’re writing you today about an imminent threat to private property rights at Bear Lake due to actions now being taken by Mayor John Spuhler and the Garden City Council.

Like you, we love Bear Lake!  Our family legacy extends back more than 100 years.  Phil’s mother was born in Star Valley, Wyoming in 1913 and started coming to the lake in a horse-drawn buggy with her family when she was a small child.  After she graduated from Utah State University, she was a school teacher in Garden City in 1937 and 1938.

We’ve owned property in Shore Lodge Estates at Bear Lake since 1971.  The project consists of 29 individual lots that share common driveways among blocks of four or five lots.  It was developed as a private subdivision and it was approved by Rich County back in 1960, long before Garden City performed this function.  We built a cabin on our property in 1978.

In May of 2013, Garden City unlawfully, and without any warning, removed six gates from the driveways in Shore Lodge Estates and installed signs indicating that our driveways were available for general public access to the lake.  Our Homeowners Association objected and filed a lawsuit against Mayor Spuhler and Garden City.  On July 26, 2016, after a three-year long legal battle, Judge Thomas Willmore issued his ruling in which he confirmed the fact that our driveways are private property.  This is how he summarized his review of all the facts:

“A developer intending to indicate private streets within his development on the plat must either name them “private driveways” on the plat, or simply state that all land intended for public use is indicated on that plat and then fail to indicate any such land.  By all appearances, this developer has done the latter.  The use of the words “Streets” in the owners’ Dedication does not indicate any land for public use.  The Defendants have presented little else of relevance to support any other finding.  For a declaration to be effective, an owner must have a “clearly manifest intent” through either declarations or surrounding facts and circumstances.  Not only do the declarations and surroundings facts and circumstances fail to show a clearly manifest intent to dedicate, they appear to constitute evidence of intent not to dedicate.”

As a result of the judge’s ruling, Garden City was forced to return our gates and to abandon their claim on our driveways.  (We’re happy to send you a copy of the judge’s complete ruling or to provide you with additional information.  Please send a request to:  shorelodgehoa@gmail.com)

To the shock and dismay of the Shore Lodge Estates property owners, many of whom are elderly, Mayor Spuhler recently notified the HOA that the city now intends to seize maneuver which is intended to be used when private property is required to meet a “compelling public need.”  It is also intended to be used as a means of last resort when all other options have been exhausted, which is certainly not the case here.

A far better solution is to establish better planning policies going forward.  Some of this is now being done by the city as it requires new developments to provide public access points as part of the zoning and approval process.  This was done recently with the Water’s Edge development and the Legacy Beach Project.

The use of forward planning to secure public access points is a better solution for both the homeowners and the city.  Shore Lodge Estates, for example, was not planned with public access in mind.  Had the requirements for public access been in place, it would have been a simple matter for the developers to provide public access on the northern-most edge of the property.  That would have insured the privacy the homeowners’ desired and it would have provided the access that the public wants as well.

Forward planning reduces the costs to the city as well.  For example, the only cost to the city for the Legacy Beach Access will be the preparation of the public access lane.  Public access at the Water’s Edge project will be completed by the developer.

In attempting to seize our private driveways, the city has already spend over $100,000 in legal fees and, if the city decides to move ahead, it will have to spend significantly more money as they are required to pay market value for our driveways, pay the lawyers (potentially both the city attorney and the Shore Lodge Attorney), pay for studies and adjustments to US 30, as well as pay for environmental studies for all associated actions.  We believe that this money would be far better spent on improving the public accesses currently owned by the city and for securing long-term solutions without forcing homeowners to give up their private driveways.

We are asking for your help to encourage the Garden City town council to thoroughly consider the cost of taking their intended action to seize private property.  Instead, let’s encourage the city to spend our tax dollars on the improvements of public access points it already owns and to spend money on projects located closer to the center of town where more people can benefit.

We encourage you to let the mayor and the members of the city council know what you think.  We also encourage you to attend the upcoming City Council meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 12^th at 5:00 p.m. at the Garden City Office Property.

Sincerely,

Phil and Connie