Letter To The Editor

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to the January 10 letter written by Bess Huefner titled, “Wrong to restrict Bear Lake access.” I felt it was necessary to correct some of the misconceptions, half-truths and misstatements contained in that letter. I was born and raised in Ogden, Utah. My family has been spending summers at Bear Lake since the mid-50s, first camping, then in a trailer located on the old Holiday Beach and Marina. In 1968 when that area was sold to a private buyer we looked for a place to relocate that would provide both access to the lake and solitude. My parents bought a piece of property in Shore Lodge Estates to meet these criteria.

The first point to be made is that before the land was subdivided, and the whole time since that subdivision, the access driveways were closed to public access; first by the Stringham family that owned the property, then by the developers and finally by the individual owners. The lot owners didn’t wake up one day and say, “Gee let’s close these roads.” They were always considered private. I don’t know of any owner within Shore Lodge Estates that thought the general public ever had a right to access those driveways. The years-long court case was about what intent was manifest in the plat subdividing the area.

The ruling by judge Wilmore is clear; the plat contains standard language used to subdivide larger parcels into smaller parcels to sell. It doesn’t not contain a clear intent to dedicate the driveways for public use; in fact it’s pretty clear the intent was NOT to dedicate the driveways for public use.

Ms. Huefner also talked about access in other areas like Hawaii. It’s true that Hawaii has been proactive about developing public access. But what she fails to mention is that eminent domain is not used to achieve access. They use forward planning to develop access, similar to what was done with legacy beach. This process allows for better solutions and lower costs than seizure of private property by government entities.

Public access is a concept I support, but not at the expense of individual private property rights. The current issue isn’t about public access, it’s about private property and government overreach. The city, state and counties should develop a process that is inclusive of all the stake holders, including private property owners to secure access. Not to seize private property based on the desires of a few limited politicians.

James Hanzelka, Stansbury Park

Letter To The Editor

To The Editor:

Thank you for the clear logic to your thoughts, Bess.

While not always the case, usually when one side of an argument tries to play on people's emotions (instead of brute logic), then I have found that I need to look closer at that side of the argument to figure out what is really going on.

It is too bad that issues like these arise that cause malice and strife. But it reminds how important it is to: 1)make agreements clear in the beginning rather than later, 2) It is important to make those agreements in written form 3) It is important to stick to those agreements.

If the gates had never been allowed to go up in the first place, we would not likely have this issue today.

I too hope for peace and resolution soon, so we can all go back to getting along.

Joey Stocking, Garden City