City Council reviewed a petition brought forth by eight individuals who requested that the city vacate five alleyways in the Lone Star subdivision Wednesday evening.
Representatives for both the city administration and the petitioners presented their arguments to the council.
Solomon Lowenstein, Jr., who spoke on behalf of the petitioners at the meeting, said he believes that the alleyways lower the economic value of the neighborhood.
“We think by vacating these unimproved rights of way, we’ll be able to improve the structures and this will be a maintenance of the public good,” said Lowenstein.
Planning Commission Director Tom Micuda and Assistant City Attorney Patty Mulvihill presented the city’s position. Micuda and Mulvihill discussed how the vacation would affect both public utilities and natural vegetation, however, the crux of their argument was encapsulated in a two-part hypothetical concerning public benefit and future land use.
“The administration does not see a tangible public good,” said Mulvihill. “Do you give away this property and run the risk of having to buy back the property in 20 years? When you vacate public right of way, do you run the same risk of needing it in the future?”
Councilwoman Susan Sandberg questioned whether it was appropriate to make a decision based on conjecture, asking, “Can we really hold this up for some sort of nebulous project that’s not in the works?”
Ultimately, the city representatives reaffirmed their position and stated that they did not believe that abandoning the alleyways would provide any public benefit.
“We don’t know what we’re going to do with the property in 20 years,” said Mulvihill. “Tom Micuda and I do not believe that the city should give away public property for private purposes.”
Despite a compelling argument from the city representatives, it seemed it was Lowenstein’s words that resonated among those in attendance, with several members of the public expressing their support for the petitioners after Lowenstein’s presentation.
“I am not willing to put money into a reservation when, on a subjective whim, someone from city utilities decides that it should be demolished,” said Lowenstein. “Without the vacation of these rights of way, we’ve got real problems.”
After both parties gave their presentations, Councilman Chris Sturbaum motioned to continue the meeting on July 16 due to the amount of new information that was presented. The remaining councilmembers voted in agreement.
