Correspondence - Non-Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Additionally, it is imperative to address the assertion that there is a lingering, obvious, and no longer necessary railroad right of way. This claim appears to be incorrectly interpreted through the reading of the ruling. Nowhere in the ruling does it specifically address the petitioner's property or the alley in question. Therefore, relying on a purported railroad right of way as a basis for closing the alley seems misplaced and not substantiated by the legal context of the ruling. This further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and accurate examination of the facts surrounding the petition and reinforces our position in advocating for the continued public use of the alley. (see attached for copy of ruling) Once again, we would like to express our caution regarding the proposed vacation of the public's use of the alley. It is crucial to consider that with the closure, the petitioners may open themselves up to potential litigation from the adjoining neighbor to the south on Flower Street. California law mandates a centerline/shared equity on public land division. Closing the alley would create an unfair obstructed entry/egress for those remaining on the unaffected side, leading to bottleneck issues and compounding rather than solving problems. Additionally, closing the alley doesn't address concerns about transient populations, as this complex issue cannot be resolved by simply closing a 50' parcel of land. To further underscore our stance, it's essential to address a secondary effort by the petitioners to close the alley. It appears that this secondary effort is driven not only by concerns about transient activity but also by a broader ambition to acquire additional real estate through any available means. This secondary motivation raises questions about the true intent behind the petition. If the primary concern were indeed the safety and well-being of the community, the focus should center on addressing the specific issues at hand rather than seeking additional real estate through the closure of a vital public access point. As engaged members of the community, we believe it is crucial for the City Council to scrutinize the petitioners' motives thoroughly and ensure that any decision made is in the best interest of the community as a whole. We assert that the closure of the alley, driven by a dual rationale, would not only fail to address the stated concerns effectively but could potentially result in adverse consequences for the neighborhood.