CC Min 1998-04-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . . . . . Mayor Howard asked if anyone else wished to speak to this issue. No one else wished to speak. - Council Member Leipzig said, "We have to focus back in on the four issues that we are allowed by law to address, and only those issues. From what I have heard, those issues have been addressed. I am satisfied, and I would like to move the resolution." MIS: LEIPZIGIIRA TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION Council Member Hartnett said, "We are facing two distinct issues tonight, one of which is legally relevant, and the other is politically relevant. The legally relevant decision is whether or not the criteria that is before us has been satisfied by the facts as outlined by the eminent domain counsel retained by the City. And I think that a fair review of the facts and applying the criteria to them, lead me at least to the conclusion that there is legal basis for us to proceed tonight to adopt the resolution, just as there would be legal basis 30 days from now should we defer the matter. Frankly, I see it more as a political issue as to whether or not the resolution is deferred for 30 days. But I think it is impractical to expect that a 30-day delay would have any effect, in my experience. The proposal that POST has made which viewed in the context of the proceedings is essentially a negotiation over the price to be paid for the acquisition. It is a proposal that is so comprehensive that would involve multiple parties, that it is simply not reasonable to expect that there could be any conclusion in connection with the proposal in the next 30 days. In fact if we were simply to put a 30-day time limit on it, I fear that that would be a false time limit, and it would result in discussions terminating without an agreement, rather than providing an - opportunity for there to be an agreement. While I am supporting the resolution, I agree with almost everything that has been stated by those who have asked for a delay. There has been a remarkable consensus I think on the part of those who support moving the resolution forward tonight and those who asked for a delay on some critical factors. One is public access. The road is intended clearly to enhance public access, but the political question goes beyond public access as determined and broader public access to Bair Island itself. I think it is important that there is a consensus that the public should have access to that area. The question which is not before us tonight and which will not be resolved in the next 30 days is to how best accommodate that access in a way that doesn't entangle private parties and the governmental bureaucracy, but whereby the governmental bureaucracy provides some degree of leadership. I agree with Mrs. Spangler that it would be better for private parties before this gets entangled with particularly the federal bureaucracy, come to some agreement on these issues of access. And that the issues be dealt with in a broader context than just the price of this purchase, because the price of this purchase in my opinion, will not on its own provide the kind of access that the public requires. It will take a much broader effort than what can be accommodated simply through the proceedings that we would be initiating tonight. But I think that those people who have a private interest in the land and the area should have, and should be encouraged by the City to have an interest in providing that public access, and working together to solve the difficult issues of public access. I think that it is certainly possible to come up - with something that is a broader solution than we can ever mandate through this process. I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 APRIL 6,1998 MINUTES Page No. 381 PAGEz1