Question: Will City Council cop out on truthfully addressing four major public concerns about closing the Emery Street Vacation of Right Of Way to set a new record for political spin?

1. Longmont's Police Department and Fire Department have a vested interest in public safety which will be affected by said closure; yet these vital Departments critical to local public safety concerns were conspicuously absent from input into the public process and availability during the P&Z Hearing. Will this oversight be corrected when the matter is brought before City Council for final resolution?

2. Will staff address the more relevant macro issue of Longmont Public Safety effected by a closure of Emery Street? So far vacation of the easement for the benefit of Butterball has been sold to City staff on the global federal scale of things as necessary to protect the food supply safety of the American public, but the plans would increase, not decrease food supply security vulnerability. All the safety arguments presented were local to the Butterball site concerning micro safety issues that can be controlled physically on site of the property owner itself, e.g. access points into the building itself.

a. However, does not the inclusion of parking private vehicles for employees within the primary security perimeter of the plant itself increases, not decrease the threat to the public food supply? Isn't the ease of transporting and concealing of delivery of potential known terrorist toxic chemicals made far more probable; given the in close proximity of parking and the opportunity for saboteurs embedded in the work force making it physically possible to carry smaller amounts of contaminants into the food processing areas at time?

3. The process for vacation of ROW is a standard procedure in factual cases wherein the ownership of the land being vacated belongs to the contiguous landowners entitled to the property by line of succession in title to the original dedication of the ROW. However in this particular street vacation the land owner of record is the City of Longmont; see the Chicago Colony Platt, trust documents and instruments of conveyance to present day City of Longmont. The lots in the track were sold to private parties, less the original dimensions of the platted street, thus the platted street is not only a public right of way; but land owned in fee simple title by the City of Longmont. Colorado Case law holds that to vacate a platted town the approval of all the sold lot owners. In the present case the owners in succession to the Chicago Colony would be deprived of a primary amenity without their informed consent and written approvals concerning ROW. Shouldn't turning over of dominion and control of City owner property be covered by in different legal format that that applied here which amounts to a give away of public property?

a. The proper way for the City to transfer dominion and control of the land involved would be by lease; say a 99 year lease for $1 consideration, otherwise the City has disposed of property for free (unjust enrichment) worth between $600,000 & $800,000 at today's commercial real estate market value that it would might have buy back at future market value years in the future when the situation changes.

4. Not withstanding the Longmont City Attorney's assertion of all powers possible over private property rights the general law preserves the inalienability of private property over the establishment of a Home Rule Charter. The City's granting the applicant Butterball full public hearing rights and the limited participation of affected property owners in the effected area to less than equal participation than the applicant for ROW rights exceeds the intent of the Land Use Development Code whose jurisdiction for applicants is for the applicant's own fee simple property. This applicant exceeds the applicant's jurisdiction and the process being applied by the City disregards the general law of vested property rights of the affected surrounding property owners. Denial of equal consideration of relevant evidence honoring established vested property rights of effected property owners to the Butterball application is an arbitrary and capricious disregard for vested property rights preserved by the general law over the establishment of Longmont's Home Rule City Charter. Please see 31-2-217. Vested rights saved below. The general property law respecting vested property rights addresses public policy in the planning process to stimulate economic growth and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors is in C.R.S. Title 24, §68 which is ignored by the City process employed against the effected property owners for the purpose of the City's interests in economic development. The effected property on the South side of the proposed Emory Street closure north of 1 st Avenue will require compulsory-constructive merger of Mr. &. Mrs. Ioerger's lots with respect to the lot owners future compliance with the amended transportation traffic flow caused by the closure of Emery .

General Law.

24-68-101. Legislative declaration.

(a) It is necessary and desirable, as a matter of public policy, to provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability, and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment-backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning.

(b) The ability of a landowner to obtain a vested property right after local governmental approval of a site specific development plan will preserve the prerogatives and authority of local government with respect to land use matters, while promoting those areas of statewide concern described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1).

(c) The establishment of vested property rights will promote the goals specified in this subsection (1) in a manner consistent with section 3 of article II of the state constitution, which guarantees to each person the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property, and is therefore declared to be a matter of statewide concern.

24-68-103. Vested property right - establishment - waiver.

(1) (a) Each local government shall specifically identify, by ordinance or resolution, the type or types of site specific development plan approvals within the local government's jurisdiction that will cause property rights to vest as provided in this article. Any such ordinance or resolution shall be consistent with the provisions of this article. Effective January 1, 2000, if a local government has not adopted an ordinance or resolution pursuant to section 24-68-102 (4) specifying what constitutes a site specific development plan that would trigger a vested property right, then rights shall vest upon the approval of any plan, plat, drawing, or sketch, however denominated, that is substantially similar to any plan, plat, drawing, or sketch listed in section 24-68-102 (4).

(b) A vested property right shall be deemed established with respect to any property upon the approval, or conditional approval, of a site specific development plan, following notice and public hearing, by the local government in which the property is situated.

Where is the protection of affected property owner's vested property rights that shall attach to and run with all the applicable properties affected by Butterball's application?

Longmont's Home Rule Charter does not exempt the City from its obligation to protect the vested rights of its other citizens, otherwise the City is favoring one party over others in the approval of this application.

C.R.S. 31-2-217. Vested rights saved, holds: The adoption of any charter, charter amendment, or repeal thereof shall not be construed to destroy any property right, contract right, or right of action of any nature or kind, civil or criminal, vested in or against the municipality under and by virtue of any provision of law theretofore existing or otherwise accruing to the municipality; but all such rights shall vest in and inure to the municipality or to any persons asserting any such claims against the municipality as fully and as completely as though the charter, amendment, or repeal thereof had not been adopted. Such adoption shall never be construed to affect any such right existing between the municipality and any person.

Summary.

I don't believe the City's macro public safety issues of police and fire protection have been addressed with respect to the impact on Main Street transportation, i.e. a major accident on Main Street, a major hazardous material spill caused by the railroad in the proximity of Main Street and the necessity of public transportation bypassing the events, etc. Nor has the fire department's requirements been investigated with regard to a major fire in the area and the effect of the ROW closure. The 14 th Amendment's requirement of equal protection of the Rule of Law with respect to the neighboring property owner's vested rights has not been a priority in this process contrary to 42 U.S.C. 1983.