HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-30-21 Public Comment - J. Ball - Rose Park Sign �vcety_e
�l Z
July 30,2021
Re: Rose Park... southeasterly boundary... encroachment by neighbors
Dear Commissioners,
Please submit this to the minutes as part of the "Three minutes for public comment", and read it aloud
as a submission at the next public hearing.
I'd like to see this become a formal agenda item as soon as possible: time is of the essence.
Background:
There are a series of townhomes facing the southeasterly flank of Rose Park,the townhomes apparently
a part of a retirement community. The westerly yards of these townhomes adjoin an apparent ditch
right of way. In review of all of the recorded Plats, it appears that the property boundary between the
Retirement Community and Rose Park is the centerline/thread of the ditch or flowing waterway.
( Note: I have been a professional land title examiner for early 40 years, I researched the property line).
There were, earlier this spring,fairly unsubstantial "No Trespass" signs erected to the WEST of the
centerline of the ditch/creek watercourse, essentially on the edge of the mowed parkland, where it
segues into taller riparian vegetation. The signs were easily 25' into the City park land.
The signs were removed.Today, I noticed a new, substantial square steel post with a sign declaring a
wetland and warning off Park users. NB-The Rose Park disc golf course sees hundreds of recreation
hours a week.
I formally am requesting removal of the sign from the city property.
I suspect the sign was placed by the landowners to the east, it should be on their property, not City land.
The sign-any 'improvements'- should, according to covenants on the face of record Surveys- be outside
of and above the high water line of the wetland. If the sign was erected by the City, it should be
replaced with a more accurate message—here is some wording I quickly conjured:
Your Rose Park Boundary is the centerline of the ditch watercourse.
Please Tread Lightly in the wetlands and respect Property Rights.
I frankly am offended, exhausted, and extremely irritated by the attempt at privatizing the commons,
enlarging the record indicia of ownership by people who live next to Parks.
The nature of property rights is adversity: I request, as a citizen taxpayer and owner of the Parks, and
former Park and Rec Board Member,that the City literally defend its turf.
Remove the sign, and hand it over to the landowner to the east, with a cease and desist letter.
If the City chooses to erect a different sign on park land with a more productive message, do so.
Thanks for your consideration, and all the time you put in on City issues.
Sincerely,
Jeff
323 S. Wallace
406 223 8727
jefemt@hotmail.com cc: Park and Rec Dept