New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br /> May 10, 1999 <br /> Page 14 <br /> allowed ithin the criteria of section 5.055, the City's decision cannot be reversed, even <br /> if others disagree with the decision. <br /> ~ he other shortcoming in the City's consideration of these problems associated <br /> with the closing is that the hearing disclosed additional evidence regarding the severity of <br /> the prob em. While the City cannot be reversed if acted within the proper range of <br /> allowed discretion, it is more difficult to sustain the City's decision if a hearing discloses <br /> evidenc not considered. In that case the decision can only be sustained if the City <br /> reveale not only what evidence it relied upon, and what conclusion the evaluation of that <br /> evidenc led to, but also if the City revealed how it would have responded to more <br /> ~ evidenc of greater problems than it considered. <br /> uch a decision is a lot to expect of the City. The decision making process that <br /> the City has created lends itself to continued risk that the City will be reversed because it <br /> did not onsider information that it did not know about until after the decision was made. <br /> This, in turn means that the appeal process is distorted. <br /> here are three sides to this issue. In deciding to close Stewart Road the City <br /> examin d the positive effects on the residents and the negative effects on the businesses. <br /> Based nits knowledge of the facts, the City decided that the positive effects on the <br /> residen s outweighed the negative effect on the businesses. For this reason, the City did <br /> not disc ss in great detail the third aspect of the decision: the City's interest in stopping <br /> the decl'ne of Stewart Road. It is mentioned, but it is not discussed in detail. <br /> he facts of the hearing reveal that there are greater negatives to the businesses <br /> owners than the City considered. The hearing suggests that the negative impacts on the <br /> propert owners should be given greater weight, and if the balance of interests between <br /> residen s and businesses was the only consideration, the hearing suggests that Stewart <br /> Roads ould not be closed. <br /> his brings the decision to the more difficult question of whether the greater <br /> impact n the businesses should also outweigh the City's interest in halting the <br /> deterio ation of Stewart Road. The problem here is that the real solution is beyond the <br /> realm f possibility within the options available. The real solution is to improve Stewart <br /> Road, ut that is not an option. Because of that, the question is only whether Stewart <br /> ~ Roads ould be closed now while it is barely acceptable for the limited residential use it <br /> will ret in, or if it should be kept open until it has deteriorated to such an extent that <br /> barrier are not necessary to close the road because no one can or will use it. <br /> Worded in that stark a choice, the rationale for closure becomes more obvious. <br /> From t e perspectives of the business the question is if they want to suffer now with a <br /> road th t is closed but can be opened for some emergency vehicle access, or face the <br /> proppe t of road that is not at all available for emergency vehicle access. Given the <br /> appare t impracticality of opening the barrier for emergency access, it may be that there <br /> is no r al difference, but phrasing the question this way reveals that the question is not <br /> wheth Stewart Road should be closed, it is when Stewart Road will be closed. <br /> For these reasons, the overall balance of the public welfare seems to dictate that <br /> Stewa Road be closed, despite the significant negative consequences of the closure. <br /> i <br /> i <br /> <br /> 'I <br /> i <br /> <br />