New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br />May 10, 1999 <br />Page 14 <br />allowed within the criteria of section 5.055, the City's decision cannot be reversed, even <br />if others disagree with the decision. <br />The 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 problem. 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 />evidence not considered. In that case the decision can only be sustained if the City <br />revealed not only what evidence it relied upon, and what conclusion the evaluation of that <br />evidence led to, but also if the City revealed how it would have responded to more <br />evidence of greater problems than it considered. <br />Such 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 consider 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 />There are three sides to this issue. In deciding to close Stewart Road the City <br />examined the positive effects on the residents and the negative effects on the businesses. <br />Based on its knowledge of the facts, the City decided that the positive effects on the <br />residents outweighed the negative effect on the businesses. For this reason, the City did <br />not discuss in great detail the third aspect of the decision: the City's interest in stopping <br />the decline of Stewart Road. It is mentioned, but it is not discussed in detail. <br />The 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 />property owners should be given greater weight, and if the balance of interests between <br />residents and businesses was the only consideration, the hearing suggests that Stewart <br />Road should not be closed. <br />This brings the decision to the more difficult question of whether the greater <br />impact on the businesses should also outweigh the City's interest in halting the <br />deterioration of Stewart Road. The problem here is that the real solution is beyond the <br />realm of possibility within the options available. The real solution is to improve Stewart <br />Road, but that is not an option. Because of that, the question is only whether Stewart <br />Road should be closed now while it is barely acceptable for the limited residential use it <br />will retain, or if it should be kept open until it has deteriorated to such an extent that <br />barriers 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 the perspectives of the business the question is if they want to suffer now with a <br />road that is closed but can be opened for some emergency vehicle access, or face the <br />prospect of road that is not at all available for emergency vehicle access. Given the <br />apparent impracticality of opening the barrier for emergency access, it may be that there <br />is no real difference, but phrasing the question this way reveals that the question is not <br />whether 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 />Stewart Road be closed, despite the significant negative consequences of the closure. <br />