🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31n9t4$1fi@search01.news.aol.com>,
BALDEROL <balderol@aol.com> wrote:
>If you're interested in getting a law passed that would make it easier for
>neighborhoods to install gates and limit access to their streets, please
>e-mail me.  I'm compiling a list of people in favor of the idea.  
>
>A bill was introduced last year but went nowhere, largely because gating
>streets was perceived (falsely) as a measure to protect rich white people
>from minorities (which is a false perception because the people most in
>need of getting control of their streets are not rich white people, who
>already have the resources to protect themselves from crime).  

Such a move requires redefinition of "public right of way", not an easy
thing to do. Passage of such legislation is bound to provoke a court
challenge, and will probably lose in court. In effect, a taxpayers suit
would be brought to prevent the city from performing any maintenance in
the closed off areas on the grounds that they are de facto "private"
streets. Or simply challenging the change in status from the original
grantor's designation as public right of way. For instance, it is not
commonly understood that in no sense does the state or local government 
"own"the streets, and therefore does not necessarily have the right to
change the status.

About the only way to pull it off is to actually make the streets
private, by the city vacating the streets back to the adjacent
landowners. And even that move can be challenged.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************