Barriers remain
Landowners given 2 more weeksBy Layla Aslani, DMG writer
Article Photos
HOUGHTON - Landowners who erected barricades on the former Soo Line railroad grade between Houghton and Chassell have been given another 14 days to remove the obstructions.
During a hearing Friday, Acting Houghton County Circuit Court Judge Charles Goodman denied the defendant's request for a stay, which would have allowed them to keep the barricades up pending an appeal. He said if the barriers are not removed within 14 days, the Department of Natural Resources will be allowed to remove the barriers at the expense of the landowners or request that local law enforcement remove them.
Goodman said he felt the 14 days would allow the landowners enough time to remove the barriers safely and completely. He added that given the long history of the case, another two weeks should not be a problem.
"I don't think an additional two weeks is going to burden anyone," he said.
The debate over the trail started when the landowners, Eric and Naomi Leukuma, Matt and Mary Kiilunen and Roswell and Ruth Miller, blocked the trail in 2005. This led to a lengthy legal battle. In August, Houghton County Circuit Court Judge Garfield Hood ruled that the state had the right to access and maintain the trail for recreational purposes.
On Sept. 8, Hood gave the landowners 14 days to remove the barriers. On Sept. 19, the state filed a request to issue a warrant to remove the barriers, while the defendants' attorney, Caroline Bridges, filed a request to stop enforcement of an order to take them down pending an appeal. Goodman denied both requests Sept. 23. In late Sept., the DNR reported the barricade on the Miller property had been removed, while the others still stood.
Friday's hearing was scheduled as a show cause hearing on the court's calendar and turned into the lawyers making the case for whether the barriers should remain up pending the appeal process. Bridges asked the court to "maintain the status quo" and allow the barriers to remain up. Bridges said the land in dispute was not a trail because the state has never maintained a formal trail there.
To this, Michigan Assistant Attorney General Harold Martin argued that the land was in fact a trail.
"(Bridges) mischaracterized the term trail or doesn't understand what the term trail means," he said.
Bridges said that by removing the obstructions, the state may alter the area with gravel or pavement, as well as advertise the trail on maps and online.
These actions could be hard to reverse should the court of appeals overturn the lower court's ruling, she said.
Bridges called Naomi Leukuma to the witness stand and questioned her about why the barriers should remain up. Leukuma testified that her main concern was the safety of her seven children.
"If we have a snowmobile coming through, it is a serious serious danger," she said.
Martin argued that speculation about what the state would do with the trail was unnecessary.
In the end, Goodman denied the defendant's request for a stay and said that removing the barriers would not cause anybody irreparable harm. He said the possibility of an accident was not a reason to keep the barriers in place.
"Accidents can happen anywhere, anyplace," he said.
After the hearing, Deborah Mulcahey, who is the legal coordinator for the DNR, said the state was happy with the ruling.
"The State of Michigan and the Department of Natural Resources are pleased to see that the court will continue to provide recreational opportunities to the public and enforce the prior court's order for removal of the obstructions on the corridor," she said.
Bridges said she did not know whether her clients would remove the barricades or not. She said she is focused on the appeals case, which does not have a set date yet and could be decided on in one year.
"The case is on appeal and for good or bad the Court of Appeals will give us a ruling," she said.
Layla Aslani can be reached at laslani@mininggazette.com.
|
yooperinnebraska
|
|
|---|---|
|
10-15-08 3:24 PM
|
While I do understand the safety concerns of those property owners, here is the one thing that I have a problem with. Those trails/tracks were there when the houses were built and or bought. Those property owners knew the dangers were there when they chose to live there.
|
|
Taylor1
|
|
|
10-14-08 5:56 PM
|
The landowners are very fortunate that motorized vehicles are not permitted on the trail except during the snomobile season. We live next to atrail which allows year round motorized traffic, and the problem lies with the 30-40% of the users in both summer and winter who show no respect for the neighborhoods they are traveling through, the posted speed limit, the safety of other users including walkers, runners etc. It all boils down to a total lack of respect and self control.
|
|
BobbyH
|
|
|
10-14-08 3:02 PM
|
The barriers should already be down! Don't these idiots realize that we live in a nation of laws, and that the laws do in fact apply to them? The homeowners should also be forced to pay the state's legal fees. I don't want to subsidize their illegal activities with my taxes!
|
|
lonewolv915
|
|
|
10-12-08 1:09 PM
|
the land owners have a good point. u ever watch these idiots on snowmobiles and atvs. they think they own the trails and just fly as fast as they want. i'm sure when these homes were built the state didnt have the trail system there. but god forbid u go against the almighty DNR in this state
|
|
zugorr
|
|
|
10-12-08 10:40 AM
|
perhaps the landowners should put barriers up along US41 also.
|