Hi Andy, Peter and Skip,
I very much appreciate Andy's plan and sharing it with the community here on the listserv.
Could you explain what your exchange a bit more. I'm not as versed in planning terms and land use and suspect there are others like me on the listserv.
Right now Slavin Street is a dead end. Is the land at the end of the dead end owned by the City?
Or is the idea that it's being held by the City because although the road stops where the proposed village site would be it still counts as a right of way that in theory could be extended?
Is it that the land at the end of the dead end cannot be legally designated for another use as any other use than extending the road would be trumped by the rights of the property holders along the road?
I understood, I think, the part about how camps in right of way designated areas are seen to block right of passage and so to be an attempt to privatize public use.
Last question, does this mean that it would be necessary (with legalities in mind) to find a piece of City owned land for which they hold the title vs. a parcel such as on Slavin St. where they seem to hold usage in which to site villages?
Thanks a bunch, in advance for the clarification.