Letters to the Editor

The citizens of Woodcreek received the following three sentence email from the City of Woodcreek on August 23, 2018: “The City of Woodcreek recently researched the ownership of La Rocca Lane. It has been determined that the street is not and never has been city property. Control of the street and gate has been returned to the owner of record who will determine usage.” Then, perhaps as early as August 23, the gate was reopened in violation of the existing ordinance that stipulates that the gate shall be opened only in an emergency.

So where does the unsigned email come from? I find it misleading and disturbing for several reasons.

The statement about ownership of the property is misleading because the ownership of the property was never in question throughout the work of the Traffic Committee, the public hearings and City Council deliberations in 2006. Ownership of the property by the golf course development company was wellknown and was never an issue. The issue that led to the enactment of Ordinance No. 06-98 was the use of La Rocca Lane as an egress to the City of Woodcreek by motor vehicle traffic.

The email implies that the owner of the property can unilaterally and solely at the owner’s initiative undo an existing, duly enacted ordinance of the City of Woodcreek. Ordinance No. 06-98 has been on the books, uncontested, effectively doing what it was intended to do for 12 years. Now, out of nowhere and apparently without an opinion from the City Attorney, an email is sent out suggesting that the egress to Woodcreek from La Rocca Lane is not under the authority of the City of Woodcreek. Where is the compelling reason to even bring this issue up? Where is the analysis/traffic impact study to justify opening La Rocca Lane and negate the previous work in 2006 by the Traffic Committee and the City Council?

The email is also disturbing because it suggests that policy and development or revision of ordinances is now being done by unsigned email rather than committee work and council deliberations. Who authorized turning control of the gate to the property owner and how was this done?

Finally, we need to remember the many valid reasons La Rocca Lane was closed in 2006. The problems and recommendations cited in the report of the Traffic Committee are as a valid now as they were in 2006.

Unfortunately, the gate has been opened and apparently the City Council will be asked to consider repeal of the ordinance closing the gate at their meeting on September 12. If there is in fact a compelling reason to reconsider the egress to the City from La Rocca Lane, hopefully the City Council will address all of these issues with a thorough analysis and democratic process involving the residents of Woodcreek.

Dennis Earl Riker