More on that from the city attorney's office today. In response to further questions about Blazer's proposed resolution on the turn lane the following response was sent from Steve Dunbar, Assistant City Attorney:
An area commission cannot prohibit itself from taking future action. A resolution seeking to prohibit future action could simply be overturned at a subsequent meeting.
Thanks for including that-- it points out the problem ENB folks have with the CAC passing a resolution against further widening of ENB (and with the "turn lane" proposal in general).
Years ago, the CAC had already passed another such resolution completely against widening ENB-- a more recent CAC passed a new resolution (after it was pointed out that the previous resolution conflicted with the "turn lane" supported by the then-newer CAC) that said "oh, except for this little part of ENB that will be used for a turn lane".
As Steve Dunbar points out: even though the CAC votes one way today on something, a future CAC can vote to overturn a previous resolution.
And, just to clarify another point-- there does appear to be a plan to widen ENB. Notwithstanding elected leaders' and city appointees' statements that they'll never do such a thing, it's in the city's overall planning document for the area that North Broadway should be 4 lanes all the way from Kenny to I-71 (I've seen the document and am trying to find it my archives). To date, this plan has been successfully resisted by the ENB folks. Given that a future administration can just as easily change its mind about implementing the plan, I think it would go a long way toward establishing trust if this plan were officially changed to exclude a 4-lane from High to Indianola.
And, of course, let's not forget about the basis for the current lawsuit-- that there is apparently a conflict between the city's idea of how much land they own/control and the residents' (and title companies') idea of how much land the city owns/controls. I'm not a lawyer and don't understand the intricacies, but apparently the city disclaims the county's previous vacation of the larger right-of-way that includes areas to be incorporated into the intersection.
I'm the steward of my paddock and am in the best position to judge what's beneficial for my paddock, so moo!