An Oakland County Circuit Court judge ruled that the Village of Oxford ‘abused its discretion? when it determined free public parking to be a necessity and used that as the basis for attempting to condemn a piece of private property owned by the Grove family.
(See the shaded box to the right for the background story.)
‘The court finds that there is no dispute that parking is a key issue to a downtown,? wrote Mester in his opinion and order.
However, the judge stated that an expert witness in the issue of paid versus public parking produced by the Grove family, Paul LeBlanc, ‘rebutted (the village’s) arguments and its experts? opinion as to why paid parking would be detrimental and noted several deficiencies in (the villages?) parking study as related to methodology and assumptions it made.?
‘Based on the evidence submitted, the court is satisfied that (the village) abused its discretion in its determination of necessity,? Mester wrote. ‘For the reasons stated, (the Grove family’s) motion for Summary Disposition is granted.?
Summary disposition (also called a summary judgment) is a judgement granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of material fact and upon which the person who files the motion for it is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
In April 2003, the Grove family moved for summary disposition in its favor on the ground that the village ‘failed to demonstrate? its ‘purported exercise of the power of eminent domain (i.e. condemnation) is for a lawful public purpose.?
Village President Renee Donovan said she was ‘surprised? about the ruling and ‘not real happy for either side.? She said she has doubts about the ‘viability? of paid parking there ? ‘as to whether it would really work? in that location given the lot’s layout ? plus there’s ‘no guarantee (Grove) will always maintain (the property) as parking.?
Donovan said she does believe free public parking is a necessity to the downtown and the village has ‘no choice but to pursue? the case further.
Council voted unanimously following a closed session last week to direct the village attorney to file a motion for reconsideration with Judge Mester.
Depending on the outcome of that motion, council also voted to direct its attorney to file an appeal, if necessary.
‘I guess I’m happy,? said Nathan Grove in reaction to the ruling. As for what’s next, Grove said he’s unsure. He said the village has not communicated with him since the ruling and he was unaware of council’s vote to file motions for reconsideration and, if necessary, appeal.
Grove said he will ‘wait and see what the village does.? He said he maybe willing to ‘sit down and talk? with the village, if officials wanted to, but ‘they haven’t before.?
He noted that the village council was willing to sign a $1,000 per month lease for parking property in the northwest quadrant owned by developer Charles Schneider (property which Grove sold Schneider last year), but they ‘never sat down and talked with me? about a lease.
Council March 23 voted to accept a lease agreement with Schneider contingent on the OCDA paying half the cost. When the OCDA declined to do so, council April 27 voted to deny the proposed lease.
Other than leasing the property to the village, Grove said his only other option is converting it into pay-to-park. But for ‘right now? the area will ‘remain as is,? he said.
In court, the village argued that ‘without condemnation, (the Grove family) is free to use the parking area for purposes other than parking,? according to Judge Mester’s written opinion and order.
Groves? attorney argued that his client intends to use the property for the same purpose as desired by the village ? ‘to provide public parking.? A sworn affidavit from Nathan Grove stating this was admitted into evidence. Although the Groves wish to make the land a pay-to-park lot, ‘the property will continue to be used as it has for the last thirty (30) years,? according to the defense.
The Grove family ‘does not dispute the use of the property for public parking: it only asserts that there is no necessity for free public parking. Thus, it must be proved that free parking as opposed to paid parking is required to further a legitimate public interest,? according to Judge Mester’s written opinion and order.
As part of the case, the village produced witnesses who testified why they believed paid parking would be a detriment to the downtown area.
According to the judge’s opinion and order, former Oxford Village Manager Mark Slown testified that not having ?’free and easy use of the property? would negatively impact the holiday parades and Oxford events and that the parking district is a ‘choke-point? based on the confluence of pedestrian and vehicular access. Slown stated that the lack of free parking would push business parking into residential neighborhoods causing ‘citizens to be in less safe conditions.? Slown testified that other conditions ‘could be negatively impacted? by the lack of free parking are fire and EMS access, transportation for the elderly and disabled, and car pooling parking spaces.?
The attorney for the Grove family noted that Slown ‘has no planning credentials.?
According to the judge’s opinion and order, Don Wortman, (Position/Firm), testified that ‘free parking is crucial to the municipal and public functions of a small downtown like Oxford. He stated that the paid parking would provide a choke point as circulation could not go through it, that a control gate would push parking into other areas of the village and that access could be a problem for fire safety.?
Both Wortman and Slown’s conclusions were deemed ‘speculative? by the Groves? attorney.
The village also submitted a memo written by Deborah Schutt, former Executive Director of the Oxford Community Development Authority, which stated ‘the institution of a paid parking lot would cause traffic congestion and the probability of pedestrian accidents.?
Groves? expert, LeBlanc, stated that the studies upon which the village relied in its case (the 1999 Parking and Circulation Plan, 2002 Oxford Functional Area Plan and 2003 Oxford Parking Study) ‘did not include an actual survey to inventory the number of vacant spaces during the day.?
‘LeBlanc conducted a parking study and found that ample parking alternatives are available without forcing traffic into residential neighborhoods. LeBlanc also found nothing to support the idea that a paid parking lot would disrupt the flow of traffic in the business district,? according to Mester’s opinion and order.
As for paid parking creating a ‘choke point? for traffic circulation in that area, ‘LeBlanc testified that the alleyway to the east of (the Grove family’s property provides north-south access in that portion of the village.?