GARDEN CITY — With a pristine view of Bear Lake to the east, it's hard not to fall in love with the homes located within the Shore Lodge Estates subdivision.

"It's so beautiful there," says Jenny Robison, the daughter-in-law of one of the subdivision's homeowners.

So it's hard to believe that the subdivision is also ground zero for a bitter court battle between homeowners and the town that has dragged on for years — and counting.

Since 2013, there has been a seemingly constant battle back-and-forth between the homeowners and Garden City town officials over whether or not the private lanes in the subdivision that connect their homes and the lake should be available to the public.

Now, months after a judge in Utah’s 1st District Court ruled in favor of the property owners, the homeowners of the subdivision are fuming as town officials push forward to use eminent domain to claim two of the six lanes — roads made from grass, dirt and gravel — at the center of the lengthy squabble.

“This is like the mayor coming to your house and saying ‘OK, now we want the public to drive down your driveway,’” said Phil Olsen, who owns two property lots in the subdivision. “This is a private property rights issue. The city had an opportunity to present their case in court; we did the same thing and the judge ruled conclusively.”

However, John Spuhler, mayor of Garden City, says the lanes the city is trying to claim are necessary for the rapid growth of the town and its budding tourism sector, and that the lanes were intended to be public anyway.

A final decision regarding Garden City’s request for eminent domain will be held during a town hall meeting on Jan. 12 in what could be the final showdown between the subdivision homeowners and the town in this messy dispute over the roads.

A lengthy battle

The disagreement between the Shore Lodge Estates subdivision homeowners and Garden City began in May 2013 when the homeowners of the subdivision alleged that the city, under the supervision of Spuhler, removed six gates at the head of the driveways of the subdivision and placed signs indicating that the lanes were now available for public access to Bear Lake.

The homeowners association responded by filing a lawsuit against Garden City and Spuhler. In 2014, the claim was dismissed in court by 1st District Judge Thomas L. Willmore.

In February 2015, a second lawsuit from the Shore Lodge Estates Homeowners Association, which is comprised of the 29 homeowners of the subdivision, was filed in 1st District Court against Spuhler.

The homeowners claimed that the roads were actually driveways, that they were not platted for public access to the lake, but designed as a way for homeowners to reach their homes from Highway 30. The gates had been placed by homeowners to prevent the general public from using the driveways to their homes.

“For more than 50 years, owners of lots within the subdivision, including the owners and their predecessors, have had quiet, exclusive, and uninterrupted enjoyment of the driveways, and have — at their own expense — installed and maintained their own private gates at the head of each of the driveways,” the complaint stated.

The complaint noted that this had been done “without any objection” from both Garden City and Rich County officials. In fact, it noted that neither the city nor the county had “improved or maintained” the driveways in that span, including once when a water line ruptured in 2005 and that it was up to the homeowners to repair any damage to the lanes.

“That was one really strong aspect to our case,” Robison said. “These lanes have always been — since the '60s basically when they were purchased — have always been maintained at the expense of the homeowners. … The homeowners have spent their own time, money and effort to make them look like they do now and the city has never done any of that.”

Both sides noted that the city had made improvements to pipes underneath the driveways.

Garden City officials countered that the driveways were labeled as streets in the plat, indicating that they were intended to be used as public roads until the homeowners put up gates to block off access.

“Local people remember when they were gated and shut,” Spuhler said. “We also noted that they were never recorded as anything but public access and then in addition to that, they came three times to the city and one time was successful in vacating one of those roads — and they called them roads the whole time, so we have quite a few documentations going back many, many years that show that they also knew they were public roads. They basically locked the roads and locked people out and said they were private when they weren’t.”

Spuhler added that if the driveways in question were indeed private, the homeowners didn’t pay taxes on them.

“To us it was pretty clear — you can’t not pay your taxes, you can’t have them listed on the recorded documents as for the use of the public,” he said.

On July 28, after more than a year of various court proceedings, Willmore denied the town’s request for a second dismissal and ruled in favor of the homeowners in a partial summary judgment, sparing the case from going to trial. He cited more than anything, the town did not produce enough evidence to prove that the roads in question were designated public.

“Other evidence strongly supports a finding that neither the (homeowners) nor (the town) ever intended or believed the driveways to be public streets. If a city owns public city streets for 50 years, upon which many of its families reside, it will typically pave or improve the streets in some way, plow the snow from them or name them,” Willmore wrote in his decision.

“A city would not allow public city streets to be chained off or gated by private citizens for any length of time, much less for decades. (The town) seems to confuse maintaining sewer and water lines under the driveways with maintaining the driveways themselves as owners would … by all accounts, (the town has) never exercised control over these driveways like owners until the events underlying this cause of action.”

After noting that the homeowners could be harmed from losing their privacy from the loss of gates, Willmore went on to write that “if anything, the public’s interest lies in obtaining unrestricted use of these driveways at the expense of these (homeowners).”

The final decision by the judge garnered mixed reviews. In a Facebook post dated on Aug. 11, officials noted they intended to appeal the decision and were “committed to public access to public lands.” The post was met with various angles on the issue, supporting the city or pushing them to move on from the case.

“We can’t understand why the judge made a very poor decision,” Spuhler told KSL, months after that post.

Meanwhile, the homeowners hoped it was the end of three years of legal feuds with the town.

Not only had they won the case, they felt that the evidence was strong enough in their favor that the judge could make a decision without the case needing to go to trial.

“We were obviously thrilled that the judge would look at the facts, which he did, and we filed for summary judgment, which means the facts are so compelling that there’s no need to take it all the way through the full court case,” Olsen said. “The judge looked at all the facts and that’s exactly what he concluded. That we were right — that these driveways were intended to be private. They have been private for more than 50 years. That the city really has no claim on them. We knew that all along, so we were thrilled that a judge would come to that conclusion.”

With the town promising to appeal, the homeowners prepared for the court battle to continue. The appeal never came.

“We were cautiously optimistic that it was over,” Robison said.

But it wasn’t. The town decided to pursue another route.

A different path

After the Aug. 11 Facebook post, Garden City officials eventually decided to drop any potential appeal, instead opting for a separate course of action — eminent domain.

“We believe those accesses were public, but we didn’t want to continue in a legal battle and fight it, so we just let it go and said ‘OK, we will move forward with this (eminent domain) process, which is a very normal process for the public to get access to public lands and just for roads in general,’” Spuhler said.

Eminent domain, as defined by the state, is a legal process for governments to obtain private land if the subjects are compensated fairly and if the property is used for public use. In this case, the public use would be access to the beach and Bear Lake.

Under eminent domain, Garden City would seize two of the subdivision’s driveways — the first and fifth lanes in relation to the amended plat — to be designated public roads that connect with the lake and a beach. The town would then pay the homeowners the cost of the two lanes.

Spuhler said all the groundwork, including an appraisal of the lanes and other legal processes, is complete. The City Council was set to vote on the case this month, but that was pushed back to Jan. 12 due to the holidays.

Eminent domain

Use of eminent domain isn’t completely uncommon, but when should it be used?

“Generally speaking, it should be an avenue of last resort,” said Kevin Anderson, a Salt Lake City attorney who specializes in eminent domain and other land use issues.

Anderson said governments and subjects of land that government is trying to acquire are “encouraged to try to work things out amicably through a voluntary acquisition.” He said most cases end in a settlement, but if they don’t, they could end in lengthy court cases — likening them to any other trial with evidence and efforts made to persuade each side of the case.

Anderson notes that each case of eminent domain is different in how they shake out.

“I think it depends on the facts and circumstances of every case,” he said. “In many cases, I think there is — going into the case — there might be some sympathy or empathy for the property owners among potential jurors because it’s not very common that you’d want your property to be taken by the government against your will … but courts are very clear that jurors shouldn’t let that sympathy color their judgment.”

The town pushing for additional routes to the lake makes sense. The U.S. Census estimated the population of Garden City was 580 as of 2015, which isn’t much but still about a 62 percent population increase in 15 years. That also doesn’t calculate secondary homeowners, who reside typically over the summer, or even visitors.

Spuhler says that the growth of Garden City lies somewhere there.

“This place is growing very, very fast,” he said, pointing out that the town’s transient room tax grew by 50 percent over the past year. There’s been a growth in visitors using home rentals, such as Airbnb users. “The tax for that grew from $229,000 to over $300,000 in one year. That’s trended for three years — double-digit growth for three years.”

In 2015, the Utah House of Representatives passed HB140, which modified provisions relating to activities on state lands surrounding Bear Lake. The bill was intended to increase access to the lake for everyone.

In Spuhler’s eyes, the Shore Lodge Estates subdivision homeowners are hindering efforts for the public — residents, secondary homeowners and visitors — to use the lake.

“Everybody deserves to use Bear Lake, and that’s the problem I think these people have. They don’t believe that," he said. "I think they believe this is their paradise and they don’t want other people down in front of them. I appreciate where they’re coming from. They want a private beach, and that’s just not going to happen.”

The shore is public property, but the lanes to access that certain area remained private with the court ruling.

As Garden City pushes forward with eminent domain, the Shore Lodge Estates subdivision homeowners are finding themselves once again fighting to protect lanes that they argue a judge has already agreed are private land and serve as driveways, not roads to the lake.

As they point out, the judge said public access to the lanes would come at the expense of the homeowner’s privacy.

“I mean a court of law said that (Spuhler’s claim) was not correct. That (the roads) were private and they always were — and they were never intended to be public,” Robison said. “The ruling is so clear.”

“They have no case — they have nothing,” Olsen adds. “Their only shot is to take the land away from us using eminent domain, and this is not how eminent domain is supposed to be used. We want people to know what they’re up to and we want people to hold them accountable.”

They’re also tired of battling. Many of the homeowners are secondary homeowners, and Robison said many of the homeowners are elderly too. That’s why she has stepped in to help in the fight due to time and money constraints, as well as other reasons.

“It’s sort of a common theme,” Robison said. “It’s the kids that have taken up the fight because our parents and our grandparents are so overwhelmed and so intimidated and so frightened by all of it that it’s so hard for them to really understand. And it’s too expensive for them, too. Many of these people are on fixed incomes.”

That said, it's a fight she says the homeowners won't give up on anytime soon.

“We’re in it for the long haul,” Robison said, noting that she would never want that area of the lake turned into something such as a parking lot. "We're really committed to doing everything we can do to stop this process."

There’s also a growing resentment from the homeowners, who feel targeted by the town because of all the effort the town has made in fighting to obtain access to the lanes. Olsen claims the town also turned down a public records access request in finding how much the town has spent in legal fees up to this point.

“This is just childish — this is the stuff a backyard bully does,” Olsen said.

Olsen argues there are already other access points, including a current one about a mile from the subdivision, and he says there are 3 ½ miles of access below the disputed land.

“They don’t need to take these two driveways,” he said. “Getting these driveways is not going to benefit a lot of people, so it’s just shocking that this has become a priority. I think it’s because the mayor is a sore loser and couldn’t accept the fact that he lost in court and so now he wants to take the property any way he can get it.”

In addition, since many are secondary homeowners, they don’t reside in the town, and access for the Jan. 12 meeting is difficult. For the homeowners who do reside in Garden City, the town meeting is slated for 5 p.m. on a workweek, which they argue is difficult as people are just getting out of work at that time.

“This is taxation without representation,” Robison said.

Their concern, though, doesn’t just lie with the lanes that could potentially be taken away from them — though it is certainly worrisome. They argue it’s an example of a government entity taking away a slice of their privacy and land.

While the case has been a battle for lake access in one area of the town, some have expressed concern that it could happen in other lakefront parts.

"If that's how (Spuhler) feels about our land, then who's there to say he's not going to do the same thing to anyone else who lives adjacent to the lake?" Robison said with a nervous tone. "It’s not right.”

Related topics