Private Road Subsidy
Dear Editor,
I am writing to inform your readers about a nefarious plan by a few residents to make others pay for the upkeep of their private property. Over the years they have provided a variety of reasons for demanding such as subsidy from the rest of the city's residents which includes:
- Non-private road residents use private roads
- Private road residents pay city taxes to maintain public roads
- It would be fair for all residents to pay for all roads
These are spurious arguments. For example, all residents have to pay taxes towards city amenities including roads and other services. The fact is that private road residents do have an extra personal cost - for their own private road. It is strange that the private road activists are not willing to face the simple fact that they knew when they purchased their property that they were on a private road and would be obligated to maintain the road in perpetuity. Despite being fully aware of this obligation, they purchased their homes at discounted prices (since homes and lots on private roads are cheaper than similar ones on public roads) and now are demanding that the rest of the city assume their obligations.
This issue has been discussed in the past and previous Councils had the backbone and integrity to not succumb to the aggressive tactics of the private road activists. But I understand that there are members of the council with conflict of interests who are supportive of the scheme to tax the rest of the city to the tune of millions of dollars per year to pay for private obligations.
Sincerely,
Andrew Flagg
Orinda
Dear Editor,
I am writing to inform your readers about a nefarious plan by a few residents to make others pay for the upkeep of their private property. Over the years they have provided a variety of reasons for demanding such as subsidy from the rest of the city's residents which includes:
- Non-private road residents use private roads
- Private road residents pay city taxes to maintain public roads
- It would be fair for all residents to pay for all roads
These are spurious arguments. For example, all residents have to pay taxes towards city amenities including roads and other services. The fact is that private road residents do have an extra personal cost - for their own private road. It is strange that the private road activists are not willing to face the simple fact that they knew when they purchased their property that they were on a private road and would be obligated to maintain the road in perpetuity. Despite being fully aware of this obligation, they purchased their homes at discounted prices (since homes and lots on private roads are cheaper than similar ones on public roads) and now are demanding that the rest of the city assume their obligations.
This issue has been discussed in the past and previous Councils had the backbone and integrity to not succumb to the aggressive tactics of the private road activists. But I understand that there are members of the council with conflict of interests who are supportive of the scheme to tax the rest of the city to the tune of millions of dollars per year to pay for private obligations.
Sincerely,
Andrew Flagg
Orinda
Reach the reporter at:
Lamorinda Weekly, Moraga CA