Friday, June 21, 2024

Commissioners, court were wrong on taking of family road

| October 18, 2006 12:00 AM

To the Editor:

I read the commissioners' rebuttal to my letter in the local papers with amusement, for my letter being full of numerous factual errors they went on to only list one "being a portion of the old haul road." The reason I find this amusing is the family road they took is not and has never been a portion of the old haul road.

The family road does meet up with the old haul road in the next section, section 13 Township 31 North, Range 34 West about a quarter mile away. If the courts would have let me show the maps they could have seen that on section 24 Township 31 North, Range 34 West there are two totally different roads, the family road in front of the family homes and the old haul road behind the family homes.

If the courts would have looked at the Kootenai National Forest, Idaho and Montana, Boise Meridian and Principal Meridian Montana put out in 1958 they would have clearly seen the old haul road ( shown as a good motor road) leaving Siefke's Corner on Iron Creek Road and going down the face of the hill behind the homes. This same map shows the family road coming off the Iron Creek Road near Knoeple's (shown as a poor motor road) leading to the old farm house and not going through the property. Following the Iron Creek Road down the hill from Siefke's Corner to the split near Knoeple's the two roads are about a quarter mile apart.

If the commissioners would take the time they would also find that J. Neils had a limited right of way for the "old haul road." I would point out to the commissioners Book 78 Page 226 in the plat room of the courthouse for the agreement for J. Neils. This was good for as long as J. Neils needed the road. The "old haul road" has been gated since 1974 and with J. Neils no longer being a company doing logging it is no longer a haul road as per agreement. So the traffic using the old haul road before 1959 was running under the J. Neils agreement.

The next point on their letter is they refuse to pay addition compensation, it almost reads like they have paid some compensation at some point in time, which they have not and never have. Commissioner Konzen admitted in court that the county has no deed of any kind to the family road.

They are right that I do disagree with the court's decision, but that is because of the court's not allowing maps to be shown, the court's ignoring the fact the county had no deed, and because of the misleading information from the county to the court, like the information in their rebuttal letter. The county commissioners invited people to read the court's decision, I invite the people to come and see both roads on maps and on the ground, I would also invite people to read the court's transcript where I was barred from showing map because "everyone knows map can be wrong."

I do stand behind my pervious letter and if anyone has any questions I will answer them to the best of my ability.

So Commissioner Roose I will restate I cannot vote for someone who can take my land without compensation (did not pay for the land) and without having any filed deed, easement, or right of way recorded in the courthouse as required by law and knowing I pay taxes on the family road.

Glenn Garrison