Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Fruita to halt 19 Road expansion, raise eminent‑domain and drainage concerns
Summary
At a packed meeting residents pressed the City of Fruita to pause proposed 19 Road right‑of‑way expansions, alleging opaque land acquisitions and eminent domain threats, and called for greater outreach and a drainage assessment; city staff pointed listeners to project webpages and said documents are available online.
Dozens of Fruita area residents used the council’s public comment period to press elected officials to pause or rethink a proposed expansion of 19 Road, saying the plan threatens family farms, uses eminent domain, and has proceeded with inadequate disclosure.
“Fruta was built on the backs of farmers,” farmer Greg Bolton told the council, urging elected officials to consider the “irreversible impact on the families who have built their lives around this land.” Several speakers said they had received appraiser notices or letters implying the city could acquire land if owners did not sell, and they urged the council to suspend right‑of‑way actions and hold direct conversations with affected landowners.
Speakers described multiple concerns: permanent loss of farmland and associated livelihoods; discrepancies about how much land would be taken (commenters referenced 10 to 20-plus feet in notices); traffic‑planning justifications they called inflated; and limited notice or direct outreach to property owners. Paul Schultz, speaking for safefruitoffarms.org and more than 1,800 petition signers his group says oppose the plan, said the city is “using incorrect and inflated road classifications to justify taking private property through eminent domain” and disputed the city’s characterization of 19 Road as a major arterial, citing Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) designations.
Other residents raised technical and safety questions. Candy Armstrong, who lives along J and 6‑tenths Road, argued a full multi‑lane rebuild with double sidewalks and merge lanes would be “excessive” for a mostly agricultural corridor and questioned whether wider merge lanes could increase passing and speeding rather than improve safety. Several speakers said irrigation ditches and drainage are a separate but related issue that has not been adequately studied; Amanda Quigley recommended a city‑funded drainage assessment and a drainage‑criteria manual to accompany circulation and parks planning.
Mayor and staff responses: Mayor and staff apologized for not announcing project information earlier and directed residents to the city’s project pages (fruita.org/19road and fruita.org/growth). Staff said the Safe Routes to School grant on the consent agenda was part of a regional approach and that some project‑level materials are posted online. Councilors and staff said they would consider more outreach and suggested staff could propose a community education session explaining annexation, right‑of‑way acquisition and project timelines.
No formal action on 19 Road was taken during the public comment period; the consent agenda was approved separately and council closed the public participation period after hearing comments.
Ending: Residents urged the council to pause right‑of‑way steps and to provide a clearer, broader public engagement process; staff agreed to post materials online and to explore further outreach and a drainage assessment as requested during public comment.
