Creve Coeur council rejects temporary eminent‑domain easements for Fernview sidewalks after resident pushback

A divided Creve Coeur City Council on a 3–4 roll call vote rejected an ordinance that would have authorized the city to use eminent domain to obtain temporary construction easements for the Fernview Drive sidewalk project.

The item before the council (Bill 6185) would have allowed staff to secure temporary working easements from affected property owners so contractors could construct a five‑foot sidewalk whose permanent footprint would lie in the existing city right‑of‑way. Multiple residents who live on Fernview Drive told the council they oppose the project, saying they received little advance notice, worry the permanent sidewalk will reduce lawn size and driveway capacity, and fear mature trees will be removed.

"We do not want the negative impacts to our properties," resident Cindy Davis told the council, saying petition signers had not received substantive follow‑up after emailing the city and that sidewalk construction would place concrete "in the living room of most of these people." Emily McCarty, who said her family would lose two parking spaces and part of a retaining wall, called the city's explanations "vague assurances" and asked for house‑by‑house cost comparisons before the project proceeds.

Several other residents echoed those concerns. "This is really about serving the residents of Fernview Drive," resident Andrew Thompson said, arguing that most households on the street oppose the plan. One speaker, Joe Roman, said he supported sidewalks for safety and suggested the West Side alignment as an alternative that would affect fewer properties.

Public works staff and councilors clarified the narrow legal purpose of the measure. "The eminent domain is solely for temporary working easements," Interim Director of Public Works Jim Hynes explained, adding that the actual sidewalk would be in city right‑of‑way and that temporary easements are needed so crews can work from both sides during construction. Other council members stressed the difference between negotiating easements and permanently taking land.

After public comment and council discussion, the roll call showed three votes in favor and four against, which defeated the ordinance. Council members who opposed the measure cited residents' concerns about property impacts and the absence of a transparent, house‑by‑house analysis; members voting yes emphasized pedestrian safety and the larger multi‑phase connectivity project.

The council did not adopt the eminent‑domain authorization as drafted; staff and the council did not announce an immediate next step for the Fernview segment of the sidewalk project at the meeting.

What happens next: Because the ordinance failed, the city cannot pursue the temporary construction easements by eminent domain as written; the city may seek to negotiate individual easements with affected owners, pursue an alternative alignment, or bring a revised measure back to the council. The item was discussed at third reading and vote during the meeting and was not approved.