Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council rejects motion to seek compromise on Kangaroo Lane private-road dispute
Loading...
Summary
Councilman Carlton Washington's motion to meet with affected parties about Kangaroo Lane — a privately owned road residents say the county maintained for decades — failed 2–4. Residents at the meeting described prior county maintenance and inconsistent staff messages.
A motion to negotiate a compromise with residents affected by maintenance changes on Kangaroo Lane failed on June 11 when Sumter County Council voted 4–2 against meeting with the parties to work toward a settlement.
Councilman Carlton B. Washington moved that "this body agree to meet with the effective party(ies) and work out a compromise that is acceptable to everyone." Councilman Eugene R. Baten seconded the motion. Council members Artie Baker, James T. McCain, James R. Byrd, and Charles T. Edens voted no; Washington and Baten voted yes, and the motion did not carry.
Washington told council that county maintenance and county signage in place since 1999 created a de facto prescriptive-easement and that residents purchased properties relying on county maintenance. Opposing council members said county policy and ownership questions limit the county’s authority to accept dirt roads into the county road system.
Several residents spoke during public comment. Wayne Geddings said he and neighbors had been told by county staff over time that the road had been county-maintained and that he felt threatened when he pressed the issue; Lisa Geddings presented plats and documents dating to 2003–2007 which she said indicate historic county maintenance.
Council discussion focused on legal and procedural constraints: several council members said county policy does not allow acceptance of dirt roads into the county system without meeting ordinance requirements, while Washington and Baten argued the county could consider ordinance changes or tailored solutions for limited cases.
The failed motion leaves the dispute unresolved; council members who opposed the motion suggested staff-level follow-up and legal review would be required before any change to policy or acceptance of the road.