Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents tell Oswego board they oppose permanent trail easements through private backyards
Loading...
Summary
At the village board’s April 7 meeting, multiple residents urged trustees to reject any plan that would place a permanent Fox River trail easement through private backyards, and the board publicly reassured attendees it has no current plan to pursue eminent domain.
Multiple residents pressed the Village of Oswego board on April 7 to reject any proposal to place a permanent bicycle‑pedestrian trail easement through private backyards along the Fox River. The public forum drew speakers from North Adams Street and a small coalition calling itself Backyard Property Protectors.
"No one wants a bike path through their backyard," said Jack Alley, a North Adams Street homeowner, after identifying his properties along the river. Alley told trustees that existing alternatives along North Adams already provide access and that homeowners do not want to give up private yard space.
Ellen Von Olin, speaking for Backyard Property Protectors, said the group supports better biking and walking but opposes forcing easements without willing homeowner consent. "Forcing a permanent easement through private residential backyards is inconsistent with [the village's] values," she said, and urged the board to expand trails through park district land or public rights‑of‑way and to follow the CMAP engagement process.
Resident Diane Osgood argued a backyard trail would require truck access for maintenance, add lights and fences, and could reduce property values. "There’s a much cheaper alternative in expanding other bike paths that end abruptly at the bridge," she said, urging staff to study those options before considering easements.
George Stenitzer submitted a signed petition from 12 North Adams residents and framed the legal objection: he said the U.S. and Illinois constitutions and the Illinois Eminent Domain Act bar taking private property for public use without just compensation and a legitimate public purpose, and he asked the board to defer any action until independent studies and public hearings are complete.
Trustees and staff repeatedly told attendees that the backyard‑easement idea originated as public comment at a previous meeting and that neither village staff nor the board has a plan to force easements or pursue eminent domain. One trustee said the village supports routing future sidewalks or bike paths along Route 31 (front‑yard/right‑of‑way alignments) or through park district land, and will follow the CMAP planning and engagement process.
The board did not vote on any trail easement at the meeting. Residents asked the board to make an on‑the‑record commitment not to pursue eminent domain; board members instead emphasized adherence to planning processes and homeowner notice for future actions.