Residents press council over Midwest Continental Divide Trail plan, citing outreach and eminent-domain worries

Multiple residents used the privilege-of-the-floor period on July 13 to urge the council to pause or slow local participation in a proposed Midwest Continental Divide Trail master plan and to increase direct outreach to landowners.

Dan Caruso (305 Compton Street) said landowners along the proposed corridor were not consulted and described the outreach sequence as backwards: “The way that whole thing has been handled is just the most cart cart before the horse operations,” he told the council, adding that landowners should be engaged before routes are advanced.

Martha Burgess, who identified herself as owner-operator of Blatt Farms, said she and other farmers discovered elements of the project through news coverage and the plan’s materials and voiced alarm about references to eminent-domain language and a proposed ‘‘destination district’’ that could include private parcels. “We didn’t know anything about this trail. We found out in the news,” Burgess said, arguing that the city’s resources should focus on water quality and services rather than the trail proposal.

Chantal Snyder noted the master plan would create a commission with at least one city-appointed voting member, making the project a city issue. Snyder said the draft plan describes amenities (restrooms, restaurants, camping) and a ‘‘destination district’’ that, in her view, could enlarge the footprint taken from private owners.

Steve Sass framed the proposal’s history and funding: he asked the council to review prior expenditures on studies and noted the master-plan appendix includes a district map tied to state appropriations. He cited past city contributions to earlier planning efforts and said the recently released master plan and map had alarmed many residents.

Residents requested clearer timelines and a public implementation process. An online commenter asked the council to “publicly commit to a process for implementation of the recommendation and to provide the community with a timeline for action,” and asked whether discussions about direct financial restitution had begun.

Why it matters: commenters raised potential conflicts between private-property rights and state or regional planning, pointed to possible use of eminent-domain language, questioned project mapping and funding, and asked the city to clarify what local authority and oversight it will exercise.

Council response: Council members acknowledged the concerns, said the plan had not formally come before the council for action, and noted staff and redevelopment work related to earlier studies; no formal council decision or commitment to change course was made during the meeting.

Next steps requested by commenters: residents asked for more direct landowner engagement, a public timeline for any implementation, and a clear statement of what authorities would and would not be used.