Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Right Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse council of favoritism over South Atlanta right-of-way sales; council approves vacation with mixed vote
Summary
Public commenters alleged a lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest after the council voted to vacate sections of South Atlanta Street tied to a church applicant; council voted 5–1 on the primary vacation after lengthy public comment and staff explanation about statutory flexibility on sale price.
The Midland City Council voted to vacate a southern segment of South Atlanta Street after a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors and community speakers accused the council of insufficient transparency and possible favoritism toward the applicant, identified in public comments as Elvie ("LV") Brown.
City planning staff, led by Elizabeth Triggs, told council that the vacation process returns pro rata portions of the vacated easement to abutting property owners and that state law permits the council discretion to reduce or waive fees when a parcel is not independently developable. Triggs said staff had worked with the applicant to identify potential utilities and that the applicant would be responsible for relocating any affected utilities. "Each property owner adjacent to the right of way is entitled to their pro rata portion of the right of way," Triggs said during the presentation.
During public comment, several speakers pressed that a small triangular parcel of city-owned land near the site had not been discussed in earlier briefings and that one of the applicants is a member of the Midland Development Corporation (MDC) board. Robin Campbell said the triangle "was not mentioned" when the item was first presented and asked whether the city had only offered it to an MDC board member. "This doesn't look good," Campbell said, adding the public deserved to know whether land and fee waivers were being given selectively.
Other residents, including Judd Campbell and Nino Rodriguez, urged council to favor charging fair market value rather than waiving fees, and to ensure any transfer is fully disclosed. Council discussion focused on legal authority, prior conversations with the applicant, and whether waiving fees fits the law and the public interest. One council member said the applicant had been negotiating for the triangular parcel since late 2023 and that some concessions had been discussed well before MDC board membership occurred.
Council ultimately approved the vacation-related action 5–1. Council also approved a northern triangle vacation on a separate vote, again over objections and extensive public comment. Staff and council emphasized that the triangular parcel at issue could be sold at fair market value or a reduced price at council discretion. The council asked staff to clarify the record on which portions were being vacated, which parcels were city-owned, and the mechanics by which any sale or waiver could lawfully proceed.
Council members and staff said they would provide more detail to the public about the timing and legal basis for the fee decisions as the matter moves forward. No formal sale had been finalized at the meeting; the votes covered the technical vacation of right-of-way, not a final conveyance of the triangular parcel.
