Laserfiche WebLink
of vehicles dri 'en in the village on any private road. The <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the Village or North Oaks <br />could regulate traffic on private roads in the Village by virtue <br />of the power granted to it under the general welfare clause <br />found in M.S.A S 412.221/ subd. 32. Even though the usurpation <br />of regulation of private roads may be viewed as a taking/ the <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota never addressed this issue in the <br />Borchert case. <br />The second Minnesota case which indicates how the <br />Minnesota courts would likely rule on this issue is Shinneman v. <br />Arago Township/ 288 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1980). The Court in <br />Shinneman was*interpreting M.S.A. S 160.06/ subd. 1 which <br />provides; <br />When any road or portion of a road has been u^’Pd <br />and kept in repair and worked for at least six <br />years continuously as a public highway by a road <br />authority/ it shall be deemed dedicated to the <br />public to the width of actual use and be and ren.a’ <br />until lawfully vacated/ a public highway/ whethe:: <br />has ever been established as a highway or not. <br />-.1 <br />M.S.A. S 160.05/ subd. 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that <br />in the case in which a city took over a road by utilizing this <br />statute/ <br />the award of damages was not warranted. Section <br />160.06/ subd. 1 provides no method by which <br />government can take property. The statute/ rather <br />provides a substitute for the common-law creation <br />of highways by prescription or adverse use. <br />Shinneman at 243. <br />The City of Orono/ if challenged on this point, would have <br />to argue that*private land owners should not be compensated for <br />reasonable regulation of their properties.[1] It appears that <br />m "There are not any constitutional objections to <br />imposing the cost of reconstruction as well as <br />original construction upon abutting or adjacent <br />property owners....the grant of power to a municipal <br />corporation to 'pave' its streets and levy assess­ <br />ments against the benefited property/ unless <br />restricted/ is a continuing authority. The exercise <br />of the power in paving a street does not exhaust, <br />but the same streets may be subsequently repaved <br />at the cost of the specially benefited property <br />under this power." <br />McQuillan/ Municipal Corporations S 38.16. <br />-2-