Laserfiche WebLink
of vehicles driven in the village on any private road. The <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the Village of 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 5 412.221, 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, i88 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1980). The Court in <br />sSinneman was interpreting M.S.A. § 160.06, subd. 1 which <br />provides: <br />When any road or portion of a road has been used <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 remain, <br />until lawfully vacated, a public highway, whether it <br />has ever been established as a highway or not. <br />M.S.A. 5 160.05, 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 />--------------------------- <br />fl) '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 benefitec property, unless <br />restricted, is a contintlinl 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- <br />