~3-
take very great offense to the following statement of Mr. Freeman:

"Mes. Muldoon does the citizens of this City a great disservice

in ascribing tc them such a degree of ignorance," namely "as being.
so stupid or so spineless (all Mr. Freeman's words) that upon

being presented with this document a_ person who was expected to sign
a Right-of-Way agreement attached thereto would meekly submit and
Sign witnout even asking any questions.”

Let it he known that I am not “ascribing such a degree of ignorance”
to anyone and never have intended to, Mr. Freeman's words not
withstanding.

I think we all know how intimidated people, new property owners or old,
can be by “City Hall;" by being told “everyone else on the block has
signed;" by reference to a related City By-law; or by individual
shyness, courtesy, or uncertainty. .

For this reason, we feel the rights of the individual property owner
to refuse, to negotiate, or to appeal the decision or the request

to acquire statutory rights-of-way over real property,"for a sum

not to exceed One Dollar ($1.00)," should be stated clearly, plainly,
and fully in the related City By-law and its "Agreement" document.

Contrary to what Mr. Freeman seems to be indicating, we 43 sigmees
did not say "that the interests of the citizens would be best served

4f the Council dic not provide a standard document rrom which to work.”
We ask only that the rights of the property owner(s) to refuse,

$o negotiave, or to eppeal requested rights-ol-way be clearly stated
in any “Agreement" document and in the related By-law.

Mr. Freeman states: "The Mayor and Clerk could quite easily
dispense special favors to their friends and no one would be

any the wiser." If what Mr. Freeman states is true, is this not
all the more reason that any time the City "acquires" property
owners' land or the use of property owners’ land in the form of
“statutory rights-of-way" that this be made public knowledge,

in open City Council Meeting, for all to know anda to scrutinize? .
Let us give this, the acquisition of rights-of-way over any property-
owners' land, “the close attention it deserves" and not have
decisions and deals finalized behind the closed dooors of

two officials.

Mr. Freeman states:

"We can now deal with the only specific objection that has been
made to the actual wording of the By-law and that is that the
"rights of citizens directly concerned to refuse,’ to negotiate, or
to appeal requested or proposed statutory Rights-of-Way over

real property’ are not stated. Why are they not stated? Well,

in the first place, they exist whether they are stated oF not.'