Re K&P request

Edward Kennedy | Sep 20, 2017

Your article, "K&P request rejected by County" 14/09/17 requires clarification. I would ask CEO Kelly Pender if their refusal to look after the fence requiring attention is at all in reference to the responsibility of the "trail" that requires them to look after such.

I want to know if his take on this comes from legal documents, a court decision, or provisions that I see have been adopted for the "trail" in the agreement, to look after fences and gates for property owners whose land abuts the trail.

I think it nonsense that he dispenses unfounded opinions without legal backing, that the fences are the responsibility of the landowner, when my memory recalls that the opposite was true. If there is a legal precedent here, I would expect it to be quoted. I would be surprised if there is.

Perhaps Kelly would favor the readership with what her opinion is presupposed on, as he has NO legal right nor authority to dispense her opinions as legally sound or legitimate as law.

There is much confusion, and ignorance on the legal reality, and CEO Pender might like to note that the trail runs through family property and will be confronted by me and/or a lawyer to address this issue in the near future. I see fences and gates that I assert are the responsibility of the "trail" which are on family property need replacing and I am not about to accept the word of a self important "official" on the matter without a legal opinion to back it up.

It is my projection that the "trail" is arbitrarily, illegally and immorally attempting to escape the considerable expense that is involved and which they were informed of and reportedly agreed to in negotiations years ago.

Ignorance might well be a voluntary misfortune but it does not alleviate any entity, from their accountability.

They wanted the trail, they can pay for all expenses.