Laserfiche WebLink
� B. Standards for granting a vacation <br />Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only upon a fnding <br />that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This means the public must benefit, in <br />some manner, from the vacation. The public includes persons other than those in the <br />immediate vicinity of the vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar <br />the vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. <br />Mere long-term, non-use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that <br />the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have <br />emphasized that the future benefit to maintaining the dedicated property should be given <br />consideration. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation <br />because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly <br />taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a <br />vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of <br />future population growth in the area. <br />The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a result, a reviewing <br />court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the evidence is practically conclusive <br />against the city, or that the council proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted <br />arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. <br />� <br />� <br />