by Pam Zubeck
(A) In granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss SaveTo read the entire appeal, here you go: SaveCheyenneAppeal.pdf
Cheyenne’s first claim for relief, did the District Court err in declining to
apply the common law doctrine regarding the dedication of parks, as
delineated in McIntyre v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 61 P. 237 (Colo. App. 1900), and Friends of Denver Parks, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 327 P.3d 311 (Colo. App. 2013), which holds that the municipality to which land has been dedicated as a park holds it as trustee, solely for the benefit of its citizens, and mandates that it may not impose upon it any burden or servitude inconsistent with park purposes, nor may it alienate the ground, or relieve itself of the authority and duty to regulate the park’s use?
(B) Did the District Court err in holding that the City does not hold
Strawberry Fields as a trustee, solely for the use and benefit of its citizens as a park, based upon a misperception that the Save Cheyenne’s argument is based upon a “public trust doctrine,” existing in Pennsylvania and some other states, but not Colorado, as opposed to the application of the terms of a common law dedication articulated in McIntyre and Friends of Denver Parks?
(C) Did the District Court err in concluding that, because the
Colorado Springs City Council in 1885 had dedicated the lands including Strawberry Fields as a park, and stated that Council may always “direct any act or thing to be done concerning said parks, which they may deem best for the improvement of said parks,” it had thereby abrogated all the terms of a common law dedication, including the restrictions on conveyance, use, and the requirement that the City retain regulatory authority over the park?