McCarty to challenge county's Pine Creek Road decision

Sep. 7—The property owner who locked a gate on the Pine Creek Road northwest of Baker City is legally challenging the Baker County commissioners' resolution designating a section of the road as public.

Joelleen Linstrom, who lives with property owner David McCarty, said they were not surprised by the commissioners' unanimous decision on Aug. 17.

The resolution states, in part, that "all private gates, structures, and obstructions" on the section of road surveyed last year "are hereby ordered to be removed."

The process that commissioners started last year under a state law includes a 60-day appeal period.

Linstrom contends that the resolution, which is based on Oregon Revised Statutes 368-201 through 368-221 — "legalization of roads" — is not valid.

The reason, she said, is that the current road, which a surveyor hired by the county catalogued last fall, is not the same route as what's shown in an 1891 map that commissioners had earlier proffered as evidence that the road long predates McCarty's purchase of the property in September 2020.

Linstrom pointed out that the title report McCarty received before he bought the 1,560-acre property, which begins near the western edge of Baker Valley and extends up Pine Creek toward Pine Creek Reservoir, did not show a public road or any other right-of-way across the property.

She contends that other property owners should be concerned by the precedent she believes the commissioners' resolution would set, that county officials could use the state statute to deem almost any road as public.

"Is the statute being misused? Absolutely," Linstrom said. "They think they have the right to take people's land. It's overreach."

She said that although McCarty has sought to "maintain the integrity of the land" and reduce the wildfire risk by restricting motor vehicle use on the road, he has allowed people to hike or ride horses if they call the phone number posted on the gate.

Linstrom said the appeal of the county's resolution is "totally separate" from McCarty's lawsuit against the county. That lawsuit is active.

A trial date had been tentatively set for July, but the case was continued after McCarty's attorney, Janet K. Larsen, filed a motion on June 15 noting that, as of June, the county had yet to complete the process of legalizing the road.

Settlement offers

Baker County started the legalization process in June 2021 after McCarty, on April 30, 2021, filed a lawsuit against the county.

McCarty is asking for either a declaration that the disputed section of the Pine Creek Road crossing his property is not a public right-of-way, or, if a jury concludes there is legal public access, that the limits of that access be defined and that the county pay him $730,000 to compensate for the lost value of the land based on the legal public access and for other costs he has incurred as a result of the county's actions.

Linstrom said that as part of a court-ordered mediation attempt, McCarty offered to either leave the road open as a nonmotorized trail, if the county installed signs and garbage cans near the boundary of his property, or to sell the parcel to the county.

She said no dollar figure was discussed.

McCarty's attorney sent a written settlement proposal to the county on June 9, according to Larsen's June 15 motion to postpone a trial.

County Commissioner Mark Bennett said commissioners received McCarty's proposals but declined to pursue them.

The resolution commissioners approved Aug. 17 deals with the section of road that starts at the eastern edge of McCarty's property and ends at the junction with another road, which leads north to the middle and upper Baisley Elkhorn mines. The resolution also covers a section of the Baisley Elkhorn mine road.

The Pine Creek Road itself continues another 2 miles or so beyond the junction, leading to Pine Creek Reservoir, which is on national forest land, and beyond.

Commissioners haven't taken any action to designate as public the section of the Pine Creek Road west of the junction. The 1891 map doesn't show any road in that area.