Right of way controversy ignites on Springwater Corridor Trail
»Play Video
PORTLAND, Ore. - A battle is brewing over trail access in Southeast Portland as many people are complaining a section of the Springwater Corridor has been blocked illegally.
The main trail is open but what many consider a spur trail is now blocked by a gate near the spot where the two trails merge.
Part of the spur trail is on private property and belongs to the Eastmoreland Racquet Club, and the owner, Terry Emmert, says he has a right to cut off access. But others point to decades-old land use records and a long-standing agreement for the general public to use this trail.
But it’s still not clear who’s right.
After about a week and a half or two weeks from putting up the gate, Emmert is unapologetic, admitting he's the one who put up the gate effectively cutting off access from the Springwater Corridor to his property.
But is it legal?
“Now we're trying to look into the documents that can legally establish whether or not it is a violation,” said Mike Liefeld with the city’s Bureau of Development Services.
Liefeld’s staff is still trying to gather records.
But KATU News obtained some records sent to it by someone who lives near the club. On one of those pages, from 1991, club owners are told to dedicate an easement for the 40-mile loop trail in exchange for expanding the racquet club. But Emmert, who didn't buy the club until after that, said there's a catch. There was never an expansion.
“They had made a proposal to expand it and this could have been a condition that was put in,” he said.
Meaning no expansion, no easement. But was there one even before that?
“I have not found one that I've been able to uncover that gives the general public a right of way to go through the private property,” Emmert said.
Emmert said he cut off access because the club was dealing with vandalism and car break-ins.
According to the city, it will take up to a week to look through documents dating back to 1976 to find out if there was ever any agreement for the general public to use the trail.
The image is misleading.
Â
I thought, "Why don't cyclists just connect with Johnson Creek"? and the answer is that the road that overpasses there is 32nd. If you've every crossed it you know the trail is about 60 feet down. You would need a significant ramp to get up to it.
Â
My alternate was make a path with a fence, but the distance appears to be something like 500 feet from the road to the trail. That would be prohibitively expensive.
Â
But I would not want the people who use the trail to trespass on my property either.
Â
Â
How dare you think you have any rights on your own property especially in Portland.
I think in Oregon, if the path has been used for 10 years by the public as a trail then it falls under prescriptive easement. sounds like they already established the land as a public trail. doesn't mean that it's right. if you're being nice and letting the public use a portion of your land as a trail and the public can't behave themselves then you should be able to shut that down.
If there's no documentation found, I wonder if a court would look at a precedent, based on how the trail had been used up until now......
The gate is on private property! He does not want the public on HIS property! Just because the public wants it does not make it theirs!
His property, he can do whatever he wants with it. When did it become someone elseâs right do use someone elseâs property?
I doubt that the parks department would have built the bridge and trail if the public didn't have permission to use it.
Terry emmert is a self absorbed bumb that has made his fortune my manipulating local governments and property owners for decades. THe guy is a crook
 @LostSoul    A bum with a fortune?
 @LostSoul and bicyclist's are self absorbed, give us what we want or we will have a temper tantrum, bunch of big babies.Â
Given the asinine lawsuits these days, its possible  that he put up a gate to prevent frivolous lawsuit.
Yah we got corrupt politicians, an economy in the toilet and the story we are covering is someone putting a fence up on there property.
 @Oregon_University_of_Made_in_China Yup...
Just another "Freedom-loving" property rights activist doing his part in contributing to the community? Â These folks are a hoot. Â First they shout private sector can better care for the community well-being and then they make fools of us all by actually doing the exact opposite.
Anything you can find to whine about, huh? Use the other trail? NO WAY! I like to eat my granola on THAT trail and if you don't open it back up, so help me I will throw myself on the ground and have a fit!!
 @Jabroni Yes bicyclist's are a bunch of big cry babies, aren't they? :)Â
Â
It is his property...
We used to drive across many streets that now are blocked by light rail. So I suggest the city remove the light rail tracks, because the public was able to turn across for so many years prior to the train tracks being installed. BS argument I know, but if bicycles and walkers have the right to continued use of a particular route, why should motorcycles and cars not have the same rights to road usage.
 @last boyscout Why? because that makes too much sense.Â
Sounds like a job for......The Occupierrrrrrrssss ! <<echo>>
The fence is on Portland Parks (public land) that leads to his private property. The city needs to take it down and bill him for the cost.
See: Adverse Possession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#Adverse_possession_of_easements
Is it private property or not? That seems to be the question. Is there an easement? If not he has every right to cut access to the public. Any easement should be recorded in the property deed. I wouldn't want the public going through my property either.
Precedent also plays a role. The public has been using this spur for years. He agreed to the easement in exchange for permission to expand. That the expansion did not occur has nothing to do with anything.
You are correct, they could seek a prospective easement in court whereas they establish that they have had use of the trail for so many years (usually 10). If the use has not been challenged over that time then they could lose exclusive rights to it. Like all things, even private property, protecting it can be expensive.Â
Is this the owner of Emmert Intl (moving co)? My guess is that the owner made this move to get something out of the city by agreeing to remove the gate. Oregonlive.com has a story about the Eastmoreland club and changes he was going to make as business was not good. The reason for the gate isn't passing the sniff test.Â
@Vivian's Mom it is the owner of emmert intl. yep- Im sure its a way emmert is trying to manipulate the city for his own personal gain.
He says he was dealing with vandalism and car break-ins. I am sure there are police reports that document all the trouble he has had, right? Or is he just being ornery? My guess is that there are no police reports of problems.
 @MechanicÂ
Â
People don't spend money for without a reason. If there weren't any problems I doubt they would waste the money.
Not sure what "People don't spend money for without a reason" means.
Â
Are you saying that the problems occurred? Surely a rash of vandalism and break-ins would be reported. Show me the police reports and the steps taken to prevent recurrences.  (Steps other than just keeping everyone out.) Has he had meetings? Sent out notices about the problems and how to keep people from breaking in to cars? Installed surveillance? Improved lighting? Maybe he has done all these things, but until I see evidence that he has, I am gonna keep thinking he was just doing this because he is just plain contrary. And the reason some people spend money is just to irritate others. This, I suspect, is his principal motive.
Cut the fence down and sell it for scrap, what a d1ck. Racquet club? What the hell is that?
It's a racket.