There is a slim yet soothing fringe of green gardens and fruit trees spilling out of the backyards of residents along Salt Lake City’s Parkway Avenue.

Those plots, edged onto a disused expanse of tall dry grass next to Interstate 80, are now the subject of a tense and uncertain standoff for the neighborhood.

Residents along that placid stretch in Highland Park say they have been granted access to the 8-acre open space behind their homes for decades.

It’s long been part of an understanding, they will tell you, with the landowner, the city of South Salt Lake — as long as they don’t build anything permanent or dump garbage.

Now, they say they are fearful that a brewing border war with the city threatens to cut them off from those cherished gardens, slice off a portion of their backyards and leave them vulnerable to wildfire.

“We’re being bullied by a neighboring city,” Parkway Avenue resident Keith Carrick said of South Salt Lake. “That is exactly what it feels like.”

Concerns met with silence

To be clear, this island of open space south of Sugar House Park and nearby homes all fall well within Salt Lake City limits. But South Salt Lake has owned the long thin triangular-shaped acreage since the early 1980s, after it was peeled away from the park by the highway’s construction.

Residents, however, say they have gotten nowhere trying to negotiate with officials from the small suburb of Utah’s capital.

Carrick said under that tacit agreement between South Salt Lake and residents of nearly 35 adjacent homes, people who live here can access and care for the land at 1307 E. Parkway Ave as long as they take that light touch.

It’s been this way for nearly 50 years.

Barbara Leary, now 73, can still see herself as a young girl, sitting on dirt piles just beyond her family’s own back lot, watching crews construct that stretch of I-80.

She fought back tears one recent morning while looking out at her mature peach and apricot trees, riotous raspberry patch and thriving vegetable plots next to the empty strip of ground South Salt Lake now appears to want to claw back.

“I’m just an old lady who loves her garden,” Leary said as she swayed in a porch swing. “I try not to cry when I think about them taking it away.”

Edict issued in April

In April, South Salt Lake gave formal notice via door knob hangers and letter that items and landscaping on the property were now considered “encroachments.” The city ordered their removal by July 1.

After that, the letter said, it all will be considered abandoned and subject to removal by city crews “without further notice.” South Salt Lake also plans to install a new fence along the boundary with residents’ yards “to secure and clearly delineate city property,” the Highland Park neighbors were told.

Along with worries about their garden spaces, the fencing is raising fire concerns. Residents say South Salt Lake does not stay ahead of mowing waves of dried grass on the property, leaving neighbors to trim a buffer of their own to protect their homes.

Without access, many of them say, they will lose their ability to shield their properties should a wildfire break out.

Written and phone inquiries, several appearances by Parkway Avenue homeowners at City Council meetings, and other requests for information, residents say, have been met with a blanket of silence.

“We’ve not gotten a single response. Nothing,” said resident Tim Valentiner.

South Salt Lake says it has to draw a line

A surveyor came through early last week and put in a line of property markers cutting several feet into their backyards, as an apparent precursor to the fence going up.

Crews then placed a line of “No Trespassing” signs along the full length of the backyard boundaries on July 2.

Inquiries to City Hall in South Salt Lake from The Salt Lake Tribune were referred by the engineering department to the city attorney, then to city spokesperson Joseph Dane. He replied by email with a link to a website with some information about the suburb’s decision.

“The city really has no additional comments on the project at this time,” Dane wrote.

South Salt Lake, whose closest actual border is several blocks from the neighborhood, considers the property part of its “utility infrastructure,” the website says — an apparent reference to two underground water storage tanks beneath one of the open parcels.

After a boundary review, the site says, Salt Lake City residents whose homes abut the property were found to be “storing personal possessions on the city-owned land.”

“South Salt Lake has a legal obligation and a right to secure the property to protect against liability,” the site says. That has driven the notice of encroachment, it said, and the early July deadline for removing any personal property.

The city said it is being responsive to residents’ concerns about vagrancy on the site.

The fence proposed to be built around the land, it said, is meant “to prevent trespassing and unauthorized use of the land.”

Closing off access is a course of action the city “must take,” its website says, “to secure city infrastructure, abide by state law, and protect city assets.”

‘Still waiting’ on response, says SLC council member

South Salt Lake is also assuring residents that its crews plan to step up mowing and maintenance once the property is fenced for public safety and to address fire risks.

Residents, meanwhile, say they are skeptical about those fire safety claims, given the city’s long track record of leaving the land unkempt and overgrown.

“What’s the fire mitigation plan?” asked resident Kathryn Poelman.

Salt Lake City Council member Sarah Young, whose district spans that neighborhood, has pitched in on behalf of the residents and even testified on the issue at a South Salt Lake council meeting.

In support of those neighbors, Young said the Salt Lake City Fire Department is evaluating the patch of land from a safety standpoint. City planners, she said, have also been consulted on considering a building permit for the fence South Salt Lake wants to put up.

Of more immediate concern, Young said, is the possibility South Salt Lake crews will move to clear the property “and what that means for our neighbors.”

“We’re just encouraging more dialogue and the opportunity to sit down and meet,” Young said in an interview, though she added, “we’re still waiting on a response.”