Also if this is as stupid a move as being reported here, is there a possibility of this resulting in enough of the city council getting voted out to kill the measure?
Don't know the answer to either question. Maybe another freeper can help here.
The only thing that stood out to me like it might be in favor of the city, is that it was "maintaining" the land in question for decades. How can this have been happening to private property, and who paid for it?
IMO that should not be relevant. Let's say I have a paper route and throw papers to the wrong house for a month. Does that oblige the homeowner to pay for the papers? No. Absent a contract connecting city maintenance to eventual city ownership, I cannot see how the city can make such a claim with a straight face...