of Foote Street at issue, however, does not establish abandonment. Stecklein v. City of Cascade, 693 N.W.2d 335, 340-41 (Iowa 2005) (“[T]he failure of a small town to improve a street ‘before public convenience requires it, will not amount to either an abandonment or an estoppel.’ ” (quoting Kuehl v. Town of Bettendorf, 179 Iowa 1, 161 N.W. 28, 31 (1917))); see also Wolfe v. Kemler, 228 Iowa 733, 293 N.W. 322, 325 (1940) (noting that not “ ‘all the streets shown upon the plat will be immediately opened and used. It is generally known and understood that a large portion of them will not be required for use for many years after the town is laid out (quoting Meier v. Portland Cable Ry. Co., 16 Or. 500, 19 P. 610, 614 (1888))). Similarly, in the case bef , 147 N.W.2d 218, 223 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Based on the above, plaintiffs have,
holding that where vehicular travel in an alley was very rare and the town had neglected to mow the weeds or plow out the snow  there was nothing to establish relinquishment of permanent control or ownership holding that ownership or possession or actual control is needed holding that security interest was not perfected since debtor conducted business only in one town in the state and creditor did not file financing statement in that town holding that a town was not liable as an operator where it entered into a lease with private parties for the disposal of septic tank and cesspool waste but the plaintiffs offered no evidence  to suggest that the town carried out disposal activities at the site provided personnel equipment or supplies had or exerted any control over the activities or management at the site holding that in a city or town a sidewalk is that part of a street or highway that is intended or used by pedestrians