This is either amazing, funny or sad, I'm not sure which...
I also agree that both courts got it right. The surveyor that worked for the city didn't do them any favors in my opinion. With improvements and other things on the area in question, that should have been a red flag.
I'm with you there.
Does basic common sense need a citation?
The Plat shows 30'/60' and the County accepted 30'/60'.
The Opinion doesn't say it can't be different it just says you would need better evidence such as actual monuments on the R/W is what I get from it. Where the only evidence is the width on the Plat and the width in the Acceptance then there is no justification to substantially increase the R/W width.
If I was the Justice, I would just look at the opposite case, suppose the distance was 30' shorter, would the City then claim it has zero R/W? I doubt it, they would probably claim they have at least 30'.
This is either amazing, funny or sad, I'm not sure which...
What I can see in the photo's, the type of buildings across the street makes me wonder if the goad is to condemn those older homes. Just the beginning of what is planned to clear the block so more revenue can be generated from from tax's on commercial buildings and tax's that be generated by taxing employee's.
Zoned commercial is it?
jud
This is either amazing, funny or sad, I'm not sure which...
From the case you posted:
"Applying those dimensions to existing conditions in the field, it was discovered that numerous features on Landowners’ properties — including porches, stoops, hedges, trees, fences, sidewalks, driveways, and building overhangs — were within the claimed right - of - way."
I wonder if anyone actually lost a porch, stoop, or building overhang during the process.