1890 plat dedication is not fee surface ownership to sell by the city. Wyoming Statutes state that the city can only approve of the vacation and land reverts back to the adjacent owners in ratio of ownership along the street. I would follow the statutes and file a owners petition to vacate that portion of the street on the plat. With the assumed non approval by the city, since the road is not feasible on the side hill, file the city's non approval along with the owners vacation request and instruct the county clerk to follow statutes with the vacation of the street written upon the plat as required by statute.
Pablo
That is an interesting document Mike, thanks.
Not that it was a large portion of business, but I can see where I have done my last vacation. Of course, we have done some the city has wanted. Those, no doubt, will continue.
Good Stewards of Public Land
A RW is a public way, that is, the public has the right to travel over it. If it is in a state of being a steep slippery slope subject to slides, isn't that an unsafe condition? Is leaving a corridor - which exists for the purpose of public travel, that the public may access - in such an unsafe condition acting as a good steward of the public land? Is leaving it in a worthless state being a good steward? Doesn't that pose a potential liability issue for the city? Is that being a good steward?
Is the RW an easement or is it owned in fee. If it is owned in fee, then there is some value to the land that the city should realize for the vacation. If it is an easement, then they cannot charge for the value of the land (unconstitutional taking, as Paul in PA stated), but they might determine the value of the existing easement and recoup that.
What is the value of an easement one never intends to use? Is there enough of the easement remaining to use it for the purpose for which it was granted? At 30', they might conceivably place a bike trail, walkway, or alley in it (seeting aside the issue of feasibility for a moment), but are those uses consistent with the grant of roadway RW easement? Would need to check statutes on that. If the uses are not compatible, the remaining RW easement would have no value. They can't add to the allowable uses to change the value.
Going back to the feasibility of building a bike trail, walkway, or alley, is their any current or foreseeable reason to do so? In light of existing or potential alternate routes, would it make economic sense to do so? If the answer to each of those is "no", then again, the easement has no real value.
If the easement has no value, I don't think they can legally charge more than it reasonably costs to process the vacation.
Another thought, which may provide a solution which could avoid an administrative or legal battle: What if after the vacation, the subdivision you create reserves this area as some sort of non-development easement over the backs of the lots on that side? The area can be used for the purpose of calculating lot areas, but be saved from actual development beyond fences at the lot lines. That way, the city and the nebulous "public" gets the benefit of preserved open space, greenbelt, whatever, and the local politicians and bureaucrats get credit for promoting an environmentally concious use of otherwaise useless land while offloading a potential liability.
Another thought: Remind them that vacating the property converts the RW from useless land to parts of lots which would be on the rolls for property taxes. That way they ensure continuing city income produced by those taxes for the long run, while "creating jobs" for local middle class construction workers in the short term. More points the politicians can make in these times of shortfalls in government funding.
I think all would agree that the city has an interest in rights-of-way, even if they may not be in fee. The city has a responsibility to get fair market value for this interest. Otherwise you end up with an arbitrary system that is ripe for abuse, even if unintended.
Why would it be consider a "Slip" to offer an opinion on small town corruption? Big brother watching?
I would follow the statutes and file a owners petition to vacate that portion of the street on the plat.
Pablo, you are a trouble-maker.;-)
Gene
Bitter much? Actually, in most of the cases, they are "brother-in-law" roads that went nowhere and the individual owns land on both side. So they are abandoned because they serve no use anymore. Surely, you can see the VALUE in putting land back on the tax roll when there is no other use for it.
Why should private people pay with the cities didn't in the roads inception?
jud
yes, it's a real b!tch sometimes. Since my tenure on the counsel, we've only done a few of these and I push the city secretary to go and file it afterward.
Why Pay ?
> As long as city holds it as a street you have use of it. If they vacate it it must go to the adjoining owner, unless he refuses to accept it. They cannot just vacate it and sell to a third party, because the abbuter still has private rights of access. So in essence it has no value. In fact if they vacate it, the abbuter would begin paying taxes on it which is an advantage to the city.
>
> For the city to charge anymore than the value of the vacation process is unconstitutional. By the filed map process the street was created to give access to the abbuting lots, thus making them more valuable. For the city to charge to reduce the value of land is an unconstitutional taking.
>
> I am also of the belief that you cannot vacate half a street unless the remainder meets all the criteria of a street.
>
> Paul in PA
Paul,
I don't think it’s clear whether the ROW is an easement or fee title. In the Eastern states I have experience with the ROW's usually are easements, but out west you're more likely to run into fee title. In some jurisdictions in Alaska it’s almost impossible to get a subdivision approved if the only access is an easement.
If the city has more than an easement it would be entirely within their rights to charge "more than the value of the vacation process." In this case the ROW is unusable so granting the vacation would increase the value of the property, not reduce it.
> I think all would agree that the city has an interest in rights-of-way, even if they may not be in fee. The city has a responsibility to get fair market value for this interest. Otherwise you end up with an arbitrary system that is ripe for abuse, even if unintended.
>
> Why would it be consider a "Slip" to offer an opinion on small town corruption? Big brother watching?
So I'll ask my question again, why should private citizens pay with the city didn't in it's inception of the road?
Someone must have wronged you in a small town one time and you haven't gotten over it. It's not as bad as you may think. Just because everyone knows everyone doesn't make it corrupt.
“So I'll ask my question again, why should private citizens pay with the city didn't in it's inception of the road?”
The interest in the land is given to the public, not the city. The city is merely representing the public’s interest and should only act in the public interest (as opposed to the individual). Being on a city council, I would have expected for you to know that.
Once again, the city has a fiduciary responsibility to the public and does not have the right to give away their interest. Any surveyor in Texas that has worked with TxDot understands this concept. Fair market value for surplus right-of-way is an equitable solution.
Gene
How many times are you going to ask the same question? and how may times are you going to insult me? If you don't understand the answer, say so, and I will try to explain it more simply.
Only if it owned in fee. If they have a right of way to use as a road and it is considered surplus, they can vacate their interest back to the owner, if unwilling to do that they need to be paying rent and keep the row for future generations to use.
jud
The ''Fee'' Concept Of Roadways
Implies the municipality can sell at road at their whim for any other use but a road. That can create landlocked parcels with no hope of access. The whole concept is against the public interest.
Municipalities that think they hold "fee" title in a roadway simply because they have a deed have a rude awakening coming.
"Fee" ownership of land means the holder has absolute use of the entire property and is beholden to no one. That is not the case of fee transfer of a road right of way. The mere fact that a map exists showing a long narrow parcel of land abutting lots and connecting to another road makes it a right of way to all abutting parcels, even if the word "right of way" or "road" does not appear on the map. The intent of the map is prima facie evidence. Whatever words may be on the cities deed it does not in fact have "fee" title because the road is encumbered by one and every abutter.
The fact that the city did not pay for said deed, shows that the grantors held back their interest. Fair market value means the city can recoup their investment, but multiplying zero by any inflation factor still equals zero. The city can surrender such a parcel at their cost for the paperwork and meet the letter of the law of stewardship.
As to the issue of the city vacating 1/2 a street. What is implied is that the owner of the parcel abutting the abandonded side can still access the other 1/2 for access. Again that is against the public interest. When the street was vacated the other 1/2 went to the other abutter whether a deed was delivered or not.
Paul in PA
The ''Fee'' Concept Of Roadways
"Fee" does not mean the holder is “beholden to no one”. Otherwise "Fee" would not exist. Landowners are "beholden" to the taxing authorities, the holders of easements across the property, the zoning authorities, the federal and state government if any flowing water exits, etc., etc....
AS AS 29.40.160. Title to Vacated Area.
....before the final act of vacation the fair market value of the street or public area shall be deposited with the platting authority to be paid to the municipality on final vacation.
You are right though that the city has more restrictions on its title then the average landowner, but that comes from the nature of the parcels we are dealing with. The city would be negligent if it landlocked an adjoiner or created an unusable parcel, but I can imagine many justifications for keeping half a street (buffer, recreational trail, utilities etc.)
If there is no deed to the municipality, and the only thing is the map from 1890, then it should only be an offer of dedication. These were traditionally recognized as continuing offers for many years, hence requiring a vacation of some sort by the municipality. However, more recent cases have said that the offer of dedication can't last forever. Here you have one that's over one hundred years old. I think a court today would probably say the municipality has no interest in it and the offer has expired. In fact, the 1979 action is an express indicator of refusal of the offer to accept it as a public street. They expressly released any interest the public might have in a width sufficient for the offered purpose. Throw in the physical characteristics and it's clear they had and have no intention of accepting the offer.
If that doesn't fly in your jurisdiction or the municipality does have a deed for it, then the other possibility is adverse possession. The facts stated above have also been recognized by the courts as sufficient for a holding that the governmental body is holding the land in a proprietary rather than sovereign capacity. As such, adverse possession can be had by the private party against the government.
In either event, the client only needs to keep treating it as their own.
What is the issue? Does the municipality have some sort of leverage they are using against the client? Withholding permits or something?
Would you rather give it away?
> Here in Houston, the city has a fiduciary duty to the citizens to be good stewards of the public land. We have an ordinance (most cities and the state have the same law) that does not allow the city to give away public property. If you can prove that the land is surplus, you may acquire it at fair market value. Without these type of protective laws, I shudder to think of the abuse of our lands by politicians.
That's exactly how it works here at the municipality I work at.
