These are the conversations I came here for. Hijack over, carry on...
and here would be the legal precedent for answering the question does an offset of meanders control: http://txls.texas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tyler_v_Gonzales_189_SW_2d_519.rtf
and here is the memorandum from the GLO:
Although the question is what exactly the State owned at the time of the vacation of Neches Street. Parts of Waller Creek are shown to be part of Neches Street on the 1931 copy of the Farley map, for example.
It's understood that the State of Texas is on a perpetual scavenger hunt for money, but I'm pretty sure that the State quitclaimed its interest in the public streets in Austin to the adjoining landowners in about 1929.
Edit: Here's a link to the Act of 1929 "Relinquishing the Title to Certain Streets in the City of Austin" that specifically provided that the fee title to the streets was useless to the State of Texas (which would cover the case where only one non-state landowner adjoined a street, I'd think.)
>
BTW, just out of curiosity, I took a look in the City Council Minutes for the ordinances vacating Neches Street.
This one from 1964 vacated the South end of Neches, but does not cover that up to Water Avenue (1st Street/Cesar Chavez):
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=41640
When was the ordinance covering the part of Neches North of there passed?
Edit: Okay, the far North end wasn't vacated until 2000, apparently.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=59503
Kent's consulting fees are going to be high on this one.
> Kent's consulting fees are going to be high on this one.
Yes, and that's without the Sanborn map from 1900:
interestingly enough, the northern portion was quitclaimed without ever being vacated- an issue i already advised the client they may want to have their counsel clarify for potential future litigious snags.
that sanborn map is interesting, however it incorrectly labels lots from driskill and rainey's subdivision as being block 189. it also appears to push the west lines of various lots from driskill and rainey's to the east r.o.w. line of neches- which has never been advocated at any point by anyone. that's all tangential i suppose, i just wonder at what point the preponderance of evidence contradicts itself enough to negate any reasonable assumption. (also, i'm fairly certain neches was never opened up as right-of-way in any sort of sense south of midpoint of lot 7, block 183.) the 1964 vacation would certainly agree with sanborn, though.
and kent's retainer will gladly be paid in full, hopefully malted beverages hold some currency in his economy. if not, i'll willingly volunteer to lug "the bucket" on one of his big bend excursions.
here's a quick, crude look at the area in 1964. seems clear that virtually no part of it was ever used, in any kind of practical sense, as right-of-way.
the 1964 vacation seems to coincide somehow with the construction of the tower now owned by the housing authority. the 1966 aerial shows the tower under construction, and also the first signs of any kind of paving/improvement along the south side of water/cesar chavez where neches would be. the 1973 aerial appears to shows a parking area that would roughly correspond to what's there today (though it's back to grass in the 1985). but still, at no point do i see any evidence that an attempt was made to actually utilize any portion south of block 189 as right-of-way.
> interestingly enough, the northern portion was quitclaimed without ever being vacated- an issue i already advised the client they may want to have their counsel clarify for potential future litigious snags.
Well, note that the Act of 1929 relinquished any title that the State had in Neches to the adjoining land owners. So no quitclaim would be needed to the land within Neches. I would be willing to wager that there are are other City Council ordinances by which the the public right-of-way across the rest of Neches South of Water Avenue/East 1st St./Cesar Chavez was vacated.
> that sanborn map is interesting, however it incorrectly labels lots from driskill and rainey's subdivision as being block 189. it also appears to push the west lines of various lots from driskill and rainey's to the east r.o.w. line of neches- which has never been advocated at any point by anyone.
Actually, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Sanborn map since it was almost certainly compiled from maps and records in the City Engineer's office or the tax assessor's office. It's the discrepancies that often provide the real keys to old puzzles, not so much the later mistaken work that merely perpetuates some misunderstanding.
As for the Sanborn map, it shows some parts of Neches Street open and some parts closed, as well as which parcels were improved and which not. That would be a hard detail to miss considering how the Sanborn maps were made and their purpose for fire insurance underwriting.
The obvious question would be: "What does the section map indicate for a street vacation?"
:good: :good:
DDSM:beer:
well, except in provision two there the rights revert to the city if the vignette project does not progress. which it isn't. this is a totally different project, which is why- even though they quit claimed it in '03- i think the owner would be wise to get the city on board with another official vacation. i can just imagine the number of potential opponents to development that would have the time and resources to discover a theoretical right of access to right-of-way that was never properly vacated. i mean, i may be splitting split hairs here, but we're not talking about somebody who's looking to fence off a few acres to herd goats in town...
please don't take it as a quick dismissal- moreso looking at it from the questions i'm going to be asked. again, can't thank you enough for staging this discussion. i have a few/six meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks, will need to be ready to explain all of this.
you mean TCAD? it's all city property as far as they're concerned.
> you mean TCAD?
No, the section map. That is an animal found in the Engineering File Room. They are typically based upon the early versions of the tax maps drawn back in the late 1930's, but have notes added to them indicating street and alley vacations.
> please don't take it as a quick dismissal
I don't know whether you know that you can examine the City Council minutes, resolutions, and ordinances on line or not, but you can.
Note that at the March 18, 1965 Austin City Council meeting, there was some discussion of the newly constructed Lakeside Apartments and permission for the construction of concrete rip rap along the bank of Waller Creek where it would be in Neches Street.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=37959
I gather from the context that Neches Street North of Willow Street had not been vacated as of that date.
Edit: and here's the 1965 release of the easement that was retained over the portion of Neches Street South of the North line of Willow:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=40829
ah yea, well... last two times i was up there mary was on duty alone. i got through a pile of field sketches and street surveys but not everything. i'll likely be back tuesday, hopefully not stepping on the toes of somebody manning the entire file room by themselves. this is, as you can imagine, an evolving situation- one of those that they'd have been better off (for the sake of expediency) not asking me to get involved with. but, i guess, it's exactly why they asked me to get involved. i seem to have a habit of making seemingly simple projects get a lot more complicated. but, then again (knock on wood), i haven't yet been scolded for wasting anyone's time or money, so there's that.
> ah yea, well... last two times i was up there mary was on duty alone.
Okay. I get the idea that you aren't familiar with the section maps. Your area of interest is shown on Section Maps 10 and 128. The staff at the File Room should be able to email you scans of those maps, I'd think. Whenever you're working in the old City, that is Step One (after "deposit retainer"): examine section map.
> well, except in provision two there the rights revert to the city if the vignette project does not progress.
Well, at the time of the vacation, title to the land within Neches Street had previously been relinquished to the adjoining landowners by the State of Texas under the terms of the Act of 1929. So, then, what might possibly "revert" to the City given that the City had no title to the land in Neches Street?
All the City of Austin had was the right to regulate the public easement over Neches Street, an easement that the City relinquished to the owner of the soil for money received.