I'm unclear as to why Barry G continues to argue with surveyors as to a non-surveying issue. I'm even more unclear as to why surveyors continue to try and educate Barry G on a non-surveyor issue, particularly being as he filters the evidence towards his pre-disposed opinion. Having witnessed the issue of sidewalks both at the state and local government level, I have tried to offer my experience to the issue. Barry G has blinders on and I don't see this debate having any further value.
Barry G, post: 402843, member: 12296 wrote: Jones did trip on the sidewalk in a housing tract in Long Beach, correct. The courts did talk about the parkway trees roots destroying the sidewalks, causing the injury and that Long Beach was responsible to maintain the public parkway tree roots. The Courts decided that the adjacent property owner is not responsible to maintain the parkway tree roots, that the adjacent property owner is not responsible for the parkway maintenance. That is the key in tis case. Therefore the liability for the damages to Jones went to " The City of Long Beach", not Deeter, the adjacent property owner. What I get out of this case is 2 things. #1 Parkway tree root maintenance is the responsibility of the Municipality, that destroys the public sidewalk. #2. No Municipality can pass on its liability on sidewalks to the adjacent property owner. If the abutting owner is required to pay for this cost, for the sidewalk being out of repair, where is the ruling that the Deeter needs to pay for this repair of the sidewalks? Its not there in this ruling. Find a lawsuit in California, where a Judge ruled against an adjacent property owner in a housing tract, requiring them to pay for the public sidewalk repair. In 106 year, there are none? Why?
You are misreading the case.
Barry G, post: 402844, member: 12296 wrote: 5600-5630 was written in 1911, as a part of the 1911 Improvement Act.
What I posted is from West's Annotated Code. The code written in 1911 has been superceded.
Barry G, post: 402843, member: 12296 wrote: Jones did trip on the sidewalk in a housing tract in Long Beach, correct. The courts did talk about the parkway trees roots destroying the sidewalks, causing the injury and that Long Beach was responsible to maintain the public parkway tree roots. The Courts decided that the adjacent property owner is not responsible to maintain the parkway tree roots, that the adjacent property owner is not responsible for the parkway maintenance. That is the key in tis case. Therefore the liability for the damages to Jones went to " The City of Long Beach", not Deeter, the adjacent property owner. What I get out of this case is 2 things. #1 Parkway tree root maintenance is the responsibility of the Municipality, that destroys the public sidewalk. #2. No Municipality can pass on its liability on sidewalks to the adjacent property owner. If the abutting owner is required to pay for this cost, for the sidewalk being out of repair, where is the ruling that the Deeter needs to pay for this repair of the sidewalks? Its not there in this ruling. Find a lawsuit in California, where a Judge ruled against an adjacent property owner in a housing tract, requiring them to pay for the public sidewalk repair. In 106 year, there are none? Why?
You misrepresented a published case which is available on-line for anyone to read; how do we know you aren't misrepresented what the County said.
You are conflating liability for injuries suffered by users of the sidewalk with responsibility to pay the cost of repair; they aren't the same thing.
clearcut, post: 402847, member: 297 wrote: I'm unclear as to why Barry G continues to argue with surveyors as to a non-surveying issue. I'm even more unclear as to why surveyors continue to try and educate Barry G on a non-surveyor issue, particularly being as he filters the evidence towards his pre-disposed opinion. Having witnessed the issue of sidewalks both at the state and local government level, I have tried to offer my experience to the issue. Barry G has blinders on and I don't see this debate having any further value.
Obviously he has convinced himself that he isn't responsible for the cost of repairing the sidewalk in front of his house and nothing I say will convince him otherwise.
This thread did inspire me to research the issue and I found some interesting information about it.
Some Cities (for purposes of the statute a County is included in the definition of City) undertake the repairs with tax dollars but they aren't required to do so. For example, the City of Rancho Cordova repairs sidewalks in residential areas as a service to their residents. They only use the statute in commercial and business districts. On the other hand, my friend received a notice from the City of Sacramento, so it varies. The City of West Sacramento also requires property owners to fix sidewalks.
clearcut, post: 402847, member: 297 wrote: I'm unclear as to why Barry G continues to argue with surveyors as to a non-surveying issue. I'm even more unclear as to why surveyors continue to try and educate Barry G on a non-surveyor issue, particularly being as he filters the evidence towards his pre-disposed opinion. Having witnessed the issue of sidewalks both at the state and local government level, I have tried to offer my experience to the issue. Barry G has blinders on and I don't see this debate having any further value.
We are have a discussion on two issues 1) who owns the public rights of ways 2) who is responsible to maintain them. There are two issues, property ownership (public streets, sidewalks and parkways) and government responsibility to maintain that property. The surveyors position on #1 is that I own the underling fee to the middle of the street, where the Municipality has an easement. I am assuming that this is the land under the public streets and sidewalks, dedicated to the Municipality for maintenance. My questions to each surveyor regarding the easement property is "Ownership, title, possession and control". I have stated that I believe 4 criterias must be satisfied before we can determine who owns this property. Its my contention, based on my deed and property map from the county, my property line falls 6" before the sidewalk, that the property map boundry decides ownership, title, possession and control. Land Surveyors on this cite state that this County map has nothing to do with who owns this easement property, its the adjacent property owners fee. I have asked for proof of ownership, title, possession and control. I have no control over the rights of ways, only ingress and egress. I cant change, modify the public's right of ways, cant control who walks on the public sidewalk, have 0 control over this land. Do I possess the public rights of ways? I cant possess something that I dont own, yes, based on a property map dimensions. Do I own title to the parkways and sidewalks? Answer is not, the deed defines the property lines in the County map as to what I have title. Do I own the parkway and the sidewalk? Not in my deed. The County Ordinance states that the Government owns everything on the parkway. So do I own the parkway trees? From the Ordinance, answer is no. That is my peaceful disagreement. The Law is another issue we are discussing, court decisions and California SHC, Codes. I dont call out anyone in this cite for any reason, dont judge anyone, please do the same. This is an information only discussion, not judgments against those who are asking questions.
Dave Karoly, post: 402848, member: 94 wrote: You are misreading the case.
"
Finally, we apply this last stated rule to the case at bench. Here, defendant did no more than water the parkway. His uncontroverted declaration, which may be accepted for summary judgment purposes (Conn v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 630, 638 [177 Cal.Rptr. 445]), states that all maintenance of the trees was performed by employees of the City. Since the City habitually maintained these trees, the rule set forth above provides that the city alone bore the duty to keep the trees in reasonably safe condition towards pedestrians.
We also hold that this conclusion is unaffected by the fact that defendant mowed, edged and watered the parkway. These acts do suggest that defendant did have a duty to maintain the surface area of the parkway. This duty may have entailed some minor care of the trees, such as removing fallen leaves or hanging branches. We cannot say, however, that this duty required defendant to make the major repairs required here, i.e., digging up roots and repairing the sidewalk. On the contrary, the circumstances of [152 Cal. App. 3d 806] this case indicate that these bulging roots, and any injuries caused by them, are attributable to the City which maintained the trees.
Why was the adjacent property owner not found liable under Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630? That law has been around since 1911? Any thoughts?
Dang software.
Barry G, post: 402846, member: 12296 wrote: That is a picture of me in my housing tract several years ago, reported in the Starr and Acorn newspaper. If you read the article, I point out that the County marks public residential sidewalks in my housing tract that have lifted 1/16 of an inch above the next sidewalk panel, with no policy and procedure as to define, what is an out of repair sidewalk. When the County representative marked these sidewalk, I asked him for the criteria. he told me they dont have one, his orders were to mark all sidewalks that were lifted, so they can demand repair from the adjacent property owner. So I spoke to the Public Works Dept and asked him for the criteria. He told me that they are now working on one, will take 4-6 months to complete, in 2016. This house tract was created in 1961. How can they mark sidewalks that they believe needs to be repaired with no legal criteria. Answer from County, we do what we want, yes, we do what we want. The ADA requires that anything above 1/2" need to be repaired. So what is an out of repair sidewalk? The ADA told me 1/16 raised sidewalk is not out of repair. So the County marked all sidewalks, grind them down, charge residence. The courts have rules that anything above 1" or more can be considered out of repair, not 1/16 of an inch. This Counties position is that they decide what is out of repair, not a Judge or a Court.
Well - it is their liability right?
Barry G, post: 402862, member: 12296 wrote: "
Finally, we apply this last stated rule to the case at bench. Here, defendant did no more than water the parkway. His uncontroverted declaration, which may be accepted for summary judgment purposes (Conn v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 630, 638 [177 Cal.Rptr. 445]), states that all maintenance of the trees was performed by employees of the City. Since the City habitually maintained these trees, the rule set forth above provides that the city alone bore the duty to keep the trees in reasonably safe condition towards pedestrians.We also hold that this conclusion is unaffected by the fact that defendant mowed, edged and watered the parkway. These acts do suggest that defendant did have a duty to maintain the surface area of the parkway. This duty may have entailed some minor care of the trees, such as removing fallen leaves or hanging branches. We cannot say, however, that this duty required defendant to make the major repairs required here, i.e., digging up roots and repairing the sidewalk. On the contrary, the circumstances of [152 Cal. App. 3d 806] this case indicate that these bulging roots, and any injuries caused by them, are attributable to the City which maintained the trees.
Why was the adjacent property owner not found liable under Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630? That law has been around since 1911? Any thoughts?
. Lets take my case. If the County owns the tree by Ordinance, and that parkway tree causes an unsave condition to the public sidewalks, who is responsible for the parkway roots, is it the County or the Adjacent property owner? What created the sidewalks to be out of repair should be your answer. Ventura County states that they are ownership to everything on the parkway. They have no duty to maintain their own government property. Its paid for in taxes, public property. This is my argument in front of a State Superior Court Judge. Do you think he will ignore the County Ordinance? Will he overrule Jones vs Deeter, hold who is responsible for damages performed by a government owned parkway tree roots? Will he say that I own fee to the parkway, that parkway tree and roots are my responsibility, regardless of Ordinance? Property maps dont define property. I believe he will look at what messed up the sidewalks, who is responsible, the cite if the County can hold adjacent property owners accountable for a government tree damage, its is responsible to maintain, SHC 22060. Will he overrule Jones vs Deeter, Willits vs Los Angeles, Williams vs Foster, Schaefer vs Lenahan, Anderson vs Contreras? That we will wait and see.
Barry, as payment for this discussion, please do us a favor and report back after your court case is decided?
imaudigger, post: 402865, member: 7286 wrote: Dang software.
Well - it is their liability right?
The policy should match the courts decisions as to what is an out of repair sidewalk. My issue is with liability and payment. The County, by Ordinance transferred duty, responsibility and liability for this maintenance to the adjacent property owners. If they wanted to pay for 1/16 raised public sidewalks, I have no issue, with their 50M reserve in transportation funds. Its charging the residence for this cost, that repair is not necessary, and passing liability, with no authority. No pedestrian can sue me for out of repair sidewalks, based on California law, no Municipality can pass on this liability. My General County did, that is my issue.
imaudigger, post: 402875, member: 7286 wrote: Barry, as payment for this discussion, please do us a favor and report back after your court case is decided?
I believe that everyone's position depends what side of the fence you are on. If your a housing tract owner, you want the Municipality to maintain the publics rights of way in your housing tract, with the taxes we pay for this service. When your street needs to be repaved, its the Municipalities job to repave, and pay for it in their transportation funds. Since we own fee to the middle of the road, why cant they charge us twice for this same repair? This is the same argument with sidewalks and parkway trees. Dont need to raise taxes at the ballot box, just write an Ordinance. The government should be able to pass on all its duties, responsiblitilies and liabilities on government property to adjacent property owners. The people in front of parks should be charged twice for maintenance of that park, in taxes and also a direct bill. Same with people living next to a school, or a library, or a government building (Medical facility, City/local government, etc). We pay 97 forms of taxes, and to many, that is not enough.
Barry G, post: 402878, member: 12296 wrote: The policy should match the courts decisions as to what is an out of repair sidewalk. My issue is with liability and payment. The County, by Ordinance transferred duty, responsibility and liability for this maintenance to the adjacent property owners. If they wanted to pay for 1/16 raised public sidewalks, I have no issue, with their 50M reserve in transportation funds. Its charging the residence for this cost, that repair is not necessary, and passing liability, with no authority. No pedestrian can sue me for out of repair sidewalks, based on California law, no Municipality can pass on this liability. My General County did, that is my issue.
Why would they avoid maintenance until it became "out of repair sidewalk" i.e. a liability?
Not saying 1/16" of an inch is reasonable, but it's apparently their liability and it seems prudent to maintain something so as to avoid injury/liability.
The only hang up seems to be that you do not feel comfortable with the fact that you have to pay to minimize their liability - I don't blame you.
If they just included these costs in the property taxes - say $30 a year, most people would probably be ignorantly happy that they were spending the "gas taxes" on sidewalk maintenance.
imaudigger, post: 402881, member: 7286 wrote: Why would they avoid maintenance until it became "out of repair sidewalk" i.e. a liability?
Not saying 1/16" of an inch is reasonable, but it's apparently their liability and it seems prudent to maintain something so as to avoid injury/liability.
The only hang up seems to be that you do not feel comfortable with the fact that you have to pay to minimize their liability - I don't blame you.If they just included these costs in the property taxes - say $30 a year, most people would probably be ignorantly happy that they were spending the "gas taxes" on sidewalk maintenance.
What has happened is the ADA law suit Willits vs Los Angeles, 1.4B awarded to the people of LA, to get the Charter City of LA to pay for and repair public sidewalks in housing tracts as well as towns. So my General Law County dedicated to create an Ordinance, transferring their liability and duties on parkway trees and sidewalks to the adjacent property owners, to avoid an ADA lawsuit. That is why they are implementing their 2006 Ordinance, so avoid a lawsuit. So they are repairing all the sidewalks and removing the parkway trees lifting up these sidewalks, first time in 25 years, to avoid a lawsuit. I have no issue about this repair, I welcome the repair, should have happened 20 years ago. I don't welcome the invoice for this repair, which I believe, on public property is the Municipalities role, based on the sign dedication to perform this maintenance. So I'm paying twice for the same repair, paying taxes for this repair (gas taxes), then when property is out of repair, paying for it once again. Its like they take money out of my right pocket, in taxes, where I have no issue. Taxes should be paid for public property, that is the law. They don't have a right to collect these taxes out of my right pocket, then when out of repair, steal money out of my left pocket, for the same maintenance I pay for out of my right pocket. If I dont pay for taxes for this repair, why Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630 were created, so the Municipality could pay back its bond it posted. If I lived in a town in 1911, or the 1930's, I would have no issue paying taxes for public sidewalk repair in that town, near the business, for safety, as long as I did not already pay taxes for this repair. We now pay 97 forms of taxes to the government, yes, for maintenance of public property in housing tracts, started in 1945. My issue is with double taxation and also transferring liability on public sidewalks, which the courts have deemed illegal.
Warren Smith, post: 402785, member: 9900 wrote: The dimensions shown on a subdivision map are for net area of a lot. The dimensions needed to determine the underlying fee are also shown on your final map - the parallel and concentric lines defining the centerlines.
The practical purpose of this is to determine zoning compliance. Such things as minimum area, setbacks, minimum frontage and the like are used from those net dimensions. The tax assessor also does for land valuation.
Control over what the Streets & Highways Code terms County roads are defined in the Government Code. Counties are political subdivisions of the state, whereas Cities are municipal corporations.
Similar subdivisions to yours in the adjoining City of Thousand Oaks are funded and maintained under a different scheme. Keep this mind as you dig further into mandated public service facilities maintenance.
Hello Warren. Thank you again for your help. The Underlying fee to the middle of the street is own by the adjacent property owner, as you state. That would include the easement perform by the County, on the sidewalk, parkway, to the middle of the street. Lets say the County has an Ordinance, stating that they own everything planted on the parkway, its government property, written in 1968. Who owns the parkway tree planted on the parkway, the government by Ordinance or the adjacent property owner in underlying fee? Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630 address sidewalks, does not talk about parkway trees. Can a Municipality own the parkway trees, collect taxes for maintenance, SHC requires the Board of Supervisors to take out the trees, then require under SHC 5600-5630 to maintain them? Can they force the adjacent property owners to maintain the parkway roots under the ground that will cause the public sidewalks to go out of repair? On one hand, the 1911 Improvement Act, requires the adjacent property owner to maintain sidewalks. That SCH will not address the issue of ownership, who owns what. Can we assume, back in 1911, that we own the underlying fee to the middle of the street. If a government stated it own that property, let say, back in 1911, then SHC 5600-5630 would not be valid. Its assuming that the adjacent property owner owns the underlying fee, not the government owning the parkway trees that have uprooted the sidewalks. Do you understand my argument.
imaudigger, post: 402881, member: 7286 wrote: Why would they avoid maintenance until it became "out of repair sidewalk" i.e. a liability?
Not saying 1/16" of an inch is reasonable, but it's apparently their liability and it seems prudent to maintain something so as to avoid injury/liability.
The only hang up seems to be that you do not feel comfortable with the fact that you have to pay to minimize their liability - I don't blame you.If they just included these costs in the property taxes - say $30 a year, most people would probably be ignorantly happy that they were spending the "gas taxes" on sidewalk maintenance.
I agree with you on the taxing issue. People here in California dont care about spending more in taxes, 97 line items on taxes is not enough. Paying 50% of income is not enough, more to the government is better. Tax and spend is the solution to all our problems, paying 50% in taxes is not our fair share.
Barry G, post: 402862, member: 12296 wrote: "
Finally, we apply this last stated rule to the case at bench. Here, defendant did no more than water the parkway. His uncontroverted declaration, which may be accepted for summary judgment purposes (Conn v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 630, 638 [177 Cal.Rptr. 445]), states that all maintenance of the trees was performed by employees of the City. Since the City habitually maintained these trees, the rule set forth above provides that the city alone bore the duty to keep the trees in reasonably safe condition towards pedestrians.We also hold that this conclusion is unaffected by the fact that defendant mowed, edged and watered the parkway. These acts do suggest that defendant did have a duty to maintain the surface area of the parkway. This duty may have entailed some minor care of the trees, such as removing fallen leaves or hanging branches. We cannot say, however, that this duty required defendant to make the major repairs required here, i.e., digging up roots and repairing the sidewalk. On the contrary, the circumstances of [152 Cal. App. 3d 806] this case indicate that these bulging roots, and any injuries caused by them, are attributable to the City which maintained the trees.
Why was the adjacent property owner not found liable under Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630? That law has been around since 1911? Any thoughts?
The quote you underlined, taken out of context, is about who is liable to the injured person.
SHC 5610 is simply a mechanism by which the City or County can collect the cost of repairs to the sidewalk.
A Judge will read the whole case taking each statement in its proper context and rule against you.
But more power to you if you can persuade a Judge on this issue.
Dave Karoly, post: 402927, member: 94 wrote: The quote you underlined, taken out of context, is about who is liable to the injured person.
SHC 5610 is simply a mechanism by which the City or County can collect the cost of repairs to the sidewalk.
A Judge will read the whole case taking each statement in its proper context and rule against you.
But more power to you if you can persuade a Judge on this issue.
This quote is directly from the opinion of a Judge. Jones vs Deeter brings up liability, that no Municipality can transfer liability to adjacent property owners, that liability from pedestrians for sidewalk injuries. Jones did not win against Deeter. Same with Williams vs Foster, Schaefer with Lenahan, etc. 5600-5630 purpose was to establish a way to pay the Municipality back, not create a liability issue for the adjacent property owners.
The second issue is parkway tree roots. Where the Municipality maintains the tree, the adjacent property owner cant be accountable to maintain the roots from the parkway tree, that have made the sidewalks out of repair. My County transferred this responsibility to adjacent property owners in their Ordinance. Do you agree that they can or cant pass on this responsibility and liability?
Third issue is by Ordinance, the County states they own the parkway trees. Do you agree that if they own it, they are responsible to maintain it, or can they pass on maintenance cost to adjacent property owners in housing tracts? Show me a court case, where a Judge allowed a Municipality to take out a parkway tree that it owns, charge the adjacent property owner in a housing tract. Cite one case. Municipality gain tax dollars to maintain the easement in a housing tract, after they sign the dedication. It cant force me to maintain their government parkway tree, trim it, tear it down. If I want to tear it down, I need a permit from the County, because its not my tree. My Municipality has taken out the trees, charging the adjacent property owner for it.
There is a difference between private and public property. If I own it (house, car, RV, etc), Im responsible to insure it and maintain it, out of my own pocket. Why dont I have home owners insurance for the public sidewalk, parkway, out to the middle of the street. They are public property, own by the public, not by a private citizen. This area is used by everyone, everyone pays taxes for its maintenance, including me. They cant charge me twice for the same maintenance. If the government owns it, lets say, by Ordinance, its public property (public road, easement, sidewalk, parkway, building, park, library, school, etc? They are maintained through taxes, public property. 5600-5630 was written before the municipality collected taxes for this service. That is my argument, things have changed in 106 years.
Barry G, post: 402949, member: 12296 wrote: This quote is directly from the opinion of a Judge. Jones vs Deeter brings up liability, that no Municipality can transfer liability to adjacent property owners, that liability from pedestrians for sidewalk injuries. Jones did not win against Deeter. Same with Williams vs Foster, Schaefer with Lenahan, etc. 5600-5630 purpose was to establish a way to pay the Municipality back, not create a liability issue for the adjacent property owners.
The second issue is parkway tree roots. Where the Municipality maintains the tree, the adjacent property owner cant be accountable to maintain the roots from the parkway tree, that have made the sidewalks out of repair. My County transferred this responsibility to adjacent property owners in their Ordinance. Do you agree that they can or cant pass on this responsibility and liability?
Third issue is by Ordinance, the County states they own the parkway trees. Do you agree that if they own it, they are responsible to maintain it, or can they pass on maintenance cost to adjacent property owners in housing tracts? Show me a court case, where a Judge allowed a Municipality to take out a parkway tree that it owns, charge the adjacent property owner in a housing tract. Cite one case. Municipality gain tax dollars to maintain the easement in a housing tract, after they sign the dedication. It cant force me to maintain their government parkway tree, trim it, tear it down. If I want to tear it down, I need a permit from the County, because its not my tree. My Municipality has taken out the trees, charging the adjacent property owner for it.
There is a difference between private and public property. If I own it (house, car, RV, etc), Im responsible to insure it and maintain it, out of my own pocket. Why dont I have home owners insurance for the public sidewalk, parkway, out to the middle of the street. They are public property, own by the public, not by a private citizen. This area is used by everyone, everyone pays taxes for its maintenance, including me. They cant charge me twice for the same maintenance. If the government owns it, lets say, by Ordinance, its public property (public road, easement, sidewalk, parkway, building, park, library, school, etc? They are maintained through taxes, public property. 5600-5630 was written before the municipality collected taxes for this service. That is my argument, things have changed in 106 years.
Dave Karoly, post: 402951, member: 94 wrote: http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2014/Spring-Conf/5-2014-Spring-Gerald-Hicks-But-Its-Your-Sidewalk_S.aspx
I had a nice chat with Attorney Hicks in 2015. He is a government Municipality attorney, represents the Charter Counties of Sacramento view of Municipality maintenance. I had asked him specific questions regarding General Law Counties, their Ordinance, property maps, etc. he could not answer my questions. He could tell me about Sacramento Law, not other Counties. Any government official will state that what they are doing is legal. Its not an unbiased explanation.
