Dave Karoly, post: 404425, member: 94 wrote: You own fee simple absolute to the center of the street.
The public has a right of way EASEMENT over your property. Your title under the right of way is sometimes referred to as the naked fee.
This is a fundamental legal concept.
Ownership is not relevant for purposes of SHC5610 anyway.
You and I respectfully disagree, I dont own the fee simple out to the center of the street, based on 831, written in 1872.
Agree, the public has an easement, not over private property, over public property. This Street is a public street, not a private street.
My issue is more about who is responsible to maintain the rights of ways, and can a general law county transfer its duties, responsibilities and
liabilities to adjacent property owners, after its parkway tree roots have destroyed the public sidewalks. A judge will need to decide this question.
I've got a question; when is your court date?
Tom Adams, post: 404428, member: 7285 wrote: Dave answered you question better than I could. Just like the utility easement in back, the utility company will own their utility that they installed but not the ground around it. They don't have a "right-of-way" easement, They own a different type of easement for maintenance of their utility. The "public" has a right-of-way easement. The public taxes pay for the improvements on the right-of-way, but the public doesn't own the underlying ground. The easement is strictly for roadway purposes, and under that principle they can't use it for anything other than right of way (ie: as discussed they couldn't sell it or put a building on it or block the right of way)
The utility owns the easement, that allows them to go on private property to read a meter or repair their telephone pole. They also repair their lights on the government parkway, replace light bulbs, service, etc. That property is their property, own by the Utility. That is why we dont repair it, its paid for in the electric bill. The public does have a right of way easement, over public property, not private. If we have a private road, different story. We do pay taxes for rights of ways easement property, correct. Dave stated we do own the underlying ground, out to the middle of the street. This we respectfully disagree, based on my property map dimensions, owning 6" before the public sidewalk. My issue is with government own parkway tree roots destroying public sidewalks, who is responsible to maintain. I believe the owner of the parkway trees, as identified in Ordinance. I dont believe a County can accept ownership of property, cause damages, then transfer (by Ordinance) this damage to adjacent property owners, who dont own government property. If its my property, Im responsible, government property, they are responsible, the collective.
MightyMoe, post: 404430, member: 700 wrote: I've got a question; when is your court date?
Meeting with people from the community, then file in State Superior Court, January 2017. Will let you know the verdict.
Barry G, post: 404431, member: 12296 wrote: The utility owns the easement, that allows them to go on private property to read a meter or repair their telephone pole. They also repair their lights on the government parkway, replace light bulbs, service, etc. That property is their property, own by the Utility. That is why we dont repair it, its paid for in the electric bill. The public does have a right of way easement, over public property, not private. If we have a private road, different story. We do pay taxes for rights of ways easement property, correct. Dave stated we do own the underlying ground, out to the middle of the street. This we respectfully disagree, based on my property map dimensions, owning 6" before the public sidewalk. My issue is with government own parkway tree roots destroying public sidewalks, who is responsible to maintain. I believe the owner of the parkway trees, as identified in Ordinance. I dont believe a County can accept ownership of property, cause damages, then transfer (by Ordinance) this damage to adjacent property owners, who dont own government property. If its my property, Im responsible, government property, they are responsible, the collective.
No. The right of way, which is an easement was dedicated. That does not transfer ownership of the underlying ground. It can't the right of way has a purpose for which it is dedicated. That's what makes it an easement. The Public could do anything they wanted on it if they had the underlying ground. They could install a skate park and tear out the road. But as it stands, the homeowners and the public at large have a right to use it for passage with a motorized vehicle, or on foot on the sidewalk.
Barry G, post: 404429, member: 12296 wrote: You and I respectfully disagree, I dont own the fee simple out to the center of the street, based on 831, written in 1872.
Agree, the public has an easement, not over private property, over public property. This Street is a public street, not a private street.
My issue is more about who is responsible to maintain the rights of ways, and can a general law county transfer its duties, responsibilities and
liabilities to adjacent property owners, after its parkway tree roots have destroyed the public sidewalks. A judge will need to decide this question.
You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to be stubbornly fact resistant.
Barry G, post: 404429, member: 12296 wrote: You and I respectfully disagree, I dont own the fee simple out to the center of the street, based on 831, written in 1872.
Agree, the public has an easement, not over private property, over public property. This Street is a public street, not a private street.
My issue is more about who is responsible to maintain the rights of ways, and can a general law county transfer its duties, responsibilities and
liabilities to adjacent property owners, after its parkway tree roots have destroyed the public sidewalks. A judge will need to decide this question.
You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to be stubbornly fact resistant.
Tom Adams, post: 404434, member: 7285 wrote: No. The right of way, which is an easement was dedicated. That does not transfer ownership of the underlying ground. It can't the right of way has a purpose for which it is dedicated. That's what makes it an easement. The Public could do anything they wanted on it if they had the underlying ground. They could install a skate park and tear out the road. But as it stands, the homeowners and the public at large have a right to use it for passage with a motorized vehicle, or on foot on the sidewalk.
The dedication, when approved by Municipality changes the ownership of a private housing tract, from developer (private property), to public property. The developer dedicates the Road System, which are private, he owns it, its his private property, transferred to the public. After the dedication is approved, this public rights of ways Road system), is now Public property, where the Public (run by the Government) passes an easement, to allow ingress and egress. Once the dedication is approved, the Municipality assumes the affirmative duty to maintain, by case law. Read Miller and Starr on Property rights in California. It makes it quite clear, what happens when the dedication is approved. At that point, the public owns out to the middle of the street, not the private property owner, that is clear by property map dimensions. That was the intent. The Map dimensions would show clearly to the middle of the street. They start 6" before the sidewalk, that was the intent, clear intent that adjacent property owners dont individually own sections of public streets, parkway tree and sidewalks. The rights of ways are maintained by Municipality, or with associations, with association contractors, that is clear. Once the streets are abandoned, the rights of way go to the adjacent property, this is law. If they are not abandoned, the go to the Public, the Minicipality. This intent is clear. We have a right to use the public rights of way, everyone in the public, I agree. When the public wears out the sidewalks or roads, the Municipality repairs public property, with tax dollars. It would not be right for everyone to use its, pay taxes for it, then when out of repair, an individual owns money to repair it again. That is twice for the same maintenance. If I use it, I pay for it. We use, we pay for it, in taxes.
I will be interested how it turns out, good luck
The simplest solution is to tax shoes the same we do gas to maintain the sidewalks just as we do pavement. Fee simple or easement appears to be a moot point for the purpose of deciding who is responsible for sidewalk and tree maintenance within the ROW. Good luck with your case any way. Let us know how it turns out.
MightyMoe, post: 404438, member: 700 wrote: I will be interested how it turns out, good luck
That is why this case is so interesting. Im getting the local press involved, local Channel 4 and 9. Im not trying to be argumentative,
just trying to figure it all out, before I go to court. Better now, then later. Is this an uphill battle, yes it is. It will be me against the government,
with endless resources, County Counsel, Dept of Transportation, Public Works, CEO and Board of Supervisors. It appears to be a fair fight, correct?
I pray the County Counsel Reps are there, the one Ive been dealing with for 2 plus years. When I ask him on the stand, some questions, he can respond like he did in our last meeting "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself". I want the Judge to clearly hear his answers, to avoid
answering them. Same with Dept of Transportation and Public Works. I sent them 50 questions over the past 2 plus years, not one is answered, its
ignored. Let them ignore the questions in front of a Judge. Will ask for Contempt of Court.
Barry G, post: 404437, member: 12296 wrote: The dedication, when approved by Municipality changes the ownership of a private housing tract, from developer (private property), to public property. The developer dedicates the Road System, which are private, he owns it, its his private property, transferred to the public. After the dedication is approved, this public rights of ways Road system), is now Public property, where the Public (run by the Government) passes an easement, to allow ingress and egress. Once the dedication is approved, the Municipality assumes the affirmative duty to maintain, by case law. Read Miller and Starr on Property rights in California. It makes it quite clear, what happens when the dedication is approved. At that point, the public owns out to the middle of the street, not the private property owner, that is clear by property map dimensions. That was the intent. The Map dimensions would show clearly to the middle of the street. They start 6" before the sidewalk, that was the intent, clear intent that adjacent property owners dont individually own sections of public streets, parkway tree and sidewalks. The rights of ways are maintained by Municipality, or with associations, with association contractors, that is clear. Once the streets are abandoned, the rights of way go to the adjacent property, this is law. If they are not abandoned, the go to the Public, the Minicipality. This intent is clear. We have a right to use the public rights of way, everyone in the public, I agree. When the public wears out the sidewalks or roads, the Municipality repairs public property, with tax dollars. It would not be right for everyone to use its, pay taxes for it, then when out of repair, an individual owns money to repair it again. That is twice for the same maintenance. If I use it, I pay for it. We use, we pay for it, in taxes.
Except none of that accurately describes what actually happens.
The developer dedicates an easement and retains the fee. The public accepts an easement. When the lots are sold the fee in the abutting streets go with them under the strips and gores doctrine.
You don't have to believe me but you will have to believe the Judge when he tells you the same thing.
Dave Karoly, post: 404442, member: 94 wrote: Except none of that accurately describes what actually happens.
The developer dedicates an easement and retains the fee. The public accepts an easement. When the lots are sold the fee in the abutting streets go with them under the strips and gores doctrine.
You don't have to believe me but you will have to believe the Judge when he tells you the same thing.
Please show me the strips and gores doctrine link. The developer dedicates the property to the county, the public road system, by law. The Public (government) retains the easement. The Developer owns the entire land, his personal property. Yes, this is private property, until the dedication is performed. When the Municipality accepts the dedication of roads, the fee title goes to the government, not the people who buy property in the housing tract. Its no longer private property, once the dedication is signed, its a PUBLIC Road, not PRIVATE. The fee is not transferred from developer to adjacent property owner. If these streets with not dedicated as the Public Road System, I would agree 100%, that the adjacent property owner owns the fee. Read the abandonment doctrine. If the Municipality abandons the public street, the adjacent property owners then and only then assume the underlying fee. Why is this? The Municipality owns it, until is abandons the street, that is the law.
In addition to the right of the general public to travel unimpeded, public rights-of-way are inclusive of public utilities located coincidentally under franchise agreement. That is, a blanket right - subject to conditions - to install and maintain those utilities within the R/W.
Other features include bicycle, jogging, or equestrian paths, landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities and other items under the jurisdiction of the local agency. Some of this infrastructure is the responsibility of various entities under a license - express or implied. Think about yard sale signs attached to power poles ...
If the burden of complying with the County Ordinance is deemed too burdensome, you might consider meeting with your neighbors about petitioning for annexation into the City of Thousand Oaks. That is likely a much less expensive route than litigation.
Long before this action gets to trial, there will be interrogatories, discovery motions, perhaps depositions, and, very likely, a motion for summary judgment. Be prepared to be very prepared for this.
Warren Smith, post: 404444, member: 9900 wrote: In addition to the right of the general public to travel unimpeded, public rights-of-way are inclusive of public utilities located coincidentally under franchise agreement. That is, a blanket right - subject to conditions - to install and maintain those utilities within the R/W.
Other features include bicycle, jogging, or equestrian paths, landscaping, lighting, drainage facilities and other items under the jurisdiction of the local agency. Some of this infrastructure is the responsibility of various entities under a license - express or implied. Think about yard sale signs attached to power poles ...
If the burden of complying with the County Ordinance is deemed too burdensome, you might consider meeting with your neighbors about petitioning for annexation into the City of Thousand Oaks. That is likely a much less expensive route than litigation.
Hello Warren. I tried this 20 years ago. I created a petition, walked around to each house and talked to the residence. Many here are Contractors, told me its easier to get a permit in Ventura County, then Thousand Oaks, will never sign this petition. Many other residence did not want to be bothered, since the County did not have an Ordinance, did not have P&P on sidewalk repair and parkway tree maintenance, etc. This was not an issue till last year, when the County started implementing their illegal ordinance. I still dont believe people will sign the petition. Its a lot of work, yes, easier then going to court. I worry about the State Superior Judge, protecting the County, not following State law. He works for the County, paid for by the County, knows County Counsel. Judges dont like non attorneys going into court. Its ruins the profession of a novice can beat attorneys in court. Remember, the Judge was once an attorney, before becoming a Judge. I know this from experience.
Warren Smith, post: 404446, member: 9900 wrote: Long before this action gets to trial, there will be interrogatories, discovery motions, perhaps depositions, and, very likely, a motion for summary judgment. Be prepared to be very prepared for this.
Agreed, burried in paperwork. That is after preparing 5 injunctions, Summons, Cease and Desist order, Restraining Order, and a Trial Brief.
That will be my job for days.
Dave Karoly, post: 404425, member: 94 wrote: You own fee simple absolute to the center of the street.
The public has a right of way EASEMENT over your property. Your title under the right of way is sometimes referred to as the naked fee.
This is a fundamental legal concept.
Barry, you have had many well respected California Land Surveyors present you with this information. Do you truly believe that they are all wrong about this basic tenant of land ownership and that you, a lay-person are the only one that has the correct information? I find that to be astounding. If this is a point of law that you are going to argue in your case, you will be very disappointed.
Sixteen tons, whaddaya get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
You're in Ventura County, the place where in the 1970s some attorneys took a liking to the old courthouse and got a new courthouse built with public monies so they could buy the old one for pennies and use it as a private office building. No surprise they have found a loophole to make lot owners pay for the damage caused by street trees planted by the county. In their mind, the mere fact of your presence implies silent judicial notice of your consent to whatever they want to do.
Cheaper to fix your sidewalk than take on my cousins in the courthouse gang. Much cheaper. They will see that you, as a "pro se" or "pro per", do not have the secret decoder ring to comprehend the ownerships and interests and scopes of agreement, much less the unwritten rights and the implications, just as you have demonstrated here with the advice of many experts, and they will take your house to pay the County's legal defense expenses. Don't do it.
Drink a glass of water and start calling sidewalk repair contractors.
Edward are you meaning to say that professional surveyors have to actually study and understand subjects such as boundary and ownership legal principles in order to pass the exam and be licensed?
