mattsib79, post: 404611, member: 1138 wrote: http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/January-2014/What-is-the-Nature-of-a-Public-Right-of-Way.aspx
Had a nice chat with him regarding issue and several others. "The state supreme court in London v. Seattle, 93 Wn.2d 657, 666 (1980), states the legal effect of a street vacation better than does the statute: ÛÏThe general rule is that upon vacation of a street, the public easement is extinguished and the abutting property owners regain unencumbered title to the center of the street.Û (My emphasis.) Regain definition "obtain possession or use of (something) again after losing it. When did abutting property owners lose the possession or use of the unencumbered title to the center of the street? Its regains it back when the streets are abandoned by the Municipality. Only possible explanation is when the Municipality signs the dedication, then prepares an easement. The public owns it, once the dedication is approved. If the adjacent property owns it, it would be private property, with possession and control by the private property owner. The intent is never for this to be private property, since we all use public roads to ingress and egress, same with sidewalks. That is why, when this property is out of repair, do to public use, the Municipality repaves the roads, not adjacent property owners. Same with sidewalks. If I only walked on this sidewalk and I messed it up, cracked it, my tree on my property line uplifted it, then Im responsible. The intent is never the rights of ways as private individual property.
Barry G, post: 404613, member: 12296 wrote: Had a nice chat with him regarding issue and several others.
I am sure you have. You have had many people speak to you on this subject on here and have ignored them all as well. You will not convince any of us otherwise. You have asked for professional opinion and it has been given by many much more knowledgeable than myself and you refuse to accept their opinion.
I wish you well and may God be with you. You will need him when you go to court on this one.
Barry G, post: 404609, member: 12296 wrote: It is the Housing Tract Map created for my Community, including the signed dedication. I purchased this at the County. I had a Land Surveyor perform an individual property map, based on my property dimensions. You can see the map in this cite, someone copied it. It shows property lines, based on metes and bounds.
So not the Surveyor that prepared the tract map that created your lot, another local Land Surveyor that you hired to perform a boundary survey? On another point, your improper use of certain surveying terms will cause you problems in court. You should look into the definition of metes and bounds. That term plays no role in this case. Also when you say "This land surveyor did the Counties property map" that is apparently not true, he performed a boundary survey for a private individual. A boundary survey is nothing more than that Surveyor's opinion as to where the boundary lines are. It has nothing to do with the County.
Barry G, post: 404613, member: 12296 wrote: Had a nice chat with him regarding issue and several others.
Barry G, post: 404613, member: 12296 wrote: Had a nice chat with him regarding issue and several others.
Edward Reading, post: 404616, member: 132 wrote: So not the Surveyor that prepared the tract map that created your lot, another local Land Surveyor that you hired to perform a boundary survey? On another point, your improper use of certain surveying terms will cause you problems in court. You should look into the definition of metes and bounds. That term plays no role in this case. Also when you say "This land surveyor did the Counties property map" that is apparently not true, he performed a boundary survey for a private individual. A boundary survey is nothing more than that Surveyor's opinion as to where the boundary lines are. It has nothing to do with the County.
Who created the County Housing tract map, with the easements and the dimensions? The key issue here, in my case, is who owns the parkway trees in the parkway, the actual trees permitted by the County, parkway tree and roots? Their Ordinance stated clearly that the government owns everything on the parkway. So if I own the underlying fee to the middle of the street, do I own the parkway ground, what is my ownership? The next question is liability. Since the County owns the tree and roots, based on their Ordinance, can they hold me liable for the damage to the sidewalks, cause by their parkway tree? Can the require me to maintain their own tree? What do I get paid to care for their tree? Can they require me to care for parkway tree roots under the ground? How would this be accomplished? How about the tree roots under the public sidewalk. Is that my duty to maintain? This is the easement area, the County rights of way. Is the dedication of property, the easement area the responsibility of the County or the adjacent property owner to maintain? Why do Municipalities trim the trees and repave the roads every 25 years? If they have no duty, why do they perform this function? So we pay taxes, then they sign the dedication to maintain this property, when the property is out of repair, send us an invoice, hold us accountable for their failure to maintain their own property, by Ordinance?
Barry G, post: 404613, member: 12296 wrote: abutting property owners regain unencumbered title
as opposed to having title encumbered by the easement.
----------------
Survey gods forgive me. I shouldn't be adding to the thread, but just couldn't resist.
mattsib79, post: 404611, member: 1138 wrote: http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/January-2014/What-is-the-Nature-of-a-Public-Right-of-Way.aspx
The google books is quite interesting, thank you. Do you see the date that was written. Yes, in 1918. What was around in 1918 in California. There were towns with a business and farms, no housing tracts in California. I agree, that in towns, in 1872-1920, the adjacent property owner owns the underlying fee to the middle of the street, in a town. Take a look at the property maps in 1918. Also, were there taxes collected by a Municipality in 1918, for repair of public sidewalks in towns? Answer is no, no gas taxes or any taxes for Municipalities to maintain the public sidewalk adjacent to a business in a town or apartments in that town. That is why 5600-5630 was written by State Legislators, to get this Municipality paid back, for the bond it posted. That was the purpose in 1911 Improvement Act, to pay back a bond. My General Law County is using this authority, from 1911, in 2006, 95 years later, using it to transfer liability to adjacent property owners, in housing tracts, not created till 1945.
Barry G, post: 404632, member: 12296 wrote: The google books is quite interesting, thank you. Do you see the date that was written. Yes, in 1918. What was around in 1918 in California. There were towns with a business and farms, no housing tracts in California. I agree, that in towns, in 1872-1920, the adjacent property owner owns the underlying fee to the middle of the street, in a town. Take a look at the property maps in 1918. Also, were there taxes collected by a Municipality in 1918, for repair of public sidewalks in towns? Answer is no, no gas taxes or any taxes for Municipalities to maintain the public sidewalk adjacent to a business in a town or apartments in that town. That is why 5600-5630 was written by State Legislators, to get this Municipality paid back, for the bond it posted. That was the purpose in 1911 Improvement Act, to pay back a bond. My General Law County is using this authority, from 1911, in 2006, 95 years later, using it to transfer liability to adjacent property owners, in housing tracts, not created till 1945.
Are you the guy on Storage Wars that wears the skeleton gloves?
Dave Karoly, post: 404637, member: 94 wrote: Are you the guy on Storage Wars that wears the skeleton gloves?
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, lol. Ive been trying to figure out the difference between public and private property. What matters is the County Ordinance, declaring that the government owns this property. I dont care about the underlying fee issue, its not relevant. All I have to prove is that the County owns the tree and roots is liable for its maintenance, period. If it fails, then its responsible for the sidewalk damage, not the adjacent property owner. I believe a Judge will want to know who owns the parkway trees, who maintained them in the past, who maintained the roots, etc. Then he will want to know the cause of the sidewalks being out of repair. 1 plus 1 should equal 2. A judge will look for cause, who owns it, who controlled it, who is responsible to maintain it, what property messed up another etc. He wont allow neglect from the County, to be passed on the adjacent property owners. We are not responsible to maintain parkway tree roots, by Ordinance, by any State laws, etc. Its simply, not our tree or roots.
Barry G, post: 404638, member: 12296 wrote: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, lol.
I knew it! I saw you in a hotel in Mesa AZ.
Barry G, post: 404638, member: 12296 wrote: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep, lol.
Dave Karoly, post: 404639, member: 94 wrote: I knew it! I saw you in a hotel in Mesa AZ.
We do have the same name, not the same temperament, lol. Im more like Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!
Barry G, post: 404629, member: 12296 wrote: Who created the County Housing tract map, with the easements and the dimensions?
It's not a "County Housing tract map" It is a Tract Map prepared by the subdivider's Surveyor. The County's only part of it is to approve it and in this case accept the offer of dedication. It is in no way a County map. You really need to understand that. It was prepared by a private Surveyor, for a private subdivider on private property.
If indeed, the key issue is who owns the parkway trees in the parkway, you need to leave the right of way issue out of it, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. As a California County Surveyor part of my job is to accept offers of dedication, and abandon the County's interest in rights of way. I work with our County Counsel in doing these things. Please believe me when I say that you do not understand this issues as well as you think that you do.
Barry G, post: 404640, member: 12296 wrote: We do have the same name, not the same temperament, lol. Im more like Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!
At least you drive a Jag, right?
Edward Reading, post: 404641, member: 132 wrote: It's not a "County Housing tract map" It is a Tract Map prepared by the subdivider's Surveyor. The County's only part of it is to approve it and in this case accept the offer of dedication. It is in no way a County map. You really need to understand that. It was prepared by a private Surveyor, for a private subdivider on private property.
If indeed, the key issue is who owns the parkway trees in the parkway, you need to leave the right of way issue out of it, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. As a California County Surveyor part of my job is to accept offers of dedication, and abandon the County's interest in rights of way. I work with our County Counsel in doing these things. Please believe me when I say that you do not understand this issues as well as you think that you do.
I understand. Is there a different Map? I went to the County and this is all they had.
When the County accepts the dedication, what is this entail? What is it responsible to maintain in that housing tract, including the public rights of ways (easement area), from your understanding? I will focus on the ownership of parkway trees and roots, government duties to maintain their property. Where you work, who is responsible to maintain the public dedicated rights of ways in housing tracts? Are you a general law or charter city? In Ventura, all cities maintain public sidewalks and parkway trees, no charge to residence. Its only the unincorporated areas that get the shaft.
Dave Karoly, post: 404642, member: 94 wrote: At least you drive a Jag, right?
I drive a Honda Accord, not as wealthy as the other Barry. Finance/Accounting did not pay as well as buying and selling units.
I spend a majority of my money on helping my older son. Believe me, this County issue is a distraction.
Barry G, post: 404645, member: 12296 wrote: I understand. Is there a different Map? I went to the County and this is all they had.
When the County accepts the dedication, what is this entail? What is it responsible to maintain in that housing tract, including the public rights of ways (easement area), from your understanding? I will focus on the ownership of parkway trees and roots, government duties to maintain their property. Where you work, who is responsible to maintain the public dedicated rights of ways in housing tracts? Are you a general law or charter city? In Ventura, all cities maintain public sidewalks and parkway trees, no charge to residence. Its only the unincorporated areas that get the shaft.
Taxes in cities are higher, so take your pick.
Barry G, post: 404646, member: 12296 wrote: I drive a Honda Accord, not as wealthy as the other Barry. Finance/Accounting did not pay as well as buying and selling units.
I spend a majority of my money on helping my older son. Believe me, this County issue is a distraction.
I've been there. Gave them a car, paid to repair it first (age related stuff) so my Grandson has a safe car to ride in. Spent money on the other kid's car to balance that out although she said we didn't have to. They lived here for 18 months, small house, that was tough except it was great having the boy for his first 13 months.
There is no place to hide from taxes, lol. Public/Private, its better to live in Alaska, wont have to worry about sidewalks and parkway tree,
The bears are easier to deal with than County Counsel. They are friendlier, and in my county, smarter.
Dave Karoly, post: 404649, member: 94 wrote: I've been there. Gave them a car, paid to repair it first (age related stuff) so my Grandson has a safe car to ride in. Spent money on the other kid's car to balance that out although she said we didn't have to. They lived here for 18 months, small house, that was tough except it was great having the boy for his first 13 months.
At least, I dont have to worry about my older son driving. I take him here and there, so he is safe. I gave my younger son my car, that I had cared for, for 15 years, my baby, 300K miles and running great. He took it out, made a left turn in front of my house, went in front of another Honda, totaled. I aged 10 years.
Barry G, post: 404651, member: 12296 wrote: At least, I dont have to worry about my older son driving. I take him here and there, so he is safe. I gave my younger son my car, that I had cared for, for 15 years, my baby, 300K miles and running great. He took it out, made a left turn in front of my house, went in front of another Honda, totaled. I aged 10 years.
I got lucky on that...kid pulls out turning left onto major street in front of another car which hit far enough back that the car is still drive-able. It broke the tail light lens, they found a cheap one somewhere and I managed to beat the fender out enough to get it installed.
