The dimensions shown on a filed subdivision map are "net". That is, exclusive of the public encumbrance known as the right of way. County tax assessors do not collect taxes on the right of way due to its lack of value for private purposes. However, as an incorporeal right, it may be treated as a shared responsibility to the immediately adjacent landowners for individual benefit.
If you are considering bringing an action in equity to the Superior Court of appropriate jurisdiction, your attorney will need to research the specifics for your development.
Local agencies are the administrators of this public trust and can, under proper procedural process, modify elements of that public liability by applying localized control. This generally is accomplished under the aegis of land planning and an adopted Plan, both general and specific, where policies of general fund versus district wide assessments are considered.
This is the oversight that you would be challenging, so follow the public hearing minutes on the subject by the Board of Supervisors.
Warren Smith, post: 402254, member: 9900 wrote: The dimensions shown on a filed subdivision map are "net". That is, exclusive of the public encumbrance known as the right of way. County tax assessors do not collect taxes on the right of way due to its lack of value for private purposes. However, as an incorporeal right, it may be treated as a shared responsibility to the immediately adjacent landowners for individual benefit.
If you are considering bringing an action in equity to the Superior Court of appropriate jurisdiction, your attorney will need to research the specifics for your development.
Local agencies are the administrators of this public trust and can, under proper procedural process, modify elements of that public liability by applying localized control. This generally is accomplished under the aegis of land planning and an adopted Plan, both general and specific, where policies of general fund versus district wide assessments are considered.
This is the oversight that you would be challenging, so follow the public hearing minutes on the subject by the Board of Supervisors.
I have asked the County Counsel to answer my questions regarding California Streets and Highways Codes, California Codes, Court Cases to prove that they have the authority to approve a dedication to maintain the public right of ways in 1961, then transfer this duty to adjacent property owners. As a General law county, they are responsible to follow the California Constitution, not subvert it. I did have a meeting with County Counsel, as they refused to answer any of my questions in letters, so we had a meeting. After asking 4 simple questions, County Counsel stood up, stated "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself". He could not provide one current Streets and Highways Code after the sign dedication nor California Case law that gives them this authorization. A Board Supervisor can sign an Ordinance that states the milk come from a hen. It does not have to be legal or truthful. The only way to remove an illegal ordinance is in front of a State Superior Court Judge, who knows State law. I have tried to handle this politically, with no success. Court is the only option, or just pay the sidewalk repair and parkway tree removal.
Barry,
You need to look outside of the Streets and Highways Code. The sections of the Government Code preceding the Subdivision Map Act deal with land use and planning and authorize the adoption of a General Plan by local agencies. This contains various elements such as traffic circulation, landscaping, utilities, pedestrian and bicycling, and other activities within public rights of way.
Gas tax contributes to vehicular infrastructure (striping, signals, asphalt repair, etc.). Other funding sources address concurrent uses, such as safe routes to schools -impacting sidewalks, ADA compliance, landscape maintenance districts and the like.
Your concern is targeted toward a subset of allowable joint use within a public encumbrance. Don't limit your inquiry to the mere creation of that trust - it is a dynamic body of law with respect to the implementation of public resources.
Warren Smith, post: 402254, member: 9900 wrote: The dimensions shown on a filed subdivision map are "net". That is, exclusive of the public encumbrance known as the right of way. County tax assessors do not collect taxes on the right of way due to its lack of value for private purposes. However, as an incorporeal right, it may be treated as a shared responsibility to the immediately adjacent landowners for individual benefit.
If you are considering bringing an action in equity to the Superior Court of appropriate jurisdiction, your attorney will need to research the specifics for your development.
Local agencies are the administrators of this public trust and can, under proper procedural process, modify elements of that public liability by applying localized control. This generally is accomplished under the aegis of land planning and an adopted Plan, both general and specific, where policies of general fund versus district wide assessments are considered.
This is the oversight that you would be challenging, so follow the public hearing minutes on the subject by the Board of Supervisors.
Who owns the actual street in a housing tract? Its a public, not private road, maintained by the Municipality with tax dollars. So I can assume this is public property, not private ownership. Therefore, why is their a government easement on property that is public, not private? Utilities have an easement in my backyard, which is logical, which allows them to read my meter. Public property is owned by all of us, paid in gas taxes for maintenance. Then why is an easement created, not on private property, but public property, owned by the government, not an individual property owner? I cant own something that is not on my property line, that is not my property, not responsible to maintain it. Do you see my confusion?
Who owns the actual street in a housing tract? You and your neighbors own the fee, subject to the street. The "street" is a public easement in which the public makes improvements for the benefit of all.
Its a public, not private road, maintained by the Municipality with tax dollars. Except for sidewalk maintenance (according to Streets & Highways Code 5610)
5610.
The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto.
So I can assume this is public property, not private ownership. No. Public right of way/easement over private property.
Are you Francis H?
BajaOR, post: 402263, member: 9139 wrote: Who owns the actual street in a housing tract? You and your neighbors own the fee, subject to the street. The "street" is a public easement in which the public makes improvements for the benefit of all.
Its a public, not private road, maintained by the Municipality with tax dollars. Except for sidewalk maintenance (according to Streets & Highways Code 5610)
5610.
The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto.So I can assume this is public property, not private ownership. No. Public right of way/easement over private property.
Are you Francis H?
With all due respect, I individually do not own a public street, we the people own the public street, subject to an easement. Same conclusion with a public library, park, schools, etc. We pay taxes for a public library, park, school, where the government maintains through taxes. Streets and highways Code 510 was performed in 1911, approved by State Legislators for towns with a business, has nothing to do with public residential housing in California, not started till 1945. This intent was written to pay off a Municipality in a town who posted a bond, to pay for the repair of the sidewalk in front of an establishment (place of business). Please look up Streets and Highways Code 941a and 1806, written in 1955 and 1957. This relates to dedications in housing tracts. Please read Miller and Starr, that states that once a Municipality accepts the dedication of property, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain the public rights of ways. If they fail to perform this function and someone is injured, the Municipality is accountable, not the adjacent property owner. My General law Municipality created an Ordinance, transferring all liability of injuries to pedestrians to adjacent property owners. Its not possible, since even under 5600, with owe no duty to a pedestrian for injuries (Williams vs Foster, Shaefer vs Lenanhan, Anderson vs Contreas, etc).
If a Municipality has their ordinance that states, the government owns everything on the parkway in a housing tract. Lets say the parkway tree root destroy the public sidewalk. Who responsible to maintain the parkway trees, if the ordinance states its the governments? The dedication states its the government. The Streets and Highways Code state its the government. Public property states its the government. In Jones vs Deeter 1984, Long Beach was responsible to maintain the parkway trees and their roots. When the roots destroyed the public sidewalks, an injury happened, the courts did not find the adjacent property owner responsible, Long Beach was responsible. The courts rules that its not the adjacent properties fault the parkway tree roots made the public sidewalks dangerous, therefore no liability. But what about 5610? Judge dismissed it. Judge agrees that parkway trees are the responsibility for the Municipality to maintain, as per California Constitution. See SHC 22060. That is why this case is so interesting. Can a Municipality use 5600-5630 in a housing tract, not created till 1945? Can it ignore current SHC 941a and 1806? Can it ignore County Ordinances. Can a Municipality collect taxes for maintenance from Sacramento for right of ways, sign a dedication, then transfer all its government responsiblities to an individual property owner, with no consideration?
While many people have stated it, you don't seem to be accepting the concept that in most cases, the adjacent land owner owns to the centerline of the ROW and the public has an easement over that property.
BajaOR, post: 402263, member: 9139 wrote: Are you Francis H?
Google says no.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/14/local/me-19367
http://www.theacorn.com/news/2014-01-02/Front_Page/Property_owners_dig_in_for_sidewalk_repairs.html
Barry G, post: 402288, member: 12296 wrote: With all due respect, I individually do not own a public street, we the people own the public street, subject to an easement....
You ask for information from experts, then you argue with them. Asserting something ad nauseam doesn't make it true. Good luck with your litigation. I'm out.
Edward Reading, post: 402290, member: 132 wrote: While many people have stated it, you don't seem to be accepting the concept that in most cases, the adjacent land owner owns to the centerline of the ROW and the public has an easement over that property.
With all due respect, please explain the property map dimensions going 6" before the public right of way. If the developer and the land surveyor wanted the adjacent property owner to own out to the centerline, put the dimensions out to the centerline, put in the deed, then it becomes private property, the public places an easement over that property to allow ingress and egress. There is no need for adjacent property owners to pay taxes for this maintenance, since we individually own this land. Then all public streets need to change to private streets, since the we the individual own public property. There is no need for the Municipality to accept a dedication of the private right of ways in housing tracts, since its private property, not public property. Section 831, written in 1872 needs to change, "An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the [152 Cal. App. 3d 802] contrary may be shown." But the contrary may be shown is explained through a property map needs to be ignored. We can pay taxes for the government to maintain this property, then pay when this property is our of repair, double taxation for the same repair is Constitutional. Like car insurance. I pay car insurance to an Insurance Company for my private property car. If I get into an accident, the Insurance Company can have me pay for the damages. So charge me monthly for insurance, then when their damages, charge me for the damages, correct? This does not work this way. Now apply this same principal to public streets, sidewalks and parkway trees. So we pay taxes for this maintenance to the government, then pay again when this property is out of repair. That is illogical, with all due respect.
James Fleming, post: 402291, member: 136 wrote: Google says no.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/14/local/me-19367
http://www.theacorn.com/news/2014-01-02/Front_Page/Property_owners_dig_in_for_sidewalk_repairs.html
I am in these articles, acorn and the vcstar. This is going to court. Please read Willits vs Los Angeles 2010, in the LA Times, 1.4B ADA Lawsuit for Charter City of Los Angeles to pay out of their transportation budget to public sidewalks and parkway trees in housing tracts, as well a business in towns. How can this decision stand? I thought 5600-5630 was the rule? Why did the Judge not rule for Charter City of LA?
Mark Mayer, post: 402293, member: 424 wrote: You ask for information from experts, then you argue with them. Asserting something ad nauseam doesn't make it true. Good luck with your litigation. I'm out.
With all due respect, this is a discussion. There are several issues, who owns the public rights of ways and who is responsible to maintain them, in a general law housing tract in California. What has been stated is that an individual owns the fee out to the middle of the street. That is countered to California Code 831, written in 1872 "but the [152 Cal. App. 3d 802] contrary may be shown". This is performed with the dimensions in a property map. Is this incorrect, if so, please explain the words "but the contrary may be shown". Do we individually own fee and title to the middle of the street? That is defined as absolute ownership. Then, based on logic, this is private property, since I own it, not public property, an easement is created to allow engress and ingress, flow of traffic. So why do I pay taxes to the government for maintenance of my private own property? Again, Im asking questions, not arguing. How can this Municipality charge me weekly taxes for this repair, then when its out of repair, charge me again for this same repair? Our State Controller sent me a letter, stating that gas taxes collected go to the transportation budgets of all Counties in California, earmarked for the private right of ways, including public sidewalks and parkway tree maintenance.
Barry G, post: 402297, member: 12296 wrote: With all due respect, this is a discussion. There are several issues, who owns the public rights of ways and who is responsible to maintain them, in a general law housing tract in California. What has been stated is that an individual owns the fee out to the middle of the street. That is countered to California Code 831, written in 1872 "but the [152 Cal. App. 3d 802] contrary may be shown". This is performed with the dimensions in a property map. Is this incorrect, if so, please explain the words "but the contrary may be shown". Do we individually own fee and title to the middle of the street? That is defined as absolute ownership. Then, based on logic, this is private property, since I own it, not public property, an easement is created to allow engress and ingress, flow of traffic. So why do I pay taxes to the government for maintenance of my private own property? Again, Im asking questions, not arguing. How can this Municipality charge me weekly taxes for this repair, then when its out of repair, charge me again for this same repair? Our State Controller sent me a letter, stating that gas taxes collected go to the transportation budgets of all Counties in California, earmarked for the private right of ways, including public sidewalks and parkway tree maintenance.
Miller and Starr Calif Real Estate takes up about 6' of shelf space at the law library so it would be helpful to have a volume and section citation and cites for your cases too.
Barry G, post: 402297, member: 12296 wrote: With all due respect, this is a discussion. There are several issues, who owns the public rights of ways and who is responsible to maintain them, in a general law housing tract in California. What has been stated is that an individual owns the fee out to the middle of the street. That is countered to California Code 831, written in 1872 "but the [152 Cal. App. 3d 802] contrary may be shown". This is performed with the dimensions in a property map. Is this incorrect, if so, please explain the words "but the contrary may be shown". Do we individually own fee and title to the middle of the street? That is defined as absolute ownership. Then, based on logic, this is private property, since I own it, not public property, an easement is created to allow engress and ingress, flow of traffic. So why do I pay taxes to the government for maintenance of my private own property? Again, Im asking questions, not arguing. How can this Municipality charge me weekly taxes for this repair, then when its out of repair, charge me again for this same repair? Our State Controller sent me a letter, stating that gas taxes collected go to the transportation budgets of all Counties in California, earmarked for the private right of ways, including public sidewalks and parkway tree maintenance.
Dimensions on a map do not overcome the presumption.
An example of the contrary being shown is where the street came out of a separate title such as on the margin of a subdivision.
Dave Karoly, post: 402307, member: 94 wrote: Miller and Starr Calif Real Estate takes up about 6' of shelf space at the law library so it would be helpful to have a volume and section citation and cites for your cases too.
Thank you. Here is what I presented to the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel. Miller and Starr, California Real Estate 2D, KB 167 M5: After the roads and streets have been accepted for dedication and formally accepted as a part of the public road system, the city or county assumes the affirmative duty of maintenance. 79 All of the property owners abutting the street have a right of ingress and egress across the dedicated streets, 80 and they have a right to expect that their access will be cared for. If the city of country fails to maintain and repair the streets after due noting, and the abutting property owner loses access to his property as a result, the private property owner is entitled to recover the damages that result from his loss of access. 81 Also, if it fails to properly maintain the dedicated property, the city or county will be liable for any injuries incurred as a proximate result of a defective condition. 82.
County Counsels and Board of Supervisors answer to this above is crickets. When a Board of Supervisors accepts a dedication of the right of ways in a housing tract, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain that property. They have no legal authority to transfer this duty to adjacent property owners, using 1911 Improvement Act 5600-5630 as their authority. They signed the dedication in 1961, did maintain this property for 25-30 years, then stopped. There are no future SHC after 1961 that allows them to transfer their own dedicated property to private property owners, while collecting taxes for this repair. Is this not clear?
Dave Karoly, post: 402309, member: 94 wrote: Dimensions on a map do not overcome the presumption.
An example of the contrary being shown is where the street came out of a separate title such as on the margin of a subdivision.
Just trying to understand this, with due respect. No Judge that I know would ever claim that dimensions on a property dont define property. Many people go to court, to determine, based on their property dimensions who owns what, on what property. I don't know anyone claiming that dimensions on a map dont define private or public property. That blows my mind. Ca Code 831 was written in 1872. What property was around in 1872, yes, farms and towns, no residential properties. The intent of this Code has nothing to do with residential properties, was for towns and farms. In court, the Judge defines property ownership with maps, not assumptions or presumptions. Where my property starts and ends is defined by dimensions in a property map, written in my deed, not based on anything else.
Barry G, post: 402322, member: 12296 wrote: Just trying to understand this, with due respect. No Judge that I know would ever claim that dimensions on a property dont define property. Many people go to court, to determine, based on their property dimensions who owns what, on what property. I don't know anyone claiming that dimensions on a map dont define private or public property. That blows my mind. Ca Code 831 was written in 1872. What property was around in 1872, yes, farms and towns, no residential properties. The intent of this Code has nothing to do with residential properties, was for towns and farms. In court, the Judge defines property ownership with maps, not assumptions or presumptions. Where my property starts and ends is defined by dimensions in a property map, written in my deed, not based on anything else.
Ownership to the center is so well settled in California law that any Superior Court Judge that reverses the presumption of ownership to the center of the road is risking a severe rebuke in the Appellate Court. It is universal that dimensions are a lower class of evidence than the physical monument itself, in this case the street.
I agree that the agency should maintain the sidewalks but whether that finds support in current law is problematic at best.
With all due respect, this is not a discussion, this is many experts telling you something and you not listening. This feels very reminiscent to another recent thread.:) You claimed to have come here seeking information, you would do well to listen to the two California County Surveyors and another extremely well respected California State Surveyor. Just a thought.
Dave Karoly, post: 402325, member: 94 wrote: Ownership to the center is so well settled in California law that any Superior Court Judge that reverses the presumption of ownership to the center of the road is risking a severe rebuke in the Appellate Court. It is universal that dimensions are a lower class of evidence than the physical monument itself, in this case the street.
I agree that the agency should maintain the sidewalks but whether that finds support in current law is problematic at best.
The real question is not with ownership, but after a General Municipality signs a dedication of property and maintains the public right of ways for 25 years, can it create an Ordinance transferring this duty and liability to the adjacent property owner? California Streets and Highways Codes define the authority of a General law County. If my General law County can find a SHC after it signed this dedication of rights of ways (1961) in my housing tracts, allowing it to transfer this to adjacent property owners, I would love to see it. There is no Streets and Highways code giving them this authority, so they revert back to 1911, ignoring their own dedication of property approval, ignoring current California Streets and Highways Code 941a and 1806, 2206. If the 1911 Improvement Act SHC 5600-5630 is their authority, why did they maintain this property for 25 years, after 1961? Because they signed the dedication of property to maintain it, also new SHC 941 and 1806 (Dedications of property in 1955 and 57) force them to maintain this property. These SHC were written specifically for dedications in housing tracts, starting from 1955 forward. County Counsels position on these issues is crickets, they have no counter argument.
I think your quest is quixotic, but I wish you the best with it. I'm facing a similar situation in which the city is considering making (or possibly already has declared) the homeowners responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks. I'm not really anxious to bear the cost of replacing the cracked sidewalk in front of my house.