Warren Smith, post: 404925, member: 9900 wrote: As to General Fund monies being expended on sidewalk repair, consider Civil Code section 841 (attached).
It (recently enacted) speaks to fences along common property lines between adjacent private owners, and the shared responsibility to construct and maintain - much like the original ones built in your subdivision prior to home sales. What is pertinent are the provisions for one party desiring a material and type that is inordinately ornate. There is recognition that equity requires a proportionate share according to quality and aesthetics beyond a minimum.
As a corollary, the sidewalks in your subdivision are not the norm for County residents in rural settings. The Ordinance seeks to allocate costs directly to those adjacent landowners who derive the benefit, rather than to far-flung taxpayers. Your cause of action is to focus on the proximate cause of damage to be other than normal wear and tear of those sidewalks.
Jurisdiction of the right of way in which the sidewalks are placed is not a prime concern. It is an element - one of several that must be presented - in order to reach the issue in play.
I agree with Civil Code Section 841. Its the fence between two private property owners, each share in the fence. This includes a wall, that separates both private property owners home. I believe, that if a private property owner plants trees, next to this fence or wall, and the roots grow under the ground, destroying the wall, that person should be responsible to repair the fence or wall. Private property tree roots are the responsibility of the private party to maintain. They cant legally subdelegate this liability, 100% to Property owner B, who has no trees, did not cause the damage to the fence or wall. That is my argument in my case, the parkway trees, owned by the County by Ordinance, responsible to maintain the tree roots, destroyed the sidewalks. Its the same case. My County allocated full responsibility and liability to (fix the fence) while their tree, owned by them, destroy the wall. So the County charges me for the removal of their tree, and 100% replacement cost of the fence. They assume no responsibility or liability of their tree or their wall, subdelgate it to me, property owner B, holding me liable for any damages from the wall. That is a great example, how this County violated its Duty of Maintenance, illegally transferred liability on its property to me, Im 100% liable for their negligence of notmaintaining their parkway tree root, on their property.
Andy Nold, post: 404932, member: 7 wrote: You couldn't pay me to live in an HOA property.
Agreed.
Bear in mind that the planted trees are also an aesthetic part of your neighborhood, and not what is part of the usual rural development. The collective maintenance costs are normally allocated locally so as not to improperly burden the remainder of County taxpayers.
You are fighting an invoice for repair that you would rather share with others outside your subdivision. This equates to your willingness to pay a proportionate share - albeit not very much - of maintenance of equestrian paths (for example) in the Ojai and Moorpark areas as well, I take it.
Warren Smith, post: 404939, member: 9900 wrote: Bear in mind that the planted trees are also an aesthetic part of your neighborhood, and not what is part of the usual rural development. The collective maintenance costs are normally allocated locally so as not to improperly burden the remainder of County taxpayers.
You are fighting an invoice for repair that you would rather share with others outside your subdivision. This equates to your willingness to pay a proportionate share - albeit not very much - of maintenance of equestrian paths (for example) in the Ojai and Moorpark areas as well, I take it.
The 6 million dollar man was from Ojai!
Can they create a sidewalk maintenance district? I believe under Prop. 218 it would require 50.5% of the weighted vote or 2/3rds vote overall.
Here's another nugget from the Civil Code - section 802 (attached).
The fact that it was enacted in 1872 and not amended or repealed is significant.
Warren Smith, post: 404939, member: 9900 wrote: Bear in mind that the planted trees are also an aesthetic part of your neighborhood, and not what is part of the usual rural development. The collective maintenance costs are normally allocated locally so as not to improperly burden the remainder of County taxpayers.
You are fighting an invoice for repair that you would rather share with others outside your subdivision. This equates to your willingness to pay a proportionate share - albeit not very much - of maintenance of equestrian paths (for example) in the Ojai and Moorpark areas as well, I take it.
The planted trees are a part of this housing tract, as well as the Cities of Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Ojai, Ventura, Camarillo, etc. There is no different regarding my house tract and the other house tracts. We pay the same tax rates. My property tax is higher than most cities above. We all pay a collective maintenance costs in California. Remember, the Cities do this maintenance of trees and sidewalks, paid for by the City, not the unincorporated areas of the County, where each city resides. Monies for this repair comes from Ventura County, to the cities, for this maintenance. The County keeps part of this money, in the transportation funds, earmarked for the rights of ways, refuses to use this moneh for this purpose. They have a 50M reserve in transportation funds, collecting dust. That is an unfair burden to 50% of this county. Why should the cities perform this work, County refuses? There is only one State law, Cities follow, County ignores. This is how I look at this. If the County had done its job on its parkway trees, root barriers, the parkway trees would not be removed, at my expense, the sidewalks would not be replaced, due the parkway roots destroying this area. This Counties negligence is the issue, not tax dollars. If it property maintain their parkway trees, this would never be an issue. I would still have nice parkway trees, green grass and a perfect sidewalk, with no issues. This government messed up, breach of duty, and its wants me and my community accountable for its failures. The paths in Ojai and Moorpark are maintained by the City, paid for by the Cities, no issues with Municipality property destroying the path. Cities are not negligent, they maintain the public right of ways, take out trees and replace sidewalks, in their City budgets, paid for by taxpayers. This County is negligent, against proper property care of their own property, they should be accountable. No Ordinance is allowed to transfer their beach of duties to maintain their own property.
I have been trying to alert you to the difference between Municipal Corporations (Cities) and unincorporated territory - which is administered by a political subdivision of the State (the County). The land use policies are different, as are duties of care and the ability to allocate cost.
Cities are composed of a collection of residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas, and related community open spaces. Counties have a more disparate range of land use, agricultural, estate type residential communities, and - like yours - more densely designed neighborhoods. This plays a large part in how budgets and policies are developed for shared responsibilities for maintenance.
Warren Smith, post: 404967, member: 9900 wrote: I have been trying to alert you to the difference between Municipal Corporations (Cities) and unincorporated territory - which is administered by a political subdivision of the State (the County). The land use policies are different, as are duties of care and the ability to allocate cost.
Cities are composed of a collection of residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas, and related community open spaces. Counties have a more disparate range of land use, agricultural, estate type residential communities, and - like yours - more densely designed neighborhoods. This plays a large part in how budgets and policies are developed for shared responsibilities for maintenance.
Thank you. I would love to have my Community a part of Thousand Oaks, tried 25 years ago to incorporate. I was fought my Contractors in this area, who stated that its so much easier to get a permit through Ventura County, TO is a pain. Many others did not care, majority of renters did not care.The Counties position in 1990's, was that they did not have the transportation budgets in their budgets to fund for the unincorporated areas sidewalk repair and parkway tree removal. In 2006, they have plenty of funds, placed in reserve. So their new excuse is that they dont have to repair this area, due to SHC 5600-5630. So its not a funding issue, they have 50M in reserve. They could fix all the sidewalks and replace their parkway trees in the Unincorporated areas, they choice not to do it, transfer this work and liability to the residents in the unincorporated, make them pay twice for this maintenance, property they neglected to maintain. The political solution is to get new Board of Supervisors in Ventura County. That day will happen when pigs fly, majority people here dont care, only care about redistributing others wealth.
half bubble, post: 404870, member: 175 wrote: There is more unwritten law than written law. There is also the difference between "lawful" and "legal", which is to say the difference between law and legislation. While we are at it, there are both "illegal laws" and "unlawful legislation". Part of Barry's situation involves an ordinance that might be legal and might not be lawful ... meaning, various legislations and ordinances passed by legislatures and county commissions might be "legal" in the sense that they were legislated, yet "unlawful" because they are in conflict with common law principles of land title...
"Fee" is short for "fealty": "Fee title" then is short for "fealty title", which means that you have title to the property as long as you maintain fealty to the liege lord whose land you are on. Maintaining fealty means obeying the liege lord's rules. In the modern day context, the liege lord is the county or city your property is in, and the modern day liege lord's rules are the county or city ordinances. "Liege" and "lien" are related, more research for me to do there.
Way back when the Founding Fathers were fomenting rebellion, they didn't want just another King, they wanted to give every American a slice of sovereignty. They knew that according to the Law of Nations, sovereignty could not be parceled out in that way, so they created a trust to hold the sovereignty for the benefit of all Americans, innumerable and yet unborn (a requirement in the Statute of Charities, or maybe the Statute of Uses, all English Common Law stuff). All that stuff flows to us today via our public trust system and our state, county, and city municipal corporations. It's why I say you don't really "own" any of it, the parcel itself, the underlying fee-to-the-middle, not even your toothbrush. It's held in trust for you.
The average citizen doesn't like this abstraction though, so we have been conditioned by colloquialisms to believe we own things and places. People work harder when they think they own what they "own". It's why America has been an economic powerhouse and such a destination for people from other political systems. It's also why we have a class system of bankers and attorneys managing those various public trusts, and why when the average citizen runs afoul of ordinances they did not know they were subject to, they feel that they are being trampled upon and that the county and the courts are crooked.
The 14th Amendment and the New Deal and more recently, "single cause of action" and the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code by every state in the Union, have slowly changed our Common Law rights into legislated privileges (a word that looks a lot like "private lieges"). and obligations-by-ordinance. In particular the 1938 Erie Railroad case where the Supreme Court declared "there is no general federal Common Law."
Starting with case law is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We study case law in hopes of finding a precedent that is advantageous for our situation, and it's like finding a needle in a haystack and hoping it fits our brand of sewing machine. Much better to look for a way to use contract law, or maxims of law, or gain access to the remnants of common law. Some people study enough case law to begin to see hints of the common law principles and the maxims behind the cases. I will opine that this is a very inefficient way to learn about law, especially for surveyors or landowners. Hope this helps.
Underlying fee legal definition is different that fee simple, or fee title, etc? I remember asking the County this questions, who actually owns the asphalt roads, parkway trees and cement sidewalk, also who own the land underneath. Remember, the utility pole on property, light pole and meters are owned by the Utility, even though its on my private property. Someone from the County told me that I own the ground underneath, do not own the actual public street and cement sidewalks. That would explain why they wrote an Ordinance, stating that they own everything planted on the parkway. I can own the underlying fee, the land and they can own the parkway tree. Do I have this correct? Its a public road, parkway and sidewalk, part of the rights of ways. Why is this important? Ownership is important, possession, control, duties, responsibilities and liabilities all associated with ownership. If I own it, Im responsible. If we own it, we are responsible to maintain it through taxes. The Dedication required the County to maintain the easement areas, is signed up to maintain, unless it abandons the street. If it states that I own the underlying fee, and the County states in an Ordinance that they own everything on the parkway, who officially owns the actual Parkway tree and roots? If its the County, can they assign an individual to maintain government property, even though SHC 22060 requires the board to maintain public parkway trees? If the trees cause a dangerous sitution or disease, by State Law, its the Counties duty, not adjacent property owners. Who is responsible to maintain the roots of this tree?
Barry G, post: 405044, member: 12296 wrote: Underlying fee legal definition is different that fee simple, or fee title, etc? I remember asking the County this questions, who actually owns the asphalt roads, parkway trees and cement sidewalk, also who own the land underneath. Remember, the utility pole on property, light pole and meters are owned by the Utility, even though its on my private property. Someone from the County told me that I own the ground underneath, do not own the actual public street and cement sidewalks. That would explain why they wrote an Ordinance, stating that they own everything planted on the parkway. I can own the underlying fee, the land and they can own the parkway tree. Do I have this correct? Its a public road, parkway and sidewalk, part of the rights of ways. Why is this important? Ownership is important, possession, control, duties, responsibilities and liabilities all associated with ownership. If I own it, Im responsible. If we own it, we are responsible to maintain it through taxes. The Dedication required the County to maintain the easement areas, is signed up to maintain, unless it abandons the street. If it states that I own the underlying fee, and the County states in an Ordinance that they own everything on the parkway, who officially owns the actual Parkway tree and roots? If its the County, can they assign an individual to maintain government property, even though SHC 22060 requires the board to maintain public parkway trees? If the trees cause a dangerous sitution or disease, by State Law, its the Counties duty, not adjacent property owners. Who is responsible to maintain the roots of this tree?
I've never seen a definition for "underlying fee" I think we use that term in the context of land that has an easement on it. The roadway is like an easement whether you actually call it that or not. (ie: there are licenses and other methods of legal use of someone else's land. Your situation is in the form of a "dedication for public right of way" or something like that which either is a easement or another instrument that looks like an easement) It has a limited purpose and no one has a right to defeat that purpose unless an abandonment process takes place. Even if an abandonment takes place, it can't happen if it landlocks any owners from accessing their property.
I would tend to agree with you that the asphalt, sidewalks and other improvements are "owned" by the public (who are the beneficiaries of the public right of way). I think that is your strongest case; about the public trees (that you probably aren't allowed to cut down) caused the sidewalk damage. Arguing the fee-title ownership I think is fruitless. Of course I'm no lawyer, and most of us on this site aren't. So your legal arguments are your own. Most of us are more knowledgeable about boundary than who is responsible for sidewalk maintenance and damage.
Barry G, post: 404560, member: 12296 wrote: Please read this below:
"While Texas courts have held that a metes and bounds description excluding a small strip of land was sufficient to overcome the strips and gores presumption on account that it evidenced the GrantorÛªs plain and deliberate intent to not convey the strip, there is a strong argument that a court would interpret a blanket reservation of strips and gores adjoining the land conveyed as not sufficiently plain and specific to overcome the presumption.For the landowner that wishes to reserve a small strip or strips of land adjacent to the lands conveyed, they should ensure that that the metes and bounds description of the lands conveyed is unambiguous, in that it does not encroach upon the strip to be reserved (which would plainly and specifically evidence an intent to not convey said strip). Alternatively, a landowner could provide a metes and bounds description for the strip intended to be reserved from the conveyance when making the reservation in the deed."
This is quite clear to me, for use in Texas. Metes and bounds is what I'm using, based on the dimensions in my property map. If the Grantor wanted to convey the strip, it would have done so in the housing map dimensions, to be clear. That intent would be to place the property dimensions starting in the middle of the street, or starting at the curb, or starting before the parkway. In that case, its clear the intent, the adjacent property owner, by metes and bounds, to where the property starts. My property line starts 6" before the public sidewalk, therefore, no intent by grantor for me to own the sidewalk, parkway, out to the middle of the street.
Barry you have a lot description...
Tom Adams, post: 405049, member: 7285 wrote: I've never seen a definition for "underlying fee" I think we use that term in the context of land that has an easement on it. The roadway is like an easement whether you actually call it that or not. (ie: there are licenses and other methods of legal use of someone else's land. Your situation is in the form of a "dedication for public right of way" or something like that which either is a easement or another instrument that looks like an easement) It has a limited purpose and no one has a right to defeat that purpose unless an abandonment process takes place. Even if an abandonment takes place, it can't happen if it landlocks any owners from accessing their property.
I would tend to agree with you that the asphalt, sidewalks and other improvements are "owned" by the public (who are the beneficiaries of the public right of way). I think that is your strongest case; about the public trees (that you probably aren't allowed to cut down) caused the sidewalk damage. Arguing the fee-title ownership I think is fruitless. Of course I'm no lawyer, and most of us on this site aren't. So your legal arguments are your own. Most of us are more knowledgeable about boundary than who is responsible for sidewalk maintenance and damage.
When the dedication is approved, the easement is created, the public road system is approved for public use. What is confusing is that when the Municipality abandons the streets, the underlying fee goes back to the adjacent property owner, the easement
imaudigger, post: 405052, member: 7286 wrote: Barry you have a lot description...
The lot description would be in the deed, which identifies the Subdivision Tract Map, where the dimensions of my property start 6" before the public sidewalk. Im trying to determine ownership and responsibility. If the County owns the parkway tree, by Ordinance, by I own the underlying fee to the middle of the street, who owns the parkway tree? Is it by Ordinance? Its clear by their intention in an Ordinance. If that is the case, then can a Municipality, that owns parkway trees, assign individual maintenance to adjacent property owners, including root damage to sidewalks. With ownership, comes responsibility and liability. The underlying fee is an issue in 1872, the local Ordinance was 1968. Who owns the parkway trees? County has control over the land, through an easement. Owner cant maintain that tree, without permit from the county. It can cut or trim the roots, it has no authority (County tree), can be held liable if the tree is destroyed. Same goes for private property tree roots. If you dont own it, you cant cut the roots. So how can an adjacent property owner be responsible to maintain a public parkway tree and roots? Where is the responsibility of the County permit office, to not approve large parkway trees on a 4' parkway? They have no liability for making bad decisions? Do they have an obligation to protect the sidewalks from damages from the parkway tree roots, ie root barriers, trimming back the roots, etc? That is why ownership is important. If its a private tree, individual is responsible. If its a public tree, public is responsible.
Barry G, post: 405044, member: 12296 wrote: Underlying fee legal definition is different that fee simple, or fee title, etc? I remember asking the County this questions, who actually owns the asphalt roads, parkway trees and cement sidewalk, also who own the land underneath. Remember, the utility pole on property, light pole and meters are owned by the Utility, even though its on my private property. Someone from the County told me that I own the ground underneath, do not own the actual public street and cement sidewalks. That would explain why they wrote an Ordinance, stating that they own everything planted on the parkway. I can own the underlying fee, the land and they can own the parkway tree. Do I have this correct? Its a public road, parkway and sidewalk, part of the rights of ways. Why is this important? Ownership is important, possession, control, duties, responsibilities and liabilities all associated with ownership. If I own it, Im responsible. If we own it, we are responsible to maintain it through taxes. The Dedication required the County to maintain the easement areas, is signed up to maintain, unless it abandons the street. If it states that I own the underlying fee, and the County states in an Ordinance that they own everything on the parkway, who officially owns the actual Parkway tree and roots? If its the County, can they assign an individual to maintain government property, even though SHC 22060 requires the board to maintain public parkway trees? If the trees cause a dangerous sitution or disease, by State Law, its the Counties duty, not adjacent property owners. Who is responsible to maintain the roots of this tree?
Yes, you are starting to catch on.
Fee simple means owned outright with no mortgages, translates to "simple fealty". "Simple" because no mortgage or other encumbrances. Underlying fee means it is overlaid by the right of way easement or something similar. If you are paying a mortgage on the house, you might have a duty to the mortgage holder to fulfill the duty of care to the County because it affects the value of their investment. I suppose they could even call in the mortgage if the homeowner refused to fix it, or if they noticed that the County put a large enough lien on the property for the repair costs.
Your presumption that the Dedication requires the county to maintain everything in the right-of-way is not correct. As someone else previously explained, they are required to maintain the road bed because it has a wider public use, but not the sidewalk or the trees because those are of more local benefit, and like I said before, they built it and gave it to you or are holding it in trust for you somehow. Frequently ordinances get written with certain end result in mind, whether it's lawful or legal for them to claim they own the trees their intent is that the trees and sidewalks are maintained and preserved. It almost doesn't matter what the ordinance says if the Court can construe what the intent was. If it seems like they are systematically rooking everyone in the county with sidewalk and tree issues, well, probably so. It's small potatoes compared to CAFR and 30 year development bonds. They can do things like securitize your deed of trust and sell it on the bond market and turn around and buy mortgage backed securities in some other state with the money from that to reduce their risk and add to their pension fund. Wonder what sort of financial instruments they have that surplus $50M parked in? It might be tied up making money for them so they can't spend it for a while, hence they write an ordinance externalizing the repair costs to the ignorant homeowners to cover their scheme. Not accusing them of it, however, it has happened elsewhere. Maybe they securitized your trees and sidewalk once they declared their ownership via ordinance. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
imaudigger, post: 405052, member: 7286 wrote: Barry you have a lot description...
Imaudigger is absolutely right. If you had a metes-and-bounds description and it excluded a certain part of it it would say words like "excluding that strip of land....." or something to that effect specifically stating what the transfer doesn't include.
half bubble, post: 405062, member: 175 wrote: Yes, you are starting to catch on.
Fee simple means owned outright with no mortgages, translates to "simple fealty". "Simple" because no mortgage or other encumbrances. Underlying fee means it is overlaid by the right of way easement or something similar. If you are paying a mortgage on the house, you might have a duty to the mortgage holder to fulfill the duty of care to the County because it affects the value of their investment. I suppose they could even call in the mortgage if the homeowner refused to fix it, or if they noticed that the County put a large enough lien on the property for the repair costs.
Your presumption that the Dedication requires the county to maintain everything in the right-of-way is not correct. As someone else previously explained, they are required to maintain the road bed because it has a wider public use, but not the sidewalk or the trees because those are of more local benefit, and like I said before, they built it and gave it to you or are holding it in trust for you somehow. Frequently ordinances get written with certain end result in mind, whether it's lawful or legal for them to claim they own the trees their intent is that the trees and sidewalks are maintained and preserved. It almost doesn't matter what the ordinance says if the Court can construe what the intent was. If it seems like they are systematically rooking everyone in the county with sidewalk and tree issues, well, probably so. It's small potatoes compared to CAFR and 30 year development bonds. They can do things like securitize your deed of trust and sell it on the bond market and turn around and buy mortgage backed securities in some other state with the money from that to reduce their risk and add to their pension fund. Wonder what sort of financial instruments they have that surplus $50M parked in? It might be tied up making money for them so they can't spend it for a while, hence they write an ordinance externalizing the repair costs to the ignorant homeowners to cover their scheme. Not accusing them of it, however, it has happened elsewhere. Maybe they securitized your trees and sidewalk once they declared their ownership via ordinance. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
"Underlying fee means it is overlaid by the right of way easement or something similar". So the underlying fee has nothing to do with ownership of property, it has to do with an easement? The issue is the Ordinance 2041, written in 1968, the clearly states that everything on that parkway is owned by the government. It its owned by the government, can they subdelegate maintenance and liability on their own tree to an adjacent property owner? Can we assume that 5600-5630 was predicated on SHC 831 (1872), that the adjacent property owner owns to the middle of the street, unless otherwise proven. So if the County, by Ordinance, there intent was to own that street, replacing 831, owning the underlying fee to the middle of the street, does this come with duties and liabilities to maintain the parkway tree? SHC 22060 says yes. I know, if I own property, I cant subdelegate liabilities to anyone else, ie my house, my car, etc. My tree on my property line, I cant subdelegate the roots growing under the ground, in my neighbors yard, hold him accountable for my roots of my tree, on my property. I have a right to trim the roots on my property, its my right and my duty. I cant trim roots on a parkway tree, will be held liable, since the tree is not owned by me. If I cant delegate liability on my private property, a County can delegate liability on their tree. After all, they maintain the tree, tree trimming, take out trees that are damaged, dangerous, diseases, by State law. Its their property, I cant make improvements, trim, cut, do anything. That is the key question, who is responsible to maintain a public parkway tree, owned by the government? I am going down this rabbit hole, believe that there is a snake at the end, lol.
The Texas Strips and Gores Doctrine is unique to Texas, it is a presumption that a Grantor didn't intend to keep inadvertent gaps caused by metes and bounds descriptions that don't quite match.
The strips and gores doctrine here has to do with the streets, it is a presumption that the developer did not intend to keep the fee title to the streets (subject to the public right-of-way easement).
You don't really own real property in the sense that you own the paperweight on your desk. Real property ownership is a right created by the government and enforced by the Courts. You have a right to possess your lot as long as you keep in good standing with your property taxes and your Deed of Trust. All land title originates with a patent or grant from a sovereign such as the King or the Federal government. Our English concept of land title evolved as a way for the King and his Lords to allocate land resources in exchange for some of the rent and military service.
Tom Adams, post: 405066, member: 7285 wrote: Imaudigger is absolutely right. If you had a metes-and-bounds description and it excluded a certain part of it it would say words like "excluding that strip of land....." or something to that effect specifically stating what the transfer doesn't include.
It only is defined by the Subdivision Housing Map. This is what I found in the law Library.7-27 Road and Railroad Easement: 7.42 a. Use of Metes and Bounds Description;Fee Title Exception: The presumption embodied in CC 1112 (see 7.37-7.40) applies only when the legal description refers generally to the streets as a boundary, City of Redlands v Nickerson (1961 188 CA2d, 118, 126. A common method of rebutting the presumption ownership to the center line is the use of a metes and bounds legal description for private property that does not refer in any way to an abutting road. See City of Redlands v Nickerson, supra. If my Deed and Grant say noting owning to the middle of the street of Henry Drive, and the metes and bounds dimensions on the map show that I owned 6" before the sidewalk, the intention was that I dont own out to the middle of the street. It would be clear in the deed and title.
Somewhat analogous is the public utilities easement depicted on the rear of your lot. Because it was not dedicated for a public purpose, it is administered by the County for public utilities under terms which allow surface use by the fee owner. None of this is shown on the final map, but only authorized personnel are allowed to access facilities placed within it, under conditions of necessity. You may use the encumbered area for landscaping and the placing of non permanent structures. Should any damage occur during maintenance efforts, the utility company is responsible for rectifying it. This is for the mutual benefit of homeowners being provided with those services.
The public trust aspect comes into play for the public right of way fronting properties. The multitude of uses within that area is administered by the local agency. It is not an ownership issue, but a regulatory one. As the owner of a corner lot, you are restricted to not place a fence or shrubbery high enough to block visual sight distance for motorists. Ordinances are enacted for the purpose of regulating activity for the betterment of the general motoring public as it relates to public rights-of-way.
This is a little out of context, but it does relate to a lot description being sufficient to convey title. From the Government Code:
66499.57.
Whenever the city council or board of supervisors adopts a map prepared under this division as the official map of the subdivision, town, city or county, it shall be lawful and sufficient to describe the lots or blocks in any deeds, conveyances, contracts, or obligations affecting any of the lots or blocks as designated on the official map, a reference sufficient for the identification of the map being coupled with the description.
Trying to chase down the law using logic is a fool's errand. Many of these things have a political basis, not a logical one.
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." -Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., from The Common Law.
Get a copy, read it, it'll bend your mind. The English have case law regarding who has the right to a pocket book dropped in the Barber Shop, crazy stuff like that.
