Perhaps. If nothing else, a typical permit from that time frame should help clear things up.
Warren Smith, post: 405366, member: 9900 wrote: Perhaps. If nothing else, a typical permit from that time frame should help clear things up.
I have looked online, cant find a portal for encroachment permits that I can access. Its with the Transportation Dept, who works for Public Works, in Ventura County. I wish I could see one online, for the public rights of ways, with parkway trees. That would really help. My neighbors wont have records from 1961.
I tried to get into the portal, it always fails. Maybe, I need to call the County tomorrow, so they can lead me in the right direction
One thing that jumped out to me is the fact the a permit is a form of a written contract. Contracts usually cannot be changed or voided without signatures/agreement of both parties involved...not sure how permits come in play. That is what I meant.
Most contracts I am familiar with...one side can't just change the rules because they want to.
Finding a permit from 1960..it may not exist...or there may be a file documenting that the neighborhood pay for future maintenance...which may not be affected by future ordinances when there is no doubt as to the intent of the parties involved.
imaudigger, post: 405382, member: 7286 wrote: One thing that jumped out to me is the fact the a permit is a form of a written contract. Contracts usually cannot be changed or voided without signatures/agreement of both parties involved...not sure how permits come in play. That is what I meant.
Most contracts I am familiar with...one side can't just change the rules because they want to.
Finding a permit from 1960..it may not exist...or there may be a file documenting that the neighborhood pay for future maintenance...which may not be affected by future ordinances when there is no doubt as to the intent of the parties involved.
The only encroachment permits I have seen is the one that allows a person to remove a parkway tree. I believe there is one that allows one to plant one on a parkway. I agree, that there is a contract, between the government and the housing tract owners, once the dedication of the road system is approved. I believe that once this is performed, the rights of ways are paid for in taxes to the government to maintain. That is why they call it a public street, public sidewalk and a public parkway. Public property is maintained by the government, private property by the individual property owner. Since the Ordinance declares that everything on the parkway is owned by the government, its clear the intent. Government property, again, is maintained with tax dollars. No government can create an ordinance, while collecting tax dollars for this maintenance, give it to the adjacent property owners to maintain, along with the liaiblity. That liability was created by the government neglecting the proper maintenance of their parkway tree roots, for which, they should be responsible. If they would have performed their duties, this problem would never exist, sidewalks would not need to be prepared, since they would never to out of repair. Fix the problem by performance of duty, not by illegally transfer this neglect to someone who had nothing to do with the damage to the sidewalks. what they did here is abusive, offensive, illegal and immoral, to the good people in the Unincorporated, who still pay taxes for this maintenance.
half bubble, post: 405346, member: 175 wrote: I have already posted too much. I will suggest that if you were to re-write all your points without the words "should" or "believe" or "lied" or "wrong" you will have a more convincing basis for an agreement -- not an argument -- with the county.
I agree with half bubble. you have hundreds of posts of excellent advise from this site. Many of them site case law and standards from good positions of insight. Calling your local government "crooked" and "liars" is not a good position to come from either. Even if they are it is probably mainly self-serving, and I can't see any reason they would ignore their obligation to fix sidewalks if they don't ignore their obligation for repair of the traveled way, because of being self-serving. It is you and your side that would be more self-serving. You want the government to take care of your sidewalk. The upper-management aren't the ones who would be going out and doing the work. I am always astounded at the amount of help you can get from this site, and you, not a regular poster, have gotten tons of good advice and insight. I would suggest absorbing what these guys are saying to you instead of trying to argue your case here.
Tom Adams, post: 405402, member: 7285 wrote: I agree with half bubble. you have hundreds of posts of excellent advise from this site. Many of them site case law and standards from good positions of insight. Calling your local government "crooked" and "liars" is not a good position to come from either. Even if they are it is probably mainly self-serving, and I can't see any reason they would ignore their obligation to fix sidewalks if they don't ignore their obligation for repair of the traveled way, because of being self-serving. It is you and your side that would be more self-serving. You want the government to take care of your sidewalk. The upper-management aren't the ones who would be going out and doing the work. I am always astounded at the amount of help you can get from this site, and you, not a regular poster, have gotten tons of good advice and insight. I would suggest absorbing what these guys are saying to you instead of trying to argue your case here.
I do appreciate the information presented on this site. Its frustrating to me when the Directors and the Board wont answer my questions, write letters stating that my sidewalk in on my property, that is my parkway tree, allow residents to get hurt and sue, while avoiding maintenance of their property. If this is correct, I would not have any issues with this repair. The Director of Dept of Transportation makes the decisions on parkway tree roots maintenance and sidewalk repair, not his subordinates. If he orders them to perform this duty, its done. When I sent letters to him and Public works, these directors decide what is performed, not the workers. I have talked to Public Works and Transportation workers. They wanted to do the work, agree with me that its their duty, cant do it without an order from their boss. They told me that their boss demands that we adjacent property owners repair parkway trees and sidewalks, period. The employees for these department are all good people, I have conversations with many. From County Clerk, Planning, Public Works, Dept of Transportation, and many others. They are devoted to their jobs, intelligent, honest, respectful , professional and polite. I have a question. In towns in California, the people who built the towns, there were no dedications performed to the Municipality. Is this a correct assumption. Are dedications only performed in housing tracts in California? SHC 5600-5630 was written in 1911, to get the towns business to maintain sidewalks and parkway trees, sue to lack of funding (no taxes). Were there dedications performed in 1800's, in a town, like Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc.
Barry G, post: 405416, member: 12296 wrote: I do appreciate the information presented on this site. Its frustrating to me when the Directors and the Board wont answer my questions, write letters stating that my sidewalk in on my property, that is my parkway tree, allow residents to get hurt and sue, while avoiding maintenance of their property. If this is correct, I would not have any issues with this repair. The Director of Dept of Transportation makes the decisions on parkway tree roots maintenance and sidewalk repair, not his subordinates. If he orders them to perform this duty, its done. When I sent letters to him and Public works, these directors decide what is performed, not the workers. I have talked to Public Works and Transportation workers. They wanted to do the work, agree with me that its their duty, cant do it without an order from their boss. They told me that their boss demands that we adjacent property owners repair parkway trees and sidewalks, period. The employees for these department are all good people, I have conversations with many. From County Clerk, Planning, Public Works, Dept of Transportation, and many others. They are devoted to their jobs, intelligent, honest, respectful , professional and polite. I have a question. In towns in California, the people who built the towns, there were no dedications performed to the Municipality. Is this a correct assumption. Are dedications only performed in housing tracts in California? SHC 5600-5630 was written in 1911, to get the towns business to maintain sidewalks and parkway trees, sue to lack of funding (no taxes). Were there dedications performed in 1800's, in a town, like Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, etc.
There are two types of Dedications: statutory and common law. Statutory dedications only occur in compliance with a Statute, usually the Subdivision Map Act. Common law dedications are less formal and involve conduct which indicates a dedication and acceptance has occurred. You are dealing with a statutory dedication. Statutory dedications have existed at least since the first decade of the 20th century and not just in housing tracts. Below is a 1909 subdivision map in Sacramento County with a dedication and acceptance. The original TIFF file (better resolution) can be view here: http://www.sacmaps.com/Subdivision/BOOK_010/001-001.TIF .
I noticed that the current version of VC Code of Ordinances Section 12535 was revised in 1994 to remove the property language:
12535 - Requirement for planting.
The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner.
(Am. Ord. 4078ÛÓ11/22/94)
12535-1 - Denial of planting permit.
The Commissioner may refuse to issue a permit authorizing the planting of trees or other plants in the right-of-way when, in his opinion, the location, the nature of growth, or the kind of tree, shrub, or other plant will be deleterious to the public highway, will unduly disturb the right-of-way or will in any way impede construction or maintenance of facilities.
The thing to research is what was the encroachment permit ordinance language in 1961. Frankly, however, Harry & Claire's story doesn't really help your case because it shows that the property owners planted the trees in the parkway for their own benefit (shade, more attractive neighborhood, etc.). Also note there is indemnity language in the 1968 ordinance but that seems to pertain to the construction operation, not later maintenance.
My parent's house in Bakersfield had two liquid amber trees in the front yard; the main thing I remember is the little spiky balls they dropped everywhere. Giant weeds is what they are but I guess they were popular down there in the 1950s & 1960s. Up here it was Modesto Ash trees most of which have succumbed to mistletoe (my neighbor's tree had it growing all the way up through the center of the trunk, spooky). Mine has been replaced with a red oak which was just a little bigger than a twig 18 years ago when we acquired the Lot & House but it is a very nice, large tree now.
Half Bubble gave you the best advice; I suggest you listen to him.
Dave Karoly, post: 405430, member: 94 wrote: There are two types of Dedications: statutory and common law. Statutory dedications only occur in compliance with a Statute, usually the Subdivision Map Act. Common law dedications are less formal and involve conduct which indicates a dedication and acceptance has occurred. You are dealing with a statutory dedication. Statutory dedications have existed at least since the first decade of the 20th century and not just in housing tracts. Below is a 1909 subdivision map in Sacramento County with a dedication and acceptance. The original TIFF file (better resolution) can be view here: http://www.sacmaps.com/Subdivision/BOOK_010/001-001.TIF .
I noticed that the current version of VC Code of Ordinances Section 12535 was revised in 1994 to remove the property language:
12535 - Requirement for planting.
The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner.(Am. Ord. 4078ÛÓ11/22/94)
12535-1 - Denial of planting permit.
The Commissioner may refuse to issue a permit authorizing the planting of trees or other plants in the right-of-way when, in his opinion, the location, the nature of growth, or the kind of tree, shrub, or other plant will be deleterious to the public highway, will unduly disturb the right-of-way or will in any way impede construction or maintenance of facilities.The thing to research is what was the encroachment permit ordinance language in 1961. Frankly, however, Harry & Claire's story doesn't really help your case because it shows that the property owners planted the trees in the parkway for their own benefit (shade, more attractive neighborhood, etc.). Also note there is indemnity language in the 1968 ordinance but that seems to pertain to the construction operation, not later maintenance.
My parent's house in Bakersfield had two liquid amber trees in the front yard; the main thing I remember is the little spiky balls they dropped everywhere. Giant weeds is what they are but I guess they were popular down there in the 1950s & 1960s. Up here it was Modesto Ash trees most of which have succumbed to mistletoe (my neighbor's tree had it growing all the way up through the center of the trunk, spooky). Mine has been replaced with a red oak which was just a little bigger than a twig 18 years ago when we acquired the Lot & House but it is a very nice, large tree now.
Half Bubble gave you the best advice; I suggest you listen to him.
Thank you. So dedications were both for cities and housing tracts. Are they both statutory dedications, with the same language. How did Section 12525 remove property language? Is there someone specific that removes it? 12535-1 shows that this County recognized the problems of planting parkway trees in a 4' parkway, would cause problems in the rights of ways. Did you know, in 1994, they still allowed liquid amber trees, the same trees that caused this damage. I believe, it took till 2012, that they took the trees off this list. Harry and Claire have a bad memory issue. I dont think they can remember back to 1961. I'm going to research the encroachment permit ordinance in 1961.
Liquid amber trees are beautiful, you get beautiful colors of leaves in specific times of the years. The balls are the issue, they hurt, if you step on them, can fall. The roots system has always been a problem. The roots look for water, so they go above the surface. All properties, you can see the roots growing above ground, lifting sidewalks throughout the community. My issue is still, the permitting of the trees in 1961 forward. The issues of these trees has been around for 35 years, when the tree roots were destroying the sidewalks, back in the early 1980's. That is the time I moved it, wrote letters to the County, requesting help in trimming and removing parkway trees, under the sidewalk. They wrote me a letter, basically says, not our problem, go away. the best solution back in the 1980s, was to cut the roots back, take them out from under the sidewalk, get a barrier in place, from the parkway, problem solved. Their solution was to ignore the problem, let the elderly and children fall over the sidewalks, pay them off when the sued the County. The cost for repair, back in the 1980's was small, to perform this job. It would have cost the government 10K or less to repair this area, in my community. It would financially better, then to spend 250K on lawsuits, one would think, and have a safe community, Municipality obligation to the home owners. There solution was to ignore the problem, let the roots on their tree continue to grow, place the sidewalks out of repair, let more people fall over the sidewalks, pay them off, then, in 2006, create and ordinance, hold adjacent property owner for the neglect of the Municipality. That is their solution to this problem, ignore their obligations, then pass all liability to adjacent property owner. Holding me responsible for their neglect angers me, to no end.
Dave Karoly, post: 405430, member: 94 wrote: There are two types of Dedications: statutory and common law. Statutory dedications only occur in compliance with a Statute, usually the Subdivision Map Act. Common law dedications are less formal and involve conduct which indicates a dedication and acceptance has occurred. You are dealing with a statutory dedication. Statutory dedications have existed at least since the first decade of the 20th century and not just in housing tracts. Below is a 1909 subdivision map in Sacramento County with a dedication and acceptance. The original TIFF file (better resolution) can be view here: http://www.sacmaps.com/Subdivision/BOOK_010/001-001.TIF .
I noticed that the current version of VC Code of Ordinances Section 12535 was revised in 1994 to remove the property language:
12535 - Requirement for planting.
The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner.(Am. Ord. 4078ÛÓ11/22/94)
12535-1 - Denial of planting permit.
The Commissioner may refuse to issue a permit authorizing the planting of trees or other plants in the right-of-way when, in his opinion, the location, the nature of growth, or the kind of tree, shrub, or other plant will be deleterious to the public highway, will unduly disturb the right-of-way or will in any way impede construction or maintenance of facilities.The thing to research is what was the encroachment permit ordinance language in 1961. Frankly, however, Harry & Claire's story doesn't really help your case because it shows that the property owners planted the trees in the parkway for their own benefit (shade, more attractive neighborhood, etc.). Also note there is indemnity language in the 1968 ordinance but that seems to pertain to the construction operation, not later maintenance.
My parent's house in Bakersfield had two liquid amber trees in the front yard; the main thing I remember is the little spiky balls they dropped everywhere. Giant weeds is what they are but I guess they were popular down there in the 1950s & 1960s. Up here it was Modesto Ash trees most of which have succumbed to mistletoe (my neighbor's tree had it growing all the way up through the center of the trunk, spooky). Mine has been replaced with a red oak which was just a little bigger than a twig 18 years ago when we acquired the Lot & House but it is a very nice, large tree now.
Half Bubble gave you the best advice; I suggest you listen to him.
Please read Ordinance 1607, written in 1964. Please read Section 316. It shows the intent of the right of ways were dedicated to the County, not just the Road System, but the right of ways, which include the parkways, gutters, curbs, and sidewalks. Am I reading this correctly? VENTURA COUNTY ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, PA VEOUTS, ETC.
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/TD/Residents/Streets_and_Transportation/Standard_Policies_and_Guidelines/PaveoutOrdinance1607.pdf
Barry G, post: 405442, member: 12296 wrote: Thank you. So dedications were both for cities and housing tracts. Are they both statutory dedications, with the same language. How did Section 12525 remove property language? Is there someone specific that removes it? 12535-1 shows that this County recognized the problems of planting parkway trees in a 4' parkway, would cause problems in the rights of ways. Did you know, in 1994, they still allowed liquid amber trees, the same trees that caused this damage. I believe, it took till 2012, that they took the trees off this list. Harry and Claire have a bad memory issue. I dont think they can remember back to 1961. I'm going to research the encroachment permit ordinance in 1961.
Liquid amber trees are beautiful, you get beautiful colors of leaves in specific times of the years. The balls are the issue, they hurt, if you step on them, can fall. The roots system has always been a problem. The roots look for water, so they go above the surface. All properties, you can see the roots growing above ground, lifting sidewalks throughout the community. My issue is still, the permitting of the trees in 1961 forward. The issues of these trees has been around for 35 years, when the tree roots were destroying the sidewalks, back in the early 1980's. That is the time I moved it, wrote letters to the County, requesting help in trimming and removing parkway trees, under the sidewalk. They wrote me a letter, basically says, not our problem, go away. the best solution back in the 1980s, was to cut the roots back, take them out from under the sidewalk, get a barrier in place, from the parkway, problem solved. Their solution was to ignore the problem, let the elderly and children fall over the sidewalks, pay them off when the sued the County. The cost for repair, back in the 1980's was small, to perform this job. It would have cost the government 10K or less to repair this area, in my community. It would financially better, then to spend 250K on lawsuits, one would think, and have a safe community, Municipality obligation to the home owners. There solution was to ignore the problem, let the roots on their tree continue to grow, place the sidewalks out of repair, let more people fall over the sidewalks, pay them off, then, in 2006, create and ordinance, hold adjacent property owner for the neglect of the Municipality. That is their solution to this problem, ignore their obligations, then pass all liability to adjacent property owner. Holding me responsible for their neglect angers me, to no end.
State Dedication Law and the Ventura County encroachment ordinance are two separate issues. I don't know all the details of the history of the dedication statutes, you would have to chase that down which I don't really think will help you so I wouldn't bother, if I were you.
The encroachment ordinance has been revised. A key question is what did the ordinance say in 1961?
The 1968 Ordinance Section reads:
Section 12535 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING - The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner. Upon planting trees or other plants in the right-of-way they become the property of the County.
The large, bold, italic sentence is the one missing from the current ordinance.
The current ordinance section reads:
12535 - Requirement for planting.
The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner.
Please read Ordinance 1607, written in 1964. Please read Section 316. It shows the intent of the right of ways were dedicated to the County, not just the Road System, but the right of ways, which include the parkways, gutters, curbs, and sidewalks. Am I reading this correctly? VENTURA COUNTY ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, PA VEOUTS, ETC.
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/TD/Residents/Streets_and_Transportation/Standard_Policies_and_Guidelines/PaveoutOrdinance1607.pdf
Sec. 12109 - HIGHWAY - "Highway" means any public highway, public street", public way, or public place in the unincorporated territory of the County, either owned by the County or dedicated to the public for the purpose of travel. The term includes all or any part of the entire width of right-of-way, and above and below the same, whether or not such entire area is actually used for highway purposes.
Section 12110 "Right of Way" the term right of way means the land or interest therefore which by deed, conveyance, agreement, dedication, usage or other process of law has been reserved for or dedicated to the County for use of the general public for public road purposes.
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/TD/Residents/Streets_and_Transportation/Standard_Policies_and_Guidelines/EncroachmentOrdinance2041.pdf The 1968 Encroachment Ordinance, Ventura County.
Sec. 12535 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING --The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner. Upon planting trees or other plants in the right-of-way they become the property of the County.
Sec. 12535-1 - Denial of Planting Permit - The Commissioner may refuse to issue a permit authorizing the planting of trees or other plants in the right-of-way when, in his opinion, the location, the nature of growth, or the kind of tree, shrub, or other plant will be deleterious to the public highway, will unduly disturb the right-of-way or will in any way impede construction or maintenance of facilities .
Why is Section 12535-1 so important? The Commissioner has the power to either grant the permit of deny it. If its denied, the reasons would be that the parkway tree would disturb the right of way. This is exactly why liquid amber trees should not be given a permit, to be planted on a 4' parkway. What happens, when the Commissioner makes a horrible error in this decision, will the Municipality, who parkway tree is their property, who is responsible to keep the rights of way undisturbed, by Ordinance, be accountable? Should the adjacent property owner be liable for the Commissioner's horrible decision, allowing this tree to disturb the right-of-ways? Should an Ordinance, transfer this error of judgment, to an adjacent property owner? This decision, for a permit, is the Commissioner, not the adjacent property owners decision.
Barry G, post: 405456, member: 12296 wrote: Please read Ordinance 1607, written in 1964. Please read Section 316. It shows the intent of the right of ways were dedicated to the County, not just the Road System, but the right of ways, which include the parkways, gutters, curbs, and sidewalks. Am I reading this correctly? VENTURA COUNTY ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, PA VEOUTS, ETC.
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/TD/Residents/Streets_and_Transportation/Standard_Policies_and_Guidelines/PaveoutOrdinance1607.pdf
Sec. 12109 - HIGHWAY - "Highway" means any public highway, public street", public way, or public place in the unincorporated territory of the County, either owned by the County or dedicated to the public for the purpose of travel. The term includes all or any part of the entire width of right-of-way, and above and below the same, whether or not such entire area is actually used for highway purposes.
Section 12110 "Right of Way" the term right of way means the land or interest therefore which by deed, conveyance, agreement, dedication, usage or other process of law has been reserved for or dedicated to the County for use of the general public for public road purposes.
http://pwaportal.ventura.org/TD/Residents/Streets_and_Transportation/Standard_Policies_and_Guidelines/EncroachmentOrdinance2041.pdf The 1968 Encroachment Ordinance, Ventura County.
Sec. 12535 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTING --The applicant for a permit to plant trees or other plants in the right-of-way shall show in his application or by sketch the proposed location and the kind of plants. No change shall be made in either the location or kind without approval of the Commissioner. Upon planting trees or other plants in the right-of-way they become the property of the County.
Sec. 12535-1 - Denial of Planting Permit - The Commissioner may refuse to issue a permit authorizing the planting of trees or other plants in the right-of-way when, in his opinion, the location, the nature of growth, or the kind of tree, shrub, or other plant will be deleterious to the public highway, will unduly disturb the right-of-way or will in any way impede construction or maintenance of facilities .
Why is Section 12535-1 so important? The Commissioner has the power to either grant the permit of deny it. If its denied, the reasons would be that the parkway tree would disturb the right of way. This is exactly why liquid amber trees should not be given a permit, to be planted on a 4' parkway. What happens, when the Commissioner makes a horrible error in this decision, will the Municipality, who parkway tree is their property, who is responsible to keep the rights of way undisturbed, by Ordinance, be accountable? Should the adjacent property owner be liable for the Commissioner's horrible decision, allowing this tree to disturb the right-of-ways? Should an Ordinance, transfer this error of judgment, to an adjacent property owner? This decision, for a permit, is the Commissioner, not the adjacent property owners decision.
Barry, I sympathize with you, but the law is on their side.
I think, and maybe an actual Lawyer would tell you different, I think the two things you may be able to persuade a Judge are:
1. Maintenance means repair, restore to like condition, remove the hazard. If they reconstructed the sidewalks up to current construction standards then you probably have a legitimate beef on the cost.
2. The damage caused by the trees but this is iffy at best.
I'd like to be able to tell you it's a slam dunk but I don't think it is. SHC 5610 overrides all their ordinances anyway and it says they can require you to fix the sidewalk, curbs, and parkway or charge you for the costs. The thing you can dispute is their costs...maybe they are too high. I don't know for sure on that.
Dave Karoly, post: 405460, member: 94 wrote: Barry, I sympathize with you, but the law is on their side.
I think, and maybe an actual Lawyer would tell you different, I think the two things you may be able to persuade a Judge are:
1. Maintenance means repair, restore to like condition, remove the hazard. If they reconstructed the sidewalks up to current construction standards then you probably have a legitimate beef on the cost.
2. The damage caused by the trees but this is iffy at best.I'd like to be able to tell you it's a slam dunk but I don't think it is. SHC 5610 overrides all their ordinances anyway and it says they can require you to fix the sidewalk, curbs, and parkway or charge you for the costs. The thing you can dispute is their costs...maybe they are too high. I don't know for sure on that.
The only way to win is, to convince a Judge that the Counties intent is clear, that the parkway trees are property of the county, that they stated they maintained the roots by trimming, that they failed to avoid permitting these trees on a 4' wide parkway. The Judge will look at 5610, look at intent. I would agree 100%, if the parkway tree is my property, I own the duty of care. If the government owns it, as stated, and they maintain tree roots, its their liability, cant revert to 5610, written in 1911. Back in 1911, they relied on 831 (1872) as their authority, the adjacent property owners own to the middle of the street, unless otherwise proven. Today, a Judge will look at the intent of County, in Ordinance. If I were a Judge, I would see that the Commissioner made a horrible decision, to allow the wrong trees on the parkway, government owned trees. I would hold the County responsible for their bad decision, hold them liable to not maintaining the trees in the 1980, 1990, 2000, etc. Remember, they created Ordinance 4355 on 23 December 2006, after the damage was already performed by the County. In 1961, they should have created 4355, before any tree root damages. After the fact, transferring liability to errors should not be tolerated, IMHO.
These are pasted from some of my study materials. I only found this stuff as a side trip from studying for the exams. It was life-changing for me and I hope it helps those "to whom these may present" ...
==================================
HONOR & DISHONOR are the most important aspect of the law. In law, "Honor" or "Dishonor" is a process. It is what is done in response to a presentment. Throughout the entire process you must be in honor. This applies to everything you do in the legal process. To act with dishonor toward the other person is the highest sin in any system of law.
PRESENTMENT
a: The act of presenting to view or consciousness
b: something set forth, presented, or exhibited
c: the aspect in which something is presented."
Merriam-Webster dictionary, online
A presentment occurs when something is brought to your attention. For example, you are given a bill for services. Or, you are accused of causing some harm. Or, you are notified of a situation.
In Practice: there are three ways to honor a presentment
1. Accord & Satisfaction
2. Conditional Acceptance
3. Rejection Without Dishonor
There are two ways to dishonor a presentment
4. Argument
5. Silence
========
In practice, after party "AB" makes a presentment, Party "CD" does one of the following:
1. Accord & Satisfaction: CD Honors by accepting the presentment without recourse, and then satisfies whatever is demanded in the presentment. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD pays the bill. HONOR
2. Conditional Acceptance: CD Honors by accepting the presentment but with conditions. Effectively, that is a counteroffer from CD to AB. [AB would then accept the counteroffer as a new presentment from CD.] Example: AB offers his house for sale; CD accepts the offer provided that the house is first painted. HONOR
3. Rejection without dishonor: CD rejects the presentment because it is defective. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD returns the bill because there is an error (perhaps the price is wrong), but will accept the bill once the error is corrected. HONOR
4. Argument: CD rejects (dishonors) the bill. There is no basis for rejecting the bill; the arguments have no relevency to the presentment. Often, ad hominems (irrelevant comments against AB) accompany the rejection. DISHONOR
5. Silence: CD simply does not respond to the presentment, but remains silent. The presentment is thus dishonored. DISHONOR
==============
The things I have suggested in posts above about how you might reformulate your arguments into agreements I can now clarify as saying, don't get yourself in dishonor, it's a sure-fire way to make sure your concerns will not be heard and your needs will not be met.
Every attorney knows this stuff and that knowledge is the basis of their monopoly. We don't see it from the outside because attorneys are paid to argue. There is a reason for that, having to do with the changes in citizenship I mentioned. Hiring an attorney puts the Court on notice that you yourself will be silent (dishonor) and that you have hired an attorney to argue for you (also dishonor). That the attorney argues for you puts the Court "in loco parentis" for you, hence they can decide what's best for you. There's that public trust again ... Much of the courtroom is theatre around people putting themselves in dishonor and the Public Trust then acting on their behalf. This is an important point when reading case law, because without knowing this and being able to read between the lines about which party remained relatively in honor (their own testimony, even when represented by an attorney), case law can seem inconsistent and arbitrary. Notice that I have not mentioned any specific case law in this thread? That's because everything you need can be derived from and obtained by observing the Maxims and the Common Law and staying in honor. Case law happens when people lose sight of those fundamental principles, or if those are purposefully obscured by a class of persons who profit from provoking argument and dishonor and managing the public trust for their own benefit. Hence the situation today where people get argumentative in order to sound like attorneys, and cite case law after case law trying to prove their point, and accuse the Court of being corrupt when deciding against them for their dishonor.
If you go in without an attorney, the Court does not have the same presumption of dishonor and incompetence -- until you start to argue. Read about the "Cestui Que Vie Trust" as a starting point. If you can function without an attorney and remain in honor, you can move mountains in a very quiet way that may avoid court altogether. Imagine being able to right all the worlds wrongs with pen and paper from the comfort of your mailing address, or simply by being agreeable and continuing to stand up for one's needs via conditional acceptance in the face of every presentment.
This is the single most important thing I have learned from becoming a surveyor. I am a beginner, a student, "I am but an egg", yet it has worked miracles in my life. May these words and insights of a student help "those to whom these may present" remain in honor.
half bubble, post: 405482, member: 175 wrote: These are pasted from some of my study materials. I only found this stuff as a side trip from studying for the exams. It was life-changing for me and I hope it helps those "to whom these may present" ...
==================================
HONOR & DISHONOR are the most important aspect of the law. In law, "Honor" or "Dishonor" is a process. It is what is done in response to a presentment. Throughout the entire process you must be in honor. This applies to everything you do in the legal process. To act with dishonor toward the other person is the highest sin in any system of law.PRESENTMENT
a: The act of presenting to view or consciousness
b: something set forth, presented, or exhibited
c: the aspect in which something is presented."
Merriam-Webster dictionary, onlineA presentment occurs when something is brought to your attention. For example, you are given a bill for services. Or, you are accused of causing some harm. Or, you are notified of a situation.
In Practice: there are three ways to honor a presentment
1. Accord & Satisfaction
2. Conditional Acceptance
3. Rejection Without DishonorThere are two ways to dishonor a presentment
4. Argument
5. Silence========
In practice, after party "AB" makes a presentment, Party "CD" does one of the following:1. Accord & Satisfaction: CD Honors by accepting the presentment without recourse, and then satisfies whatever is demanded in the presentment. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD pays the bill. HONOR
2. Conditional Acceptance: CD Honors by accepting the presentment but with conditions. Effectively, that is a counteroffer from CD to AB. [AB would then accept the counteroffer as a new presentment from CD.] Example: AB offers his house for sale; CD accepts the offer provided that the house is first painted. HONOR
3. Rejection without dishonor: CD rejects the presentment because it is defective. Example: AB presents a bill for services; CD returns the bill because there is an error (perhaps the price is wrong), but will accept the bill once the error is corrected. HONOR
4. Argument: CD rejects (dishonors) the bill. There is no basis for rejecting the bill; the arguments have no relevency to the presentment. Often, ad hominems (irrelevant comments against AB) accompany the rejection. DISHONOR
5. Silence: CD simply does not respond to the presentment, but remains silent. The presentment is thus dishonored. DISHONOR
==============
The things I have suggested in posts above about how you might reformulate your arguments into agreements I can now clarify as saying, don't get yourself in dishonor, it's a sure-fire way to make sure your concerns will not be heard and your needs will not be met.
Every attorney knows this stuff and that knowledge is the basis of their monopoly. We don't see it from the outside because attorneys are paid to argue. There is a reason for that, having to do with the changes in citizenship I mentioned. Hiring an attorney puts the Court on notice that you yourself will be silent (dishonor) and that you have hired an attorney to argue for you (also dishonor). That the attorney argues for you puts the Court "in loco parentis" for you, hence they can decide what's best for you. There's that public trust again ... Much of the courtroom is theatre around people putting themselves in dishonor and the Public Trust then acting on their behalf. This is an important point when reading case law, because without knowing this and being able to read between the lines about which party remained relatively in honor (their own testimony, even when represented by an attorney), case law can seem inconsistent and arbitrary. Notice that I have not mentioned any specific case law in this thread? That's because everything you need can be derived from and obtained by observing the Maxims and the Common Law and staying in honor. Case law happens when people lose sight of those fundamental principles, or if those are purposefully obscured by a class of persons who profit from provoking argument and dishonor and managing the public trust for their own benefit. Hence the situation today where people get argumentative in order to sound like attorneys, and cite case law after case law trying to prove their point, and accuse the Court of being corrupt when deciding against them for their dishonor.
If you go in without an attorney, the Court does not have the same presumption of dishonor and incompetence -- until you start to argue. Read about the "Cestui Que Vie Trust" as a starting point. If you can function without an attorney and remain in honor, you can move mountains in a very quiet way that may avoid court altogether. Imagine being able to right all the worlds wrongs with pen and paper from the comfort of your mailing address, or simply by being agreeable and continuing to stand up for one's needs via conditional acceptance in the face of every presentment.
This is the single most important thing I have learned from becoming a surveyor. I am a beginner, a student, "I am but an egg", yet it has worked miracles in my life. May these words and insights of a student help "those to whom these may present" remain in honor.
This was spot on a greatly received, thank you. I have always been told that I am in honorable man, both at work, home, society, in general. I always try to find the truth, in everything I do. As we know, we are all not perfect, we make mistakes. My mistakes always have to do with emotions getting the better of me, that issue is still today. What I believe is in the law and the intent, intent is what was past by government is important. What is the purpose of this law, why was it written, what is the intent. That is difficult to interpret, getting into someones mind, in this case, in 1872, 1911, and forward. I look at this with an open minds. If its my property, on my property line, that I control, I pay for it, if its government property, I pay taxes for it, that simple. My property has associated liabilty, is why I have insurance, for house, car, life, health, etc. This is to protect me, an individual, not the collective. Public Property (Libraries, Parks, Schools, government buildings etc) is paid for in tax dollars for maintenance. Public sidewalks, parkways, and streets are public property, (collective we, not just I) we pay for it. Why should I pay taxes for public property, then pay when public property is out of repair? Its double payment for the same maintenance. That is how I see it, based on ethics, morals and the truth. I make an error I pay for it, cant hold others accontable for my mistakes. The government lives by the same standards. Who caused the sidewalks to be out of repair, that person or persons should pay for the damage, as it would be if my trees on my property lines destroyed the public sidewalk, my lack of maintenance caused the damage, Im responsible. Its common sense.
So, I'm just curious about two things:
Are you guys going to take a break from this over the next few days when you should be spending time with more important things like...oh, I don't know...FAMILY?
And Dave K. - When will Barry G receive your invoice for all these services?
Ric Moore, post: 405515, member: 731 wrote: So, I'm just curious about two things:
Are you guys going to take a break from this over the next few days when you should be spending time with more important things like...oh, I don't know...FAMILY?
And Dave K. - When will Barry G receive your invoice for all these services?
This thread blows my mind for many reasons.
In the past it has been suggested to non-surveyors who get free advice and assistance to make a donation to the forum.
Andy Nold, post: 405528, member: 7 wrote: In the past it has been suggested to non-surveyors who get free advice and assistance to make a donation to the forum.
This donation should be massive.
It's certainly been worthy for a seldom considered aspect of rights and obligations.
