Jim Frame, post: 402335, member: 10 wrote: 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.
Jim,
I've never lived anywhere that the land owner was not responsible for the maintenance of adjacent sidewalks. Maybe it is just an NW thing.
Jim Frame, post: 402335, member: 10 wrote: 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.[/QU
Don Quixote de la Mancha, love it. Its about principals, why I fight for my community. They will do this, knowing that no one will pay an attorney to take this to court, requesting an injunction of this Ordinance. they know you will pay them $200-$2500 to this repair, not worth paying an attorney to go to court. I have the case law and SHC, where they will lose in court, if you have an honest State Superior Court Judge.
Once you get the dedication in your housing tract, ask them for the future law that allows them to transfer this duty, responsibility and liability they signed up to maintain to the adjacent property owner. They will answer with 1911 Improvement Act, SCH 5600-5630. This was for towns with a business, not the correct SHC code, its 941a and 1806 that applies. Local government are looking for ways not to pay for services. If we fight, we win, if not, we all lose.
Barry G, post: 402327, member: 12296 wrote: 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? .
Well the title of the thread IS "Who owns the title and fee public right of ways in a housing tract in California?" so you could see why we might be confused. It seems like you might get better results to your real question if you directed it to a California attorney's website.
John Putnam, post: 402338, member: 1188 wrote: Jim,
I've never lived anywhere that the land owner was not responsible for the maintenance of adjacent sidewalks. Maybe it is just an NW thing.
Hello John. A majority of cities all over California pay for this maintenance. In Ventura, all Cities pay for maintenance of sidewalks, the County refuses. This is illogical, since what applies to cities also applies to counties, General or Charter. Money from Sacramento flows from Counties to Cities, in transportation funds. If cities are not responsible to maintenance the public right of ways after they signed a dedication, believe me, they wont not pay to repair them. My County believes that no one will fight them, so why not subvert State law, no one will pay an attorney 50-70K to represent them in court. If no one challenges them in court, they win.
Edward Reading, post: 402344, member: 132 wrote: Well the title of the thread IS "Who owns the title and fee public right of ways in a housing tract in California?" so you could see why we might be confused. It seems like you might get better results to your real question if you directed it to a California attorney's website.
Hello Edward. I started out with who owns the right of way property in a housing tract, then realized its irrelevant to this conversation. Attorneys tell me that Im the expert on California law regarding this issue of rights of ways in housing tracts, from PLF and 5 others. I will get answers in court. Attorneys all over the place with their opinions on this law, since its complex. Its not complex, when you peel the onion, find out that local Municipalities dont have the authority, based on State law and previous court cases. Ordinances dont need to be truthful or legal, courts decide.
In a city in Iowa, we on our street were told a few years ago to fix the sidewalks at our own expense, but they did have some kind of program that would reimburse part of it on completion. Nobody challenged them that I know of. We assumed it was the norm to be our responsibility and were glad for the partial funding.
Bill93, post: 402359, member: 87 wrote: In a city in Iowa, we on our street were told a few years ago to fix the sidewalks at our own expense, but they did have some kind of program that would reimburse part of it on completion. Nobody challenged them that I know of. We assumed it was the norm to be our responsibility and were glad for the partial funding.
Each State has their own laws to follow. All that I care is that my state of California laws are followed by my Municipality. If the current law requires us to maintain the public sidewalks in our housing tract, then I must honor the law or have the State Legislators change the law. When my Municipality intentionally subverts California law, I have to go to court to reverse this Ordinance. Those responsible should be held accountable, but they wont, they work for the government, shielded from responsibility.
Barry G, post: 402348, member: 12296 wrote: Hello Edward. I started out with who owns the right of way property in a housing tract, then realized its irrelevant to this conversation. Attorneys tell me that Im the expert on California law regarding this issue of rights of ways in housing tracts, from PLF and 5 others. I will get answers in court. Attorneys all over the place with their opinions on this law, since its complex. Its not complex, when you peel the onion, find out that local Municipalities dont have the authority, based on State law and previous court cases. Ordinances dont need to be truthful or legal, courts decide.
Have you tried posting your questions to a California attorney's discussion website? Seems like it would be more beneficial for you than to converse with surveyors from all over the world regarding a California legal question. Do you have an attorney that you have retained to pursue this?
Edward Reading, post: 402371, member: 132 wrote: Have you tried posting your questions to a California attorney's discussion website? Seems like it would be more beneficial for you than to converse with surveyors from all over the world regarding a California legal question. Do you have an attorney that you have retained to pursue this?
I have posted to several attorney websites. Not many Attorney specialize in Municipality Law, know all the case laws, California Codes and Streets and Highways Code. They are amazed at the information and knowledge of California Municipal Law. Attorneys in my area want 50-70K to file a class action against this county. That is way to high for a majority of residence who owe $100-$500 for sidewalk repair and parkway tree removal. Several have costs around 3K. 22 have had their house lien, for as little at $100. We have many renters in the area, who dont care if their rents are raised, when the owners pays for this repair. Its easier to take this to a State Superior Court Judge, show him the law, file injunctions, throw this Ordinance out, have the County pay back residence. Someone needs to take a stand. The only issue I have is that the State Superior Court Judge works for the County Im taking to court, knows the County Counsel, who I will be going against. If he follows the law, I win. Time will tell.
Miller & Starr Chapter 22 covers Dedication. I don't have that chapter in my library.
Also look up S&H Code Section 5610 in the Annotated Codes. Maybe you already did that because you have the history.
So you are acting as your own attorney?
Edward Reading, post: 402383, member: 132 wrote: So you are acting as your own attorney?
Pro Per, correct. Need to file Preliminary Injunctions in court plus a summons this month. This case will be in local
newspapers and the TV.
Dave Karoly, post: 402378, member: 94 wrote: Miller & Starr Chapter 22 covers Dedication. I don't have that chapter in my library.
Also look up S&H Code Section 5610 in the Annotated Codes. Maybe you already did that because you have the history.
Hello Dave, thank you. I have documents in Chapter 22 that covers Dedications. This is where I win, since once the dedication is approved by
Board of Supervisors, the assume the affirmative duty to maintain the public right of ways. No State law or Court case allows them to subdelegate this
work to the adjacent property owners. SHC 941a and 1806 cover dedications of property in housing tracts. SHC 5610 was written by State Legislators to cover the costs of sidewalk repair adjacent to a business in a town. Municipalities did not collect taxes for this repair, they posted a bond, then was reimbursed by the business in a town. This had no intent for housing tracts, not created till 1945. Courts care about intent. SHC 5610 would be legal, if there was no dedication signed by Municipality, no current SCH 941a and 1806 regarding this delegation. County Counsel refused to acknowledge current law, goes back to 1911 Improvement Act, SHC 5600-5630. They have no case, praying that this does not end up in court. Wait till they get the injunction and summons, their games are over. I hear that they will stall the case, find ways to burden me with paper work. Im ready for their games.
You said "SHC 941a and 1806 cover dedications of property in housing tracts." Looking at those code sections, I'm missing your point because it appears the County is clearly permitted to enact an ordinance for maintenance. Re: 1806, how could** a county be held liable for failure to maintain if they enacted an ordinance for that very purpose? **1806 applies to Cities, not Counties.
CALIFORNIA STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 2 - COUNTY HIGHWAYS
CHAPTER 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
941. (a) Boards of supervisors shall, by proper order, cause those highways which are necessary to public convenience to be established, recorded, constructed, and maintained in the manner provided in this division.
941 and its sub-sections is followed by...
942. Such boards may enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the construction, improvement or maintenance of county highways, and for the protection, supervision, management, control, or use of such highways.
DIVISION 2.5. CITY STREETS
CHAPTER 1. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
1806. No public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until and unless the governing body, by resolution, has caused said street or road to be accepted into the city street system; nor shall any city be held liable for failure to maintain any road unless and until it has been accepted into the city street system by resolution of the governing body.
The plural of "right of way" is "rights of way". (I hope that clears thing up ;-))
Tom Adams, post: 402411, member: 7285 wrote: The plural of "right of way" is "rights of way". (I hope that clears thing up ;))
Not sure I agree. You could have "rights" of way, right of "ways", and "rights" of "ways" depending on documentation/situation. 🙂
@ Plumb Bill
Right of Way is an easement with the word "right" being the noun and the "of way" is the adjective. You pluralize the noun. It's like "Brothers in law" or "Attorneys general". That is the key to (some of) the above discussion as well. The City or County right of way is a right for public passage. It makes the value of the land virtually worthless to the underlying owner since it is a public right of way. The sale of this land would not be valued very high because there is a public roadway on top of it. But if the road were ever abandoned it would revert back to the adjacent owners. I don't know much about all the legal gobble-de-gook above though. I agree with Dave that the presumption is that the adjacent owners would be presumed to be the fee-title owners unless there were evidence otherwise (such as a deed granting fee-title to someone else)
edit: I did notice the winky-smiley-face at the end of your post, but the term is one of my pet peeves, so I am responding anyway)
Right-of-Ways 😉
I think Blackstone, in his Commentaries on English Law, simply called them Ways without the "Right of."
BajaOR, post: 402388, member: 9139 wrote: You said "SHC 941a and 1806 cover dedications of property in housing tracts." Looking at those code sections, I'm missing your point because it appears the County is clearly permitted to enact an ordinance for maintenance. Re: 1806, how could** a county be held liable for failure to maintain if they enacted an ordinance for that very purpose? **1806 applies to Cities, not Counties.
CALIFORNIA STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 2 - COUNTY HIGHWAYS
CHAPTER 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
941. (a) Boards of supervisors shall, by proper order, cause those highways which are necessary to public convenience to be established, recorded, constructed, and maintained in the manner provided in this division.941 and its sub-sections is followed by...
942. Such boards may enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the construction, improvement or maintenance of county highways, and for the protection, supervision, management, control, or use of such highways.
DIVISION 2.5. CITY STREETS
CHAPTER 1. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
1806. No public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until and unless the governing body, by resolution, has caused said street or road to be accepted into the city street system; nor shall any city be held liable for failure to maintain any road unless and until it has been accepted into the city street system by resolution of the governing body.
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.
Acceptance of Subdivision Map (941 n6): Responsibility and liability for maintaining streets in subdivision in proper condition remained with defendant subdivider until such streets were accepted by county board of supervisors as county roads; nothing in statues imposes obligation on county to accept , improve, repair, maintain or exercise any control over streets showing on subdivision map until county, in its discretion, by action of its board of supervisors, determines to accept such streets as part of county road system. County of Kern v Edgemont Development Cor (1963, 5th Dist) 222 Cap App 2s 874, 35, Cal Rptr 629.
The truth is - in all 50 states, after dedication of public "rights-of-ways" by plat or map in a housing tract secret deeds are recorded transferring fee title to a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate.
[MEDIA=youtube]TPMS6tGOACo[/MEDIA]