There is such a thing as privileged information. What is posted on the County's website for Board minutes is public information, and readily available. At this point, you should be looking for a change in assessment status for your neighborhood public facilities. If for no other reason than to rule it out. If you do find an enacted change to the County Code, you then have a starting point to determine its effect. You seem to be approaching it from a global perspective, and the implementation of ongoing maintenance may well have been modified since the acceptance of the original improvements. My experience with subdivision agreements from the early 1960s is that they were not crafted as well as they are today.
According to one of those news stories, you sued the county in 2000 over this same issue (in small claims court) and lost. So this is an issue that you have probably been pursuing for almost 2 decades. During the meeting, county council must have gotten the feeling that you were building another case against them and decided it was in their best interest to limit the amount of contact and information to the min. they are legally obligated to provide.
clearcut, post: 402461, member: 297 wrote: I haven't read this thread in detail. What I have read however leads me to believe Mr. Barry G is only looking for the answer he wants. He instead should look for the correct answer.
CA Streets and Highways Code Section 5610 is written for all owners of land adjacent to public streets. Not just business owners, or towns as BG is indicating.
The Improvement Act of 1911 was amended during the great depression to provide for the maintenance and repair of sidewalks. Then Governor Merriam was clear in his inaugural address that the government alone could not indefinitely assume the responsibility for meeting all the demands, in particular those not absolutely essential to the public service. Assemblyperson Lyons presented AB 1194 just over two weeks after the Governor's address.Please read SHC 5610 closely again. Note in particular that it states "The OWNERS..." Not just the business owners or those owners in towns or anything less than ALL owners.
There are a number of cities in California who have accepted the responsibility of maintaining sidewalks. That does not change the obligation of owners in the many municipalities who do not. It also does not absolve the liabilities of land owners even in those that do. SHC 5610 et seq is clear and unambiguous on this.
However after reading some of Barry G's posts. I'm unconvinced that any sound argument will sway him from his direction of travel. I do suggest that prior to filing any court case, that he might research case law a bit further on the subject. I strongly suggest starting with an open mind in reading this:
FLORENCE SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. J. W. LENAHAN, Respondent 63 Cal. App. 2d 324; 146 P.2d 929; 1944
This is a case of liability from a pedestrian who fell over a Charter City Sidewalk, in the City of San Francisco. Schaefer sued both Lehahan and the City of San Francisco. Did you see that the adjacent property owner in this City was found not liable for the sidewalk injuries to Schaefer. My General Law County passed on the duty, responsibility and liability on public residential housing tract sidewalks in our housing tract, after signing a dedication of property, to maintain such property, as required by State law. They have no authority to pass any liability for pedestrian injuries, based on this lawsuit, and Williams vs Foster, yet they did in their Ordinance.
Warren Smith, post: 402491, member: 9900 wrote: There is such a thing as privileged information. What is posted on the County's website for Board minutes is public information, and readily available. At this point, you should be looking for a change in assessment status for your neighborhood public facilities. If for no other reason than to rule it out. If you do find an enacted change to the County Code, you then have a starting point to determine its effect. You seem to be approaching it from a global perspective, and the implementation of ongoing maintenance may well have been modified since the acceptance of the original improvements. My experience with subdivision agreements from the early 1960s is that they were not crafted as well as they are today.
They claimed Attorney Client privilege to 90% of items I requested, without an explanation. I wrote a letter back asking for clarification, no response back. When I asked records for the subdivision agreements in 1961, they gave me the dedication of property, with housing tract housing maps. That is all they had in their records.
Plumb Bill, post: 402441, member: 226 wrote: Agreed but that is what I was acknowledging. You can have multiple rights to one way (different instruments pertaining to one route (new easements, etc.), multiple routes dedicated/conveyed per one instrument (right of ways), and/or usually multiple instruments pertaining to multiple routes per project (rights of ways). You can't pluralize lone ranger, though.
It's tree separate words that usually convey a singular idea, but that doesn't negate the ability to modify the different parts of the phrase as needed.
Think of bucket of nail, buckets of nails, bucket of nails...
Edit: I may be thinking entirely incorrectly - this is just how I always perceived the grammar. Would love hard proof of correct legal usage.
Well, we might just disagree. A lot of people share your opinion. But I think a right of way is a right of passage. If there are numerous right-of-way corridors you are referring to, I would say in that case that the corridor is the main noun and "right-of-way" is a three-word preposition to "corridor" and I would pluralize "corridor". HIghway departments and railroads have formulated a slang term "right of way" as meaning their roadway (or railway) corridor, but that is not the origin of the meaning. But regardless, if you are writing a legal description for a fee-simple acquisition for a roadway, be careful not to use the term for right of way purposes, or it could be construed as an easement acquisition even if you create it on a warrantee deed.
imaudigger, post: 402493, member: 7286 wrote: According to one of those news stories, you sued the county in 2000 over this same issue (in small claims court) and lost. So this is an issue that you have probably been pursuing for almost 2 decades. During the meeting, county council must have gotten the feeling that you were building another case against them and decided it was in their best interest to limit the amount of contact and information to the min. they are legally obligated to provide.
I went to small claim court, not for an injunction for this illegal Ordinance 4355, written on 23 December 2006, but for the damages the County owned parkway trees did to my personal property. This was a bad mistake, since a Small Claim court does not have clue on the laws regarding property and rights. He ruled that the County owes me no money, nothing else. Im going to court for an injunction of this illegal Ordinance, a different issue. Im not asking for property damage. They had no Ordinance in 2000, not till 23 December 2006. They did not have a criteria of an out of repair sidewalk till 2016.
Barry,
Here is an example of a letter to the Board relating to annual assessment for CSA 4 - Oak Park in 2009. It includes street maintenance among the other defined benefits. The minutes also show the Resolution. If your neighborhood is within one of these, it should have a searchable history. In fact, your tax bill will include the assessment, if authorized.
Tom Adams, post: 402502, member: 7285 wrote: Well, we might just disagree. A lot of people share your opinion. But I think a right of way is a right of passage. If there are numerous right-of-way corridors you are referring to, I would say in that case that the corridor is the main noun and "right-of-way" is a three-word preposition to "corridor" and I would pluralize "corridor". HIghway departments and railroads have formulated a slang term "right of way" as meaning their roadway (or railway) corridor, but that is not the origin of the meaning. But regardless, if you are writing a legal description for a fee-simple acquisition for a roadway, be careful not to use the term for right of way purposes, or it could be construed as an easement acquisition even if you create it on a warrantee deed.
Thank you. This is where Im still confused on ownership of property. Please read Schaefer vs Lenahan 1937. This is what the court states"
https://surveyorconnect.com/case/schaefer-v-lenahan?passage=XDedT6TtqWW2ZEU5ULXf4g&apos ;">At page 19 the court stated: "These streets and public highways are public property, opened, constructed, controlled, improved and repaired, for public use and benefit, by the city and county government, and no private individual possesses any exclusive right to occupy, use or control any portion thereof, by reason of his ownership or occupancy of adjacent lots and premises, by virtue of any statute of the State, and we are unable to comprehend by what process of ratiocination the duty to repair a public street or highway is devolved upon an individual from the fact that he is liable to be notified by the Superintendent of Streets to make specific repairs, or owns or occupies a lot liable to be assessed to defray the expenses of repairs, when made by another at the instance of the Superintendent." The courts clearly state that this is public property, not private property. This is a part of the public rights of way in a housing tract (road, parkway, gutter, curb, sidewalk). Several on this cite claim that I own fee and title to the middle of the street. Then this is private property, with an easement performed by the County. The courts have rules that this is public property, not private property. Then how can I own a fee to something I legally dont own? How can a Municipality apply an easement over property I dont legally owned, based on dimensions on a property map. That is my confusion that I can get around. Fee and title is absolute ownership. I dont own a public street, public sidewalk or a public parkway. I cant own a government parkway tree (by Ordinance, they own the tree), where I own the fee to the ground for the tree? That is why I need a permit from the County to plant this parkway tree, because its not my property.
James Fleming, post: 402437, member: 136 wrote: 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]
He read that in 'The Paper'. Long live The Weekly World News.
Warren Smith, post: 402506, member: 9900 wrote: Barry,
Here is an example of a letter to the Board relating to annual assessment for CSA 4 - Oak Park in 2009. It includes street maintenance among the other defined benefits. The minutes also show the Resolution. If your neighborhood is within one of these, it should have a searchable history. In fact, your tax bill will include the assessment, if authorized.
Thank you. Oak Park is an unincorporated area in Ventura County, like where I live, in Newbury Park. Street Maintenance is paid for in our property tax bill, separate line item. This is not for public sidewalk and parkway tree maintenance in our housing tracts. Where do find information on Newbury Park?
Fee simple absolute is the highest form of land ownership. Easements and other burdens (such as property and ad valorem taxes) diminish the estate to greater or lesser extents. Think of public utility easements. They can simply be abandoned. Public right of way is a different animal - it is held in trust by the local agency for the unimpeded access by the motoring, bicycling, skateboarding, equestrian, pedestrian and other members of the public at large. The vacation of those purposes requires additional steps - including making a finding that the public no longer requires such access. There is a body of case law referencing the police power of local agencies to require adjacent landowners to maintain a specified level of orderliness to their frontages. It stems from land use policies - generally under the authority of the Planning Commission and the adopted General Plan. Although Public Works is charged with County responsibilities, there are other aspects to local legislative bodies' implementation of specific policies with respect to landowners care of duties.
I would contact the Planning Department (or Community Development) for a Specific Plan for Newbury Park. The documentation for the 2010 General Plan should reference it.
Warren Smith, post: 402514, member: 9900 wrote: Fee simple absolute is the highest form of land ownership. Easements and other burdens (such as property and ad valorem taxes) diminish the estate to greater or lesser extents. Think of public utility easements. They can simply be abandoned. Public right of way is a different animal - it is held in trust by the local agency for the unimpeded access by the motoring, bicycling, skateboarding, equestrian, pedestrian and other members of the public at large. The vacation of those purposes requires additional steps - including making a finding that the public no longer requires such access. There is a body of case law referencing the police power of local agencies to require adjacent landowners to maintain a specified level of orderliness to their frontages. It stems from land use policies - generally under the authority of the Planning Commission and the adopted General Plan. Although Public Works is charged with County responsibilities, there are other aspects to local legislative bodies' implementation of specific policies with respect to landowners care of duties.
This is quite an interesting topic of discussion, thank you. If I owe the fee simple to the middle of the street, then this would state that public streets, sidewalks and parkways are owned by an individual, they are private property, not public. The streets in my area are public property, maintained by the County. My property map goes to 6" before the sidewalk. The Courts, In Schaefer vs Lenahan 1940's have stated below:
https://surveyorconnect.com/case/schaefer-v-lenahan?passage=XDedT6TtqWW2ZEU5ULXf4g&apos ;">At page 19 the court stated: "These streets and public highways are public property, opened, constructed, controlled, improved and repaired, for public use and benefit, by the city and county government, and no private individual possesses any exclusive right to occupy, use or control any portion thereof, by reason of his ownership or occupancy of adjacent lots and premises, by virtue of any statute of the State, and we are unable to comprehend by what process of ratiocination the duty to repair a public street or highway is devolved upon an individual from the fact that he is liable to be notified by the Superintendent of Streets to make specific repairs, or owns or occupies a lot liable to be assessed to defray the expenses of repairs, when made by another at the instance of the Superintendent." When I see Fee simple, "In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is a way that real estate may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be held in real property." Where as private property is an individual ownership, public property, or collective is own by all the taxpayers. If I own it (car, private road, etc), I pay for it, including buying insurance. If we own it (schools, parks, libraries, public roads, parkways, sidewalks) then we own it, pay taxes to the government for maintenance. Please tell me what Im I missing? Individual ownership is "Private, not "Public".
Unless the road was offered for dedication in fee, it is held to be an easement for the purposes stated. Current subdivision maps are required to explicitly state that (since 2009). The requirement for a road dedication as part of the approval of a subdivision is that of an exaction. That is, as part of the benefit of creating salable parcels of land. Land use planning law was in an early stage of development (pun intended) in 1961. To the extent that local codified ordinances have modified the original state of maintenance - particularly since Prop 13 - the means of budgeting for such activity from a County wide (or even Supervisorial District limits) fund has become scrutinized more closely. As an equitable philosophy, some Boards have dispersed funding sources to shared constituencies if determined to not be in the interest of the general citizenry.
While the cost of, say, a wastewater treatment facility may be borne by the County-wide taxpayers, connection fees augment that cost by an individual landowner.
Warren Smith, post: 402520, member: 9900 wrote: Unless the road was offered for dedication in fee, it is held to be an easement for the purposes stated. Current subdivision maps are required to explicitly state that (since 2009). The requirement for a road dedication as part of the approval of a subdivision is that of an exaction. That is, as part of the benefit of creating salable parcels of land. Land use planning law was in an early stage of development (pun intended) in 1961. To the extent that local codified ordinances have modified the original state of maintenance - particularly since Prop 13 - the means of budgeting for such activity from a County wide (or even Supervisorial District limits) fund has become scrutinized more closely. As an equitable philosophy, some Boards have dispersed funding sources to shared constituencies if determined to not be in the interest of the general citizenry.
While the cost of, say, a wastewater treatment facility may be borne by the County-wide taxpayers, connection fees augment that cost by an individual landowner.
Can you please explain this: 11587. Signatures required by this article, of parties owning the following types of interests, may be omitted if their names and the nature of their respective interests are endorsed on the map: (a) Rights-of-way, easements or other interests, none of which can ripen into a fee and which signatures are not required by the governing body, except those of a public entity Or public utility which has previously acquired an easement unless it is determined by the governing body that division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the final map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the easement by the owner thereof. The subdivider shall send, by certified mail, a sketch of the proposed final map together with a copy of this section to any public entity or public utility which has previously acquired an easement. If the public entity or public utility objects to recording the final map without the signature of such public entity or public utility, it shall so notify the subdivider and the governing body within 30 days after receipt thereof, othenvise the signature may be omitted. Failure of the public entity or public utility to object to recording the final map without its signature shall in no way affect its rights under an easement. This is in the dedication to my housing tract "The signatures of Ventura County, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Southern California Edison Company, present owners of the easements over said land which cannot ripen into a fee, have been omitted in accordance with Section 11587 A of the "Subdivision Map Act". Please help me interpret this statement.
Barry G, post: 402509, member: 12296 wrote: I cant own a government parkway tree (by Ordinance, they own the tree), where I own the fee to the ground for the tree? That is why I need a permit from the County to plant this parkway tree, because its not my property.
The black and white distinction you are trying to make between "private property" and "public property" is flawed in my opinion.
The county government regulates and may permit the construction of improvements/utilities within a public right of way regardless of who owns the underlying fee title.They have been entrusted to protect the public's rights which encumber that land. Those public rights trump most all uses by the underlying feet title owner.
Ownership of the underlying fee title is a question that usually gets resolved when streets are abandoned or realigned.
Because this is not an uncommon situation, legal doctrine has been established (based on court precedence).
That section of the Business & Professions Code was recodified into the Government Code subsequent to the filing of that 1961 map. The current provisions are under section 66436 of the Subdivision Map Act.
It refers to the omission of the signatures of those entities holding interests in land that cannot ripen into a fee title. The owner's statement consenting to the preparation and filing of the map is required, as are those of holders of Deeds of Trust.
Ventura County likely held an existing easement interest over a portion of the land being subdivided. That location and reference to an Easement Deed should appear on the face of the map.
Barry G, post: 402522, member: 12296 wrote: Can you please explain this: 11587. Signatures required by this article, of parties owning the following types of interests, may be omitted if their names and the nature of their respective interests are endorsed on the map: (a) Rights-of-way, easements or other interests, none of which can ripen into a fee and which signatures are not required by the governing body, except those of a public entity Or public utility which has previously acquired an easement unless it is determined by the governing body that division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the final map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the easement by the owner thereof. The subdivider shall send, by certified mail, a sketch of the proposed final map together with a copy of this section to any public entity or public utility which has previously acquired an easement. If the public entity or public utility objects to recording the final map without the signature of such public entity or public utility, it shall so notify the subdivider and the governing body within 30 days after receipt thereof, othenvise the signature may be omitted. Failure of the public entity or public utility to object to recording the final map without its signature shall in no way affect its rights under an easement. This is in the dedication to my housing tract "The signatures of Ventura County, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Southern California Edison Company, present owners of the easements over said land which cannot ripen into a fee, have been omitted in accordance with Section 11587 A of the "Subdivision Map Act". Please help me interpret this statement.
I think this has to do with charging a fee for the easement owner, to the Utility or the County (owners of the easements), is not allowed. The language in the dedication has me confused. Can you please clarify.
See my reply above relating to signature omissions on a final map.
To give you an idea of the thinking at Ventura County, here is the introduction to the update to the General Plan - Public Facilities and Services adopted October 20, 2015:
"County government is concerned with providing many necessary public facilities and services at both a local and a regional level.
As growth throughout Ventura County occurs, a need is created for the expansion of public facilities and services. Funding for these has been more difficult to obtain since passage of Propositions 4 and 13. These initiatives have altered traditional public facilities and services financing mechanisms. As a result, more emphasis has been placed upon the utilization of fiscal impact studies which assist local officials in determining whether a particular project or scale of development in the community will generate sufficient revenues to defray the necessary public facility and service costs. Now, more than ever, the availability of public facilities and services is an important consideration in determining the economic feasibility of new development."
Your concern has to do with a development which occurred in 1961. The current fiscal reality may play a part in how the County is supplementing its role by cost sharing. Good luck in your endeavor. I have been trying to give you background on what you will be dealing with.
Are you looking at the tax parcel map or a map of the deed / survey? As someone stated earlier (sorry, not going back through the thread to find out who), the tax map excludes the road easement because you do not enjoy private usage of it and the county doesn't want to charge you tax on that portion. Tax maps are also notoriously inaccurate/imprecise.
I live in San Bernardino county, in a city. When the city decided to improve the road by installing sidewalks, curbs, etc. we had to sign giving the city an easement and it was made very clear that we were responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk. We were also not given any recompense because the improvement would "increase the value of our property."