Warren Smith, post: 402548, member: 9900 wrote: 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.
Thank you Warren. Proposition 13 was approved in 1978, which was 38 years ago, times have changed. Ventura County, in 1978 and beyond removed public sidewalks in this housing tract and removed parkway trees. It still cuts parkway trees and removes them. It placed ramps on sidewalks, using asphalt to ramp up the public sidewalks in the 1980's , then stopped. I was here when they placed asphalt on public sidewalks throughout the community, I have pictures. So Prop 4 and 13 did not stop them from maintaining the public roads, sidewalks and parkway trees in housing tracts.. per their signed dedication. In the 2000's, my County has transportation reserves for this maintenance in the millions. In 2016, according to Ventura County is 50 million dollars in reserve. This excuse that they dont have money is a fabrication to the people. They dont have 20K to repair government property in my housing tract is not based on reality.
"They dont have 20K to repair government property in my housing tract is not based on reality."
No - but it is based on prioritization. Keep at it.
mkennedy, post: 402558, member: 7183 wrote: 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."
I'm looking at the property map as defined by Ventura County Maps, which is also addressed in my deed. I had a land surveyor come out and he prepared my property map, defining my property line, as being 6" before the public sidewalk. He will testify that I dont own the public sidewalks, the parkway tree, nor out to the middle of the street. Maps define property lines, what is private and what is public. You are a Charter City, I believe. They have separate rules than General law Cities.
You don't own the sidewalk, its not on your property line, so check the dimensions on the map. I am surprised that you had to sign any documents. There is an automatic easement implied when the rights of ways are installed, normally by the developer. You don't assign easements, the City performs this function, also the Utility. It is written in your housing tract. How do they define that you are responsible to maintain a public sidewalk? Check the original dedication of property, to see what the Municipality approved. Did they tell you 5600-5630? Look at Willits vs City of Los Angeles 2010. Los Angeles is responsible to repair the public sidewalks and parkway trees in housing tracts and the town. How is San Bernardino different then Los Angeles? No one is taking this to court, so the County/City gets away with this effort. Check with an attorney in your area who knows Municipality Law, and see if what they did was legal.
Warren Smith, post: 402562, member: 9900 wrote: "They dont have 20K to repair government property in my housing tract is not based on reality."
No - but it is based on prioritization. Keep at it.
I agree with this statement, its not a priority for people in the unincorporated areas of Ventura, which goes unrepresented. This still will not give them the authority to approve and illegal ordinance, transferring their duty, responsibility and liability to adjacent property owners. This will be decide by a State Superior Court Judge. Thank you.
Well, the prioritization is done by the Supervisors for the Districts they represent - based on staff reports for annual budget requests.
Carter v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 808 (2014)
Willits is a Federal District Court ADA lawsuit.
This case is about curb ramps and class action lawsuits, I don't know how it relates to sidewalk maintenance.
Barry G, post: 402563, member: 12296 wrote: I'm looking at the property map as defined by Ventura County Maps, which is also addressed in my deed. I had a land surveyor come out and he prepared my property map, defining my property line, as being 6" before the public sidewalk. He will testify that I dont own the public sidewalks, the parkway tree, nor out to the middle of the street.
.
Wow.
What is the Tract Number of your subdivision?
In Barry GÛªs thinking, there seems to be a co-joining of the idea of a right-of-way (a servitude) and the responsibility for improvement/repairs to constructed features. He is assuming that they are one in the same. I suggest they are not. The cases refer to the public agency having the responsibility to maintain the STREET, so that the adjoining owners are not damaged by a non-usable condition (as inability to use). These cases do not say that the public agency is responsibility to maintain the constructed features beyond the street.
Barry G states in post #59 that Miller and Starr, California Real Estate 2D, KB 167 M5, require cities or counties to maintain the property. Here the term ÛÏpropertyÛ is relating to the roadway (street), so that no-one is injured from damage or aberration of the physical roadway. The term ÛÏpropertyÛ here is not referencing the idea of right-of-way. It is only referencing the physical street that allows for un-obstructed usage.
For subdivisions, the developer typically constructs the sidewalks, and many times plants trees within the right-of-way. On recording of the subdivision map, the public agency does the following:
- Approved the map.
- Accepted in behalf of the public all rights-of way and easements shown.
- Accepted all rights-of-way shown as the public way and avenue and for dedication subject to the improvement thereof.
Notice that the rights-of-way and easements (property which indicates areas) are accepted in item 2 above, while the agency specifically deals with the physical improvement of the streets are accepted once improved or constructed (this is the physical definition of property, not to be confused with area).
To say a person has ÛÏtitleÛ to or ÛÏownsÛ personal property is to state a legal conclusion. A person can be shown to have title to property as a legal conclusion even though he or she does not have actual possession of the property as an observed fact.
ÛÏPossessionÛ usually indicates that it is possessed continually against everyone else, except those persons who have a better right to the property. It typically constitutes actual control, and intent to possess and exclude others.
In a subdivision, you donÛªt possess the land within the right-of-way, but you still by legal conclusion own and have title to the property to the center of the street.
The issue becomes then who is responsible for maintenance and repair of constructed features within the right-of-way. As indicated above related to subdivisions, because of liability and requirement NOT to cause damage to others to USE the right-of-way, the city or county performs (hopefully) adequate maintenance and repair of the roads and streets, to not inhibit the use thereof. The same duty is not attributable to the sidewalks. To include the sidewalk, would be to bind the city or county to a duty that was beyond their contract to fulfill. The city or county promised to maintain the street, not the sidewalk (even though the sidewalk may be within the right-of-way). Barry G is trying to compel promise by the agency for something they never promised (contracted) to do.
The appurtenant easement concept means that the implied reservation is placed on the adjacent land owner, and he or she becomes the Servient Tenet and is burdened by the right-of-way or easement. The public becomes the dominant tenet. The right-of-way is classified as a negative easement against the adjacent landowner, and run against the land. Do not confuse this type of easement with a Profit easement, where the public would have the right to take something from the land itself.
The subdivision developer (owner) placed restrictions on lots in the tract, with such restrictions to be for the sole benefit of the remaining lots.
The term servitude is used with the term easement, a right of some benefit or beneficial use out of, in, or over the land of another. Although the terms servitude and easement are sometimes used as synonyms, the two concepts differ. A servitude relates to the servient estate or the burdened land, whereas an easement refers to the dominant estate, which is the land benefited by the right.
A servitude does not necessarily transfer responsibility of maintenance as Barry G is asserting.
ThatÛªs my way of differentiating between of two separate concepts. Barry G seems to hang his argument on wanting to co-join them. I see them as separate.
Dave Karoly, post: 402569, member: 94 wrote: Carter v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal. App. 4th 808 (2014)
Willits is a Federal District Court ADA lawsuit.
I am familiar with both cases. The disabled were sick and tired of waiting for Cities/Counties to make public sidewalks safe and filed a complaint with the ADA. Many Counties and Cities here in California ignore repairing public sidewalks, parkway trees and pot holes in streets, ignored government responsibilities. Some try to transfer this responsibility to the adjacent property owner.
People in wheel chairs had no way to go to point A to B in their own communities as well as other communities. So they went to their city and requested help. The Charter City government told them to pound sand, in so many words. So the disabled filed and ADA lawsuit, and guess what, they won.
I went to my Board of Supervisors hearing in Ventura and presented this case to the Board. County Counsel told the board that this for LA, not Ventura County, does not apply. Ventura County is 40 miles west of LA. Look at this case results, 1.4B in transportation from LA's transportation budget, this General law Municipality is responsible for public sidewalks and parkway trees, not residential property owners! Why did the judge hold the City responsible, because they maintain the public rights of ways, with transporation funds, not adjacent property owners, who pay taxes for this maintenance.
Edward Reading, post: 402570, member: 132 wrote: Wow.
What is the Tract Number of your subdivision?
Tract No 1116-1 Conejo Valley Estates Unit in the Unincorporated Territory of Ventura County, Subdivision of the Portion of Section II, T. I N, R.20 W., C.E.
Huse. Tract NO. 5 of the Rancho El Conejo, as Per Map recorded in Book 1 Page 746 of Deeds, of Ventura County, State of California. All our properties end 6" before the sidewalk. Counties position is that we own out to the middle of the street, property maps dont define property. My eyes were bleeding, lol. The Land Surveyor told me that we dont own out to the middle of the street, that is a total fabrication.
Barry G, post: 402577, member: 12296 wrote: The Land Surveyor told me that we dont own out to the middle of the street,
I would not want to be trying to make that case in a California court.
epoch date, post: 402572, member: 485 wrote: In Barry GÛªs thinking, there seems to be a co-joining of the idea of a right-of-way (a servitude) and the responsibility for improvement/repairs to constructed features. He is assuming that they are one in the same. I suggest they are not. The cases refer to the public agency having the responsibility to maintain the STREET, so that the adjoining owners are not damaged by a non-usable condition (as inability to use). These cases do not say that the public agency is responsibility to maintain the constructed features beyond the street.
Barry G states in post #59 that Miller and Starr, California Real Estate 2D, KB 167 M5, require cities or counties to maintain the property. Here the term ÛÏpropertyÛ is relating to the roadway (street), so that no-one is injured from damage or aberration of the physical roadway. The term ÛÏpropertyÛ here is not referencing the idea of right-of-way. It is only referencing the physical street that allows for un-obstructed usage.
For subdivisions, the developer typically constructs the sidewalks, and many times plants trees within the right-of-way. On recording of the subdivision map, the public agency does the following:
- Approved the map.
- Accepted in behalf of the public all rights-of way and easements shown.
- Accepted all rights-of-way shown as the public way and avenue and for dedication subject to the improvement thereof.
Notice that the rights-of-way and easements (property which indicates areas) are accepted in item 2 above, while the agency specifically deals with the physical improvement of the streets are accepted once improved or constructed (this is the physical definition of property, not to be confused with area).
To say a person has ÛÏtitleÛ to or ÛÏownsÛ personal property is to state a legal conclusion. A person can be shown to have title to property as a legal conclusion even though he or she does not have actual possession of the property as an observed fact.
ÛÏPossessionÛ usually indicates that it is possessed continually against everyone else, except those persons who have a better right to the property. It typically constitutes actual control, and intent to possess and exclude others.
In a subdivision, you donÛªt possess the land within the right-of-way, but you still by legal conclusion own and have title to the property to the center of the street.
The issue becomes then who is responsible for maintenance and repair of constructed features within the right-of-way. As indicated above related to subdivisions, because of liability and requirement NOT to cause damage to others to USE the right-of-way, the city or county performs (hopefully) adequate maintenance and repair of the roads and streets, to not inhibit the use thereof. The same duty is not attributable to the sidewalks. To include the sidewalk, would be to bind the city or county to a duty that was beyond their contract to fulfill. The city or county promised to maintain the street, not the sidewalk (even though the sidewalk may be within the right-of-way). Barry G is trying to compel promise by the agency for something they never promised (contracted) to do.
The appurtenant easement concept means that the implied reservation is placed on the adjacent land owner, and he or she becomes the Servient Tenet and is burdened by the right-of-way or easement. The public becomes the dominant tenet. The right-of-way is classified as a negative easement against the adjacent landowner, and run against the land. Do not confuse this type of easement with a Profit easement, where the public would have the right to take something from the land itself.
The subdivision developer (owner) placed restrictions on lots in the tract, with such restrictions to be for the sole benefit of the remaining lots.
The term servitude is used with the term easement, a right of some benefit or beneficial use out of, in, or over the land of another. Although the terms servitude and easement are sometimes used as synonyms, the two concepts differ. A servitude relates to the servient estate or the burdened land, whereas an easement refers to the dominant estate, which is the land benefited by the right.
A servitude does not necessarily transfer responsibility of maintenance as Barry G is asserting.
ThatÛªs my way of differentiating between of two separate concepts. Barry G seems to hang his argument on wanting to co-join them. I see them as separate.
I dont know where to start on this one, respectfully disagree with several of your assumptions. Read the legal determination of a street, which includes the parkways, sidewalk, gutter, curb, etc. Read SHC 5600-5630. This is what they call the public rights of ways in a housing tracts, that is maintained in a housing tract by the Municipality. In California, a majority of the cities maintain the public sidewalks, never the adjacent property owner, its not on their property line. Developers do create the sidewalks and parkways in their housing tract, pass on the duty of maintenance in the dedication. An adjacent property does not have title to the public streets, parkways or sidewalks, nor does it have possession or control over any of these items. Counties have control over public property, to including what is planted on the parkway, as an adjacent property owner would need a permit to plant a tree or modify a sidewalk. If this were private property, ie a tree or sidewalk on my land (property map), I dont need permission from any Municipality. That is the difference between public and private property, who owns it and who has control over it. In my area, per Ordinance, the government owns the parkway tree. How can this be, if I own and possess out to the middle of the street? Since I dont have any control over this property, I dont posses it, or own title to it. We own public property, we have control over it, we posses it, we are responsible to maintain it, through taxes. That is how this government is set up.
The duty to maintain public sidewalks by a Municipality has happened for a long time, including in my own housing tract, after signing the dedication. My County has removed public sidewalks and replaced them, out of the transportation budget. Also, they have removed parkway trees, out of their transportation budget, then stopped 20 years ago. Cities in my county pay to replace public sidewalks in housing tracts today. Sidewalks are legally a part of the rights of way, per a letter from my own County. Read Miller and Starr regarding ingress and egress, which includes all travel in housing tracts, that's a fact. Anything to do with travel, from one place to another, includes parkways and sidewalks. Once again, County controls this area, its public property, not private, its responsible to maintain public property with taxes. With all due respect, I disagree with your assumptions. You work for a City or County, correct?
Barry G, post: 402575, member: 12296 wrote: I am familiar with both cases. The disabled were sick and tired of waiting for Cities/Counties to make public sidewalks safe and filed a complaint with the ADA. Many Counties and Cities here in California ignore repairing public sidewalks, parkway trees and pot holes in streets, ignored government responsibilities. Some try to transfer this responsibility to the adjacent property owner.
People in wheel chairs had no way to go to point A to B in their own communities as well as other communities. So they went to their city and requested help. The Charter City government told them to pound sand, in so many words. So the disabled filed and ADA lawsuit, and guess what, they won.
I went to my Board of Supervisors hearing in Ventura and presented this case to the Board. County Counsel told the board that this for LA, not Ventura County, does not apply. Ventura County is 40 miles west of LA. Look at this case results, 1.4B in transportation from LA's transportation budget, this General law Municipality is responsible for public sidewalks and parkway trees, not residential property owners! Why did the judge hold the City responsible, because they maintain the public rights of ways, with transporation funds, not adjacent property owners, who pay taxes for this maintenance.
I don't think the case is citable for the proposition you want to cite it for.
Barry G, post: 402581, member: 12296 wrote: I dont know where to start on this one, respectfully disagree with several of your assumptions. Read the legal determination of a street, which includes the parkways, sidewalk, gutter, curb, etc. Read SHC 5600-5630. This is what they call the public rights of ways in a housing tracts, that is maintained in a housing tract by the Municipality. In California, a majority of the cities maintain the public sidewalks, never the adjacent property owner, its not on their property line. Developers do create the sidewalks and parkways in their housing tract, pass on the duty of maintenance in the dedication. An adjacent property does not have title to the public streets, parkways or sidewalks, nor does it have possession or control over any of these items. Counties have control over public property, to including what is planted on the parkway, as an adjacent property owner would need a permit to plant a tree or modify a sidewalk. If this were private property, ie a tree or sidewalk on my land (property map), I dont need permission from any Municipality. That is the difference between public and private property, who owns it and who has control over it. In my area, per Ordinance, the government owns the parkway tree. How can this be, if I own and possess out to the middle of the street? Since I dont have any control over this property, I dont posses it, or own title to it. We own public property, we have control over it, we posses it, we are responsible to maintain it, through taxes. That is how this government is set up.
The duty to maintain public sidewalks by a Municipality has happened for a long time, including in my own housing tract, after signing the dedication. My County has removed public sidewalks and replaced them, out of the transportation budget. Also, they have removed parkway trees, out of their transportation budget, then stopped 20 years ago. Cities in my county pay to replace public sidewalks in housing tracts today. Sidewalks are legally a part of the rights of way, per a letter from my own County. Read Miller and Starr regarding ingress and egress, which includes all travel in housing tracts, that's a fact. Anything to do with travel, from one place to another, includes parkways and sidewalks. Once again, County controls this area, its public property, not private, its responsible to maintain public property with taxes. With all due respect, I disagree with your assumptions. You work for a City or County, correct?
To overcome the arguments and assumptions you are stating, the following concerns must be backed-up by prior case law. Consider researching each of the following to find legal case precedence for each of the following:
- Indicate where in SHC 5600-5630 it states that sidewalks are a portion of the street.
- Provide legal basis for your assumption that developers pass-on their duty of maintenance in the dedication of the right-of-way.
- Exactly how is the California Constitution being subverted.
- Provide legal basis for your assumption that an adjacent property owner does not have title to the centerline of a road. (Rights-of-way are an easement on the adjacent properties.)
- You say a county has control over public property. But, a county also may implement ordinances for control of rights-of-way that they donÛªt own. Is there a legal basis the prohibits a county from passing ordinance related to a right-of-way.
- Cite the basis of your assumption that acceptance of the right-of-way dedication equates to ownership by the county.
- You say that sidewalks are legally part of the rights-of-way, please provide cite of legal basis for this assumption. (Sidewalks are usually within the right-of-wayÛ?)
- I like your comment about ingress and egress (via a sidewalk) and may hold merit. But, the laws apply to the street, not everything within the right-of-way.
- Provide legal basis for your assumption that county control of an area equates to ownership.
Please share what you find in case law that effectively supports these points. In doing so, youÛªll have a better chance in presenting your case before the court, and rebutting the established laws and ordinances that the county will base their arguments upon.
OH, per your inquiry ÛÒ I have never worked for a city or countyÛ?
See 3 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th Ed.), (note: the chapter number in the 2nd Edition may be different). In a subdivision, ownership extends to the centerline of the streets adjacent to the lots depicted on the map. See, for example, for example, Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975) where the Court found title extends to the center of the street as a matter of law.
I can't discuss California, but in my state the way a dedication and acceptance by a government agency works is like this:
The dedication conveys title to the public (the location of the road determines which government agency acquires title). It is limited in it's nature to an ownership of the street and to a depth that is necessary to install utilities. The dedication does not convey mineral rights (at least where I live).
So the people with lots along a dedicated street retain mineral rights under the street, and reversionary rights to the center (usually, but that varies) of the street if the street is ever vacated. Lot owners do not OWN to the center in my state, but retain certain rights, again I can't speak for California.
There are different flavors of these rules,,,,,PUD's which are often done in unincorporated areas are a whole nother animal. If you live in one of those the collective of the PUD (subdivision) owns the semi public streets and are required to maintain them, possibly you are under the California version. Also some subdivisions will speak to road ownership in the dedication, one in particular describes the roads in the subdivision as to be owned collectively by the lot owners when all the lots are finally sold by the developer.
If you live where I do the city owns the street in front of my house, the public utilities (water, sewer), lighting, signing, pavement, curbs, sidewalks are maintained by the city, the private utilities (elec, gas, tv) are maintained by the utility company. Once a water line hits the curb stop the private owner is responsible, sewer lines are more complicated. The city will require the land owner to clean his walks, keep the trees trimmed, the landscape in order or face legal action.
Even though surveyors are often immersed in these issues and understand them fairly well, going to court over these issues is not what we do. You need a good attorney that really understands these issues. State Supreme Court cases are legion that cover these questions, I would study them before going to court if you are doing this on your own, don't imagine that you know everything you may be very surprised when you get there.
MightyMoe, post: 402619, member: 700 wrote: I can't discuss California, but in my state the way a dedication and acceptance by a government agency works is like this:
The dedication conveys title to the public (the location of the road determines which government agency acquires title). It is limited in it's nature to an ownership of the street and to a depth that is necessary to install utilities. The dedication does not convey mineral rights (at least where I live).
So the people with lots along a dedicated street retain mineral rights under the street, and reversionary rights to the center (usually, but that varies) of the street if the street is ever vacated. Lot owners do not OWN to the center in my state, but retain certain rights, again I can't speak for California.
There are different flavors of these rules,,,,,PUD's which are often done in unincorporated areas are a whole nother animal. If you live in one of those the collective of the PUD (subdivision) owns the semi public streets and are required to maintain them, possibly you are under the California version. Also some subdivisions will speak to road ownership in the dedication, one in particular describes the roads in the subdivision as to be owned collectively by the lot owners when all the lots are finally sold by the developer.
If you live where I do the city owns the street in front of my house, the public utilities (water, sewer), lighting, signing, pavement, curbs, sidewalks are maintained by the city, the private utilities (elec, gas, tv) are maintained by the utility company. Once a water line hits the curb stop the private owner is responsible, sewer lines are more complicated. The city will require the land owner to clean his walks, keep the trees trimmed, the landscape in order or face legal action.
Even though surveyors are often immersed in these issues and understand them fairly well, going to court over these issues is not what we do. You need a good attorney that really understands these issues. State Supreme Court cases are legion that cover these questions, I would study them before going to court if you are doing this on your own, don't imagine that you know everything you may be very surprised when you get there.
from 4 Tiffany Real Prop. å¤ 996 (3rd ed.):
As before stated, fn1 the ownership of land which is subject to use as a highway is, at common law, in individuals, the public having merely the use thereof, but in this country, the ownership of the land, the "fee" as it is called, is quite frequently in the state or municipality in trust for the public. In the latter case, a conveyance of land as bounded "by" or "along" the highway can, of course, vest in the grantee no part of the land occupied by the highway, and he takes merely to the outer edge thereof. When, however, the grantor owns part or the whole of the land subject to the highway use, the question frequently arises whether his conveyance passes land within the highway, and, in deciding this question, the same considerations apply as in the analogous case of a conveyance of land bounded by water, the soil under which belongs to the grantor.
(bold by me).
Footnote 1 refers to å¤ 923 which I don't have.
After reading some of this thread, I am still unclear about this concept of ownership going to the middle of the street. When, in a semi-modern subdivision, property lines are drawn to the edge of the right of way and the City accepts the dedication, when does this ever come into effect except when the road may happen to be abandoned? If ownership is a "bundle of rights", what rights are being retained other than in the unlikely situation, in most cases, where the street is abandoned?
Dave Karoly, post: 402623, member: 94 wrote: from 4 Tiffany Real Prop. å¤ 996 (3rd ed.):
As before stated, fn1 the ownership of land which is subject to use as a highway is, at common law, in individuals, the public having merely the use thereof, but in this country, the ownership of the land, the "fee" as it is called, is quite frequently in the state or municipality in trust for the public. In the latter case, a conveyance of land as bounded "by" or "along" the highway can, of course, vest in the grantee no part of the land occupied by the highway, and he takes merely to the outer edge thereof. When, however, the grantor owns part or the whole of the land subject to the highway use, the question frequently arises whether his conveyance passes land within the highway, and, in deciding this question, the same considerations apply as in the analogous case of a conveyance of land bounded by water, the soil under which belongs to the grantor.
(bold by me).Footnote 1 refers to å¤ 923 which I don't have.
Is the ownership of the land in a housing tract, or fee, area to the soil under the road, parkway and sidewalk is the individual adjacent property owner, while the actual road itself, parkway and sidewalk is own by the Municipality, for public ingress and egress? That would explain why my property map dimensions go 6" before the public sidewalk. The Public Works Director states in a letter "Accordingly, you are the owner of the free title to the centerline of the portion of Street abutting you parcel, notwithstanding that the parcel depicted on the tract map does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line, or that you do not pay property tax for that portion of your Street." California Code 831, written in 1872 states: An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown." The contrary may be shown is expressed in the dimensions in the property map of the County/City. The Public Works Director states in writing that the map "does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line".
The owner of your subdivision offered for dedication for public use, the roads shown on the map. The Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision, and accepted for public use, the roads shown on the map. The County does not own the right of way shown on the map, but administers the public use of facilities within the right of way as dimensioned. There are mutual responsibilities to certain collateral uses within that right of way.
