City Lays Down Law To Some Residents [Bloomberg Insanity]

CBS New York ^ | Feb 3, 2011

[ml/nj]

Veronica Deignan’s family has lived in her Monitor Street home in Greenpoint, Brooklyn since 1945.

But the city just informed her that part of her front yard belongs to someone else.

When asked if the city had ever approach her family in the previous 66 years to say it owned the property, Deignan said, “No, this was our property.”

The City Department of Design and Construction sent the Deignan’s and all their neighbors on Monitor Street letters to inform them their ages-old wrought iron fences and front stoops are on city-owned property.

Residents must remove them or the city will — all to make way for sewage and aesthetic improvements. The neighborhood is outraged.

Basically the city wants to extend the sidewalk an extra five feet, which would mean one property owner Sanchez met on Wednesday night would have to get rid of an entire staircase landing.

“You’re taking five more feet that give 15 feet. Nassau Avenue, Manhattan Avenue don’t even have 15-feet sidewalks. Are we having a parade that we don’t know about?” Bob Knapp said.

[ml/nj]

So the city is broke, but they want to widen the sidewalks on some residential street in Brooklyn that's been the way it is now for sixty years.

Really, in more reasonable times, Bloomberg would be in exile somewhere.

ML/NJ

[Joe 6-pack]

Wider sidewalks will accomodate far more trash bags allowing the garbage collectors to take more time off.

[Twotone]

I thought if you used & maintained property with the owner’s acquiescence for more than 10 years it created an easement that the owner could no longer protest. A friend had a home where his driveway crossed over onto another property to get around an obstruction. After many years the owner decided to put up a fence, but my friend was able to block it legally. His continuous use of that portion of property created an easement.

[youngidiot]

I thought if you used & maintained property with the owner’s acquiescence for more than 10 years it created an easement that the owner could no longer protest. A friend had a home where his driveway crossed over onto another property to get around an obstruction. After many years the owner decided to put up a fence, but my friend was able to block it legally. His continuous use of that portion of property created an easement.

That's absolutely correct. It's called adverse possession, and having a fence on the property for decades and maintaining the yard certainly seems to qualify.

[circlecity]

Mrs. Deignan may want to reasearch the legal doctrine of adverse possession.

[Niteranger68]

I H8 NY!

[chris_bdba]

Excuse me but if the houses have been there for so many years and the city did nothing in the last 66 years to correct the sitution wouldn’t they have rights for taking care of it for so long? Bloomberg sure is showing himself to be a little tyrant lately.He should understand that no one ever wants him to run for any other political office.

[meatloaf]

I wonder if they houses and improvements have been there long enough to qualify as historical so it can’t be changed.

A fraternity owned a brownstone in a neighborhood in NYC. Apparently the neighbors weren’t appreciative of the typical fraternity activities. When they replaced the front door, the neighbors thought they had a gotcha. Turned out the fraternity had owned the building going back sometime into the 1800’s. They had photos showing the replacement door was historically more accurate.

Fraternity 1 Neighbors zip

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That's absolutely correct. It's called adverse possession, and having a fence on the property for decades and maintaining the yard certainly seems to qualify.

Thanks to Kelo, they can just take the whole damned house if the residents give them any lip.

[Labyrinthos]

I thought if you used & maintained property with the owner’s acquiescence for more than 10 years it created an easement that the owner could no longer protest. A friend had a home where his driveway crossed over onto another property to get around an obstruction. After many years the owner decided to put up a fence, but my friend was able to block it legally. His continuous use of that portion of property created an easement.

You are correct as between private landowners. Adverse possession, however, generally does not apply as against publicly owned property.

[Oratam]

You're a mean one . . . .

[youngidiot]

You are correct as between private landowners. Adverse possession, however, generally does not apply as against publicly owned property.

I think you're right insofar as the property has public use (existing road, park, etc) but I'm not so sure when it comes to this situation. I think it could be argued that the private owners are entitled to compensation because the use of the supposedly public property has been blatant and ongoing. It's an interesting problem.

[youngidiot]

Thanks to Kelo, they can just take the whole damned house if the residents give them any lip.

But even Kelo was compensated. And I don't think they can argue it from the angle that they'll get an increase in tax revenue, like they did in Kelo.

[jackibutterfly]

All I can say is, Oh, well. They voted for him.

[allmendream]

My brother ran into this recently after buying our mom's property. The fenced yard around the cabin goes right up to the dirt road that provides access. When wanting to cut down a wild cherry tree in the front yard (my brother is a aborealist and is going to plant far more trees than he takes down) he was informed by his neighbor that the property line actually extend 15 feet from the road into his front yard, and the cherry tree (although fenced off in my brothers front yard) was on HIS property.

For the sake of harmonious relations my brother made the Back-ho go around to dig the septic tank - but I explained to him the concept of “easement” and that he had de facto ownership of all the yard up to the road no matter where the property line actually lay.

[Labyrinthos]

To place the blame for this directly upon Bloomberg is pretty damn stupid. New York City has over 8 million people, fifty municipal departments, and more than 300,000 employees. I’m about 99.99% certain that Bloomberg was not involved with this project in any way and never even heard of the project or this particular street in Brooklyn unless someone brought it to his attention after the people affected started screaming.

I dislike Bloomberg as much as the next Freeper, but let’s not look like idiots in our criticisms.

[Labyrinthos]

I think you're right insofar as the property has public use (existing road, park, etc) but I'm not so sure when it comes to this situation. I think it could be argued that the private owners are entitled to compensation because the use of the supposedly public property has been blatant and ongoing. It's an interesting problem.

I am certain in my position. First, under the Highway Law, the city (and all municipalities) have an easement that extends something like 15' onto private property that abuts a public road. Thus, even if the landowner owns the real property in fee or by adverse possession, the City can still require the removal of improvements that encroach upon the easement.

Second, the law will not allow the public to suffer prejudice as a result of the action or inaction of public officers and employees even if the results are harsh. In other words, the law will not allow a private person to take property that belongs to the public by adverse possession because some bureaucrat failed to do his or her job. Otherwise, a corrupt public employee could give away city property to friend and relatives by turning a blind eye.

[youngidiot]

I am certain in my position. First, under the Highway Law, the city (and all municipalities) have an easement that extends something like 15' onto private property that abuts a public road. Thus, even if the landowner owns the real property in fee or by adverse possession, the City can still require the removal of improvements that encroach upon the easement.

Second, the law will not allow the public to suffer prejudice as a result of the action or inaction of public officers and employees even if the results are harsh. In other words, the law will not allow a private person to take property that belongs to the public by adverse possession because some bureaucrat failed to do his or her job. Otherwise, a corrupt public employee could give away city property to friend and relatives by turning a blind eye.

That sounds reasonable to me. You're right.

[ml/nj]

I’m about 99.99% certain that Bloomberg was not involved with this project in any way

I wouldn't be so sure. We have all sorts of mysterious places where cars cannot drive anymore that seem like sidewalk extensions. Bikepaths are popping up all over the place which further restrict traffic. Bloomberg has kinda made it known that he doesn't like cars (except his own). And he's a big enough schmuck to come up with something like this; or at least to have encouraged it.

ML/NJ

[Sacajaweau]

You folks just might look at the legislation Gov Patterson signed in 2008 regarding boundaries and adverse possession.