Residents derail 5 proposed sidewalks -- NIMFY

[phantom power]

Construction of five sidewalks — part of a larger project intended to provide children with safe pedestrian routes to Medford schools — has been canceled after area residents spoke against it.

The placement of the sidewalks would have created residential parking problems and cut off part of residents' perceived lawns, which are actually public right-of-way, that have been landscaped, said Medford City Council members who unanimously agreed on the changes.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080614/NEWS/806140309/-1/LIFE

[baldguy]

1. So what if a few kids get killed?

Just as long as I can have my hydrangeas.

[Javaman]

23. Their mantra is, "will someone stop thinking of the children!!" nt

[Kutjara]

2. If God had intended children to walk to school...

...He wouldn't have invented SUVs.

So these residents have taken over public rights-of-way and landscaped them (presumably in such a way as they are no longer usable as rights-of-way)? Now they're seeking to deny the city the right to use the land for the public benefit? I think the DA's office needs to start charging some people with criminal trespass, destruction of public property, and obstruction. A few hefty fines might convince these people to be a bit more public spirited.

[Zachstar]

3. AMEN!!!

[phantom power]

4. It seems the problem is that the city caved to those residents...

Legally, it's not their property, and their bellyaching can't prevent a sidewalk unless the local govt allows it.

[Kutjara]

9. Absolutely. The city is perfectly within its rights...

...to clear away whatever "landscaping" improvements the residents have made to the right-of-way. Failing to do so opens the city to litigation by anyone who is injured either as a result of obstructions to the right-of-way or as a result of having to walk in the roadway because the right-of-way is obstructed. Even if no one is actually injured, the fact that a manifest risk of injury exists, due to the city's failure to exercise its statutory powers, may be sufficient cause for a suit.

Often, the only way to wake up complacent and/or corrupt local government is to start throwing subpoenas around.

[XemaSab]

7. I'll tell you what:

Half of our back yard is a city ROW, and they're going to build an alley back there over my dead body. :o

[Kutjara]

10. It all depends on the terms of the right-of-way.

If the city merely has an easement across your property granting a public right-of-way, then people are within their rights to saunter across that part of your back yard all day long. That doesn't mean the city can "build an alley" (because, aside from the rights granted by the easement, the land is yours) but it does mean you are committing an offense if you attempt to fence off or otherwise obstruct the ROW.

If, however, the city owns the land that you're using as your back yard, they can pretty much do what they want with it (subject to the local zoning laws and/or any relevant provisions in the city charter). The fact that they're currently allowing you to use their land for your own purposes doesn't rob them of their rights over that land.

If the city owns the land and decides to do something you don't like, your only redress is political. Legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.

It's also worth considering what other rights you might be giving away by using that piece of land. If you have, for example, a garden shed sitting on it, you may not be protected from unreasonable search and seizure if the cops decide to have a look around without a warrant (so be careful where you grow your MJ plants :)). Homeowners' insurance might not cover you for personal property stolen from land that doesn't belong to you, either. Finally, if someone is injured on the land, you might think you're protected from litigation because the land isn't legally yours, but this isn't necessarily true. The injured party may well sue the city, and then the city will turn around and sue you for misuse of their land.

[XemaSab]

18. The rumor is

that we have one of the biggest backyards in the neighborhood because the city was intending to build an alley back there but never did. All the other houses have an alley behind them, but we don't. :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

21. Well, giving our cities' financial conditions, you can probably rest easy.

Nobody has any money for maintaining the existing streets, let alone making new ones.....

[sandnsea]

5. I would have to vote against it too

I'd have cars just feet from my front door if they decided to put sidewalks in now. And if I'd put in hundreds of dollars of landscaping and sprinkler systems, I wouldn't be wanting the city to rip that out either. I'm pissed that they ever let houses be built without sidewalks in the first place.

[Zachstar]

8. I dont give a flying hell about your sprinkler systems that waste a ton.

Get good grass in that grows with less water and suck it up when it comes to the car issue. The reason children sit inside and play video games is the increasingly hostile world outside the house. You got tanks running up and down the road (SUVs) Nowhere to play a little B-Ball but at school and some places not even sidewalks to safely walk on.

So hell no to your sprinkler systems and landscaping.

[sandnsea]

13. No, sprinkler systems save water

And there are kids all over the streets in my neighborhood, and we make sure there are parks within a few blocks of all the homes, plus fund school buses to get the kids to school so they won't be killed crossing a major highway.

The time to worry about sidewalks was when the DEVELOPERS were kissing the city council's ass - not dump them on the backs of homeowners years later.

[Zachstar]

6. So who gives a fuck about children getting heart attacks eh?

OMG it might actually make it harder for the 5 SUVs to park! And it might interfere with the quest to beat the lawn of the Jones!


One good thing about possible depression is these assholes are likely sitting on some hefty loans. I shall laugh when they are thrown into the street by the banks.

[hedgehog]

11. Read the article, then comment. In at least some cases, the sidewalks will be moved

across the street. It sounds as if the houses were built too close to the road to begin with. If the sidewalks are put in, they will be les than a ca length from the houses involved; th e residents note that if they park in their driveways, their cars would block the proposed sidewalks.

[NV Whino]

14. And...

it is apparently illegal to park on the street when the children are walking to school in the first place.

By the way, has anyone railing against this decision actually been to Medford? Or been to the neighborhoods being discussed? And do you understand that "landscaping" might possibly be something a little different than what you are imagining?

[Nihil]

19. Not "railing", just curious ...

> And do you understand that "landscaping" might possibly be
> something a little different than what you are imagining?

As the chance of me going to Medford is as near to zero as I can predict,
could you please enlighten me on the local meaning of "landscaping"?

Ta!
:hi:

[Kutjara]

15. While that's all true, it doesn't change the fact...

...that city land is city land. If you use it, you do so on the understanding that you have no ownership rights over it, and can't really complain if the city decides to exercise its rights. Presumably, the deeds to all these properties contain clauses to the effect that some portion of the front yard is city land, and that residents must keep this land clear of obstructions (certainly, every deed I've ever seen has had this provision). The time to say "but that means my front yard is really only 6" deep" is before contract signing, not when the city decides to actually exercise its rights.

The homeowners in this case won't suddenly be obstructing a right-of-way by parking their cars across the new sidewalks. They're obstructing the right-of-way NOW. Just because the right-of-way doesn't have concrete on it does not mean it doesn't exist. Any "landscaping," fencing, shrubbery, lawn furniture, or vehicles currently sitting on the land are obstructing the right-of-way. Paving the area and calling it a sidewalk merely makes the extent of the obstruction clear.

There's a bigger issue here. How many of us know the extent of the city-owned land in front of and behind our homes? How many of us know what the city can and cannot do with that land, how much notice they have to give, what the consultation process is, or anything else about it? How many of us know what our responsibilities are in respect of that land (I've seen sales contracts that specify what type of grass has to be used on such land, how high it can grow, and how often leaves have to be cleared from it - all the responsibility of the homeowner). How many of us know about our third party liability for injury or death on this land (for example, does your liability insurance extend to land you don't own? It may not, but the city may still hold you accountable if someone is injured due to your perceived negligence).

The best rule is to always assume that any and all rights over any property you intend to buy will be exercised in full by the owner of those rights. To assume anything else is just wishful thinking.

[hedgehog]

16. An excellent point and one that comes up all too often. We had a cute

situation here a few years back. The houses went up facing the river c. 1890. The road later became a state highway. This meant that the state had eminent domain to a certain road width. There is plenty of room for a two lane, but the four lane under discussion would have literally run through the living rooms of dozens of houses. Those houses had been bought and sold for years, and I doubtr any of the current owners realized where the actual road right-of-way was.

[Kutjara]

17. Where it gets really complicated is in...

...situations where a municipality's identity changes, such as when an unincorporated community becomes incorporated as a city. Homeowners may lose a chunk of their property and simultaneously take on a slew of responsibilities, but the only way they'd know about it is if they read the fine print in the new city's charter.

[NNadir]

12. They installed sidewalks in my neighborhood last year. It's mostly been magnificent.

We no longer feel the need to drive to stores in order to prevent being killed by cars.

It's made my block a community where we meet the neighbors and get to talk.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unpossibles]

20. does anyone ever wonder if we'll someday stop being so short-sighted? nt