Get a ticket for parking in you own driveway

[john70t]

The situation appears to be the reverse of the article. The city owns the grass strip. It could expand the street with an extra lane or two for adding angled parking and/or a sidewalk if they wanted to. The owners appear to only have claim to easement for street egress with their garages.

Legally, it's "use it or lose it".
The city needed to enforce their own claim occasionally.
Especially anywhere real estate is measured in inches, sorry, centimeters.

Here in the USA we have the terms "squatter’s rights, adverse possession and prescriptive easement".

Using that legal definition of "abandonment" some squatter moved into a bank foreclosure and claimed ownership of the house and property:
Man uses obscure law to claim ownership of $300k home in upscale Texas town... for just $16 | Daily Mail Online

[creaturecat]

dirty commies.

[creaturecat]

god forsaken liberals

[creaturecat]

rotten socialists

[creaturecat]

friggin Obama

[creaturecat]

Trump will make it right. he said so.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by john70t

The situation appears to be the reverse of the article. The city owns the grass strip. It could expand the street with an extra lane or two for adding angled parking and/or a sidewalk if they wanted to. The owners appear to only have claim to easement for street egress with their garages.

Legally, it's "use it or lose it".
The city needed to enforce their own claim occasionally.
Especially anywhere real estate is measured in inches, sorry, centimeters.

Here in the USA we have the terms "squatter’s rights, adverse possession and prescriptive easement".

Using that legal definition of "abandonment" some squatter moved into a bank foreclosure and claimed ownership of the house and property:
Man uses obscure law to claim ownership of $300k home in upscale Texas town... for just $16 | Daily Mail Online

Not quite.

The driveways are permission given by the owner (the city) to use as access to property. Once the owner grants permission, the right to use ceases to become "open, notorious, and hostile" and not subject to adverse possession or prescriptive easement. "Hostile" possession is required and the definition of that is the user is occupying the property without the knowledge of the owner. In this case, the city clearly has knowledge the driveways cross the city property. Whether or not the city enforces parking rules for the driveways, it in no way infringes on their permission for the owners to use the driveways with city knowledge.

Your adverse possession article is a different matter as it deals with abandoned or otherwise neglected property. The driveways are not on abandoned or neglected property--they are on city property. Not enforcing a parking rule does not constitute abandonment by the city. An argument might be made that the parking rule is void due to lack of enforcement and parking was done in a "hostile, open, and notorious manner". That would allow for dismissal of the parking law, but not the ownership of the land on which the driveways are resting.

[jyl]

Adverse possession is by law inapplicable to public property.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

The driveways are permission given by the owner (the city) to use as access to property. Once the owner grants permission, the right to use ceases to become "open, notorious, and hostile" and not subject to adverse possession or prescriptive easement. "Hostile" possession is required and the definition of that is the user is occupying the property without the knowledge of the owner. In this case, the city clearly has knowledge the driveways cross the city property. Whether or not the city enforces parking rules for the driveways, it in no way infringes on their permission for the owners to use the driveways with city knowledge.

As a counter:
The very existence of the "permanent" concrete driveways are a temporary benefit, generously provided by the city for the enjoyment by the owners.
Dirt, grass, stone, or concrete. It does not matter.
All surfaces are easily interchangeable in this modern age.
But a viable egress has been provided for the benefit of tax-paying residents, for the time being.
(Considering the upkeep of the grounds and grass....the residents have been doing a piss poor job of upkeep.)

And then I would add:
That temporary benefit to others in no way precludes the rights of the the original owner, The City, to do with the property as it sees fit.

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Your adverse possession article is a different matter as it deals with abandoned or otherwise neglected property. The driveways are not on abandoned or neglected property--they are on city property. Not enforcing a parking rule does not constitute abandonment by the city. An argument might be made that the parking rule is void due to lack of enforcement and parking was done in a "hostile, open, and notorious manner". That would allow for dismissal of the parking law, but not the ownership of the land on which the driveways are resting.

This 'upkeep and enforcement' of the city's parking rule on its own property was part of the original argument.

I'm fully admit I am currently unaware of local rules and contracts.
Neverless, the original ownership and determination belongs with those in authority to determine such.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

Stupid but you could argue they are actually parking on the footpath.

There is not a sidewalk. The street is maybe a quarter mile long so easy to find on google earth.

Odd one.

Sidewalk is on other side.

What is a "crossover"?

Just read your post Ossiblue. Not arguing. Just posting pics. (Bottom line is in the garage or on the street).

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I LOVE WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER.

Thank you for serving.

+1

Enjoyed that story.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by GWN7

Surveyor's screwed up back at the turn of the century.

Now, I am furious.

They have a garage and they take the devil strip, too.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by john70t

As a counter:
The very existence of the "permanent" concrete driveways are a temporary benefit, generously provided by the city for the enjoyment by the owners.
Dirt, grass, stone, or concrete. It does not matter.
All surfaces are easily interchangeable in this modern age.
But a viable egress has been provided for the benefit of tax-paying residents, for the time being.
(Considering the upkeep of the grounds and grass....the residents have been doing a piss poor job of upkeep.)

And then I would add:
That temporary benefit to others in no way precludes the rights of the the original owner, The City, to do with the property as it sees fit.


This 'upkeep and enforcement' of the city's parking rule on its own property was part of the original argument.

I'm fully admit I am currently unaware of local rules and contracts.
Neverless, the original ownership and determination belongs with those in authority to determine such.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I fully agree with your post, up to the last two paragraphs, and don't see how it is a "counter argument."

As far as the "upkeep and enforcement" part, many cities own the sidewalk/parkway easements but the homeowner is obligated to perform the upkeep--at least in the US--and it doesn't affect the ownership of the easement property.

Actually, it seems we both are in agreement on this issue.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

There is not a sidewalk. The street is maybe a quarter mile long so easy to find on google earth.

Odd one.

Sidewalk is on other side.

What is a "crossover"?

Just read your post Ossiblue. Not arguing. Just posting pics. (Bottom line is in the garage or on the street).

Bottom picture - looks like there is a sidewalk on the side of the street where the garages are, you can see it at the far end of the street, it continues to where the garages start, and then the parked cars block it.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Bob Kontak

There is not a sidewalk. The street is maybe a quarter mile long so easy to find on google earth.

Odd one.

Sidewalk is on other side.

What is a "crossover"?

Just read your post Ossiblue. Not arguing. Just posting pics. (Bottom line is in the garage or on the street).

A crossover is, in this case, a driveway. Damn Brits need to speak American!

[john70t]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Actually, it seems we both are in agreement on this issue.

(Actually, I don't even agree with myself on this issue completely.)

but a cheers and thanks anyways.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by jyl

Bottom picture - looks like there is a sidewalk on the side of the street where the garages are, you can see it at the far end of the street, it continues to where the garages start, and then the parked cars block it.

One end of street has a sidewalk even though "rear" of structures for a few hundred feet Other end of street has a few units that face the back street and have masonry borders that meet the street.

Front vs rear must drive a lot of the rules.

[GWN7]

A crossover is a term for a driveway approach which allows a vehicle to cross public land so they can access private property. If their land goes to the edge of the roadway there is no crossover. Looking at the picture the hedge shown appears to be grown to the edge of the roadway and a 6' tall hedge takes several years to get that tall. The city can't suddenly claim private land is public property to tax (what the fines actually are) a person for parking on their own land which has been used for that purpose for years. If they don't own the land, different story.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by GWN7

If their land goes to the edge of the roadway there is no crossover. Looking at the picture the hedge shown appears to be grown to the edge of the roadway and a 6' tall hedge takes several years to get that tall.

These are the few row houses that face the back street. These are not the peeps that are getting the tickets.

For the balance of houses, going the other way, this is their back alley. They have crossovers and garages.