Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mr. Orange-Power, Jul 14, 2009.
Lol.That was perfect
This guy should be glad, because I'll bet the rest of the driveway is near failure, so at least part of it was replaced. People pay tons of money to have old driveways replaced
If you have ever had your yard dug up by the city, you know that the city only has to put it back in substantially the same condition. Old concrete replaced by new concrete is substantially the same condition. They don't even have to make it look pretty.
If the concrete was on the easement and they (or allowed a subcontractor) to cut on their easement, they only have to replace what was there. Maybe you make an argument that Boone has to come back and sign...
NOW, with that said, I have no idea about the issue regarding whether a city can just come in and cut without a need or notification.
Regardless, if the guy had denied Boone to be able to do it before, then the guy is a jerk. I have a door in my house with my kids heights on it. If I ever asked for that door and offered to replace it and they said no, that would be crappy of them. But it is also not on a city easement either.
So, I guess the argument is down to whether Boone stole private property recently or vandalized public property in 1946?
If he sends my $2,500, I'll forget all about it.
If the city has an easement the city only owns the improvements they made. Most mailbox's are between the street and the sidewalk, who owns it?
I suspect that Boone had nothing to do with the taking of the slab, rather his wife was behind it. Per the article, she purchased his childhood home and had it moved to Texas (probably without his knowledge). He may have gotten involved later with replacing the slab in a damage control effort.
That's an interesting perspective.
The authority that I work for has easement rights to the shoreline on Grand and Hudson lakes, some people over the years had basically squatted on our easements with buildings and parking lots on GRDA property. Guess who was the legal owner of those improvements? We can charge them back rent and take over their improvements if need be. If a landowner has planted a tree in our easements we can cut it down if it is determined to be detrimental to our operations. It's a sticky subject but the homeowner rarely wins an easement battle, in my experiences.
Someone in Stillwater: Check on our stadium real quick and make sure it's still there.
And check on the part of the hardwood floor in GIA with Eddie's name on it too!
The US Postal Service.
Uh, yeah well, not so much.
Then why is destroying mailboxes a federal crime?
view the article here, http://www.toacorn.com/news/2006/1207/community/036.html
Boone needed the slab- no biggie-- the guys was probably a jerk and wouldn't give it to him so Boone will fixed the slab and took out where he wrote his name.
Don’t forget bootlegging stolen and illegal concrete across the state line!
Yep. And probably receipt of stolen property.
An easement has restrictions that attach to the title of the property. It is essentially a contract that will be very specific and does not provide the easement holder with rights beyond those specifically identified. The easements you describe along the lake will restrict improvements* probably for the reason of interferring with flood control or access.
In most cities, a property owner owns all the way to the back side of the curb, and in some cases all the way to the center of the street. The city will often have an easement for the street and a reasonable distance from the edge of the street so that it can maintain the street and utilities located on or under the property. The city does not own improvements* made by the property owner. The city only has the ability access or use the property for the specific purpose identified in the easement that is filed with the property's title. If the city needs to access a water line or replace a telephone pole, they can do that and take any necessary and incidental acts that might disturb the property, but they can't just decide to tear up someone's property without being a part of the purpose identified in the easement. Further, if they do destroy part of the property, it must be replaced in substantially the same condition it was before (i.e., if it has a $50,000 signature inscribed on it, a $50,000 signature has to be put back).
It is possible that the slab in question was city property, depending on the specific title and easement records. But, it almost certainly is not a question that a police officer would know or would be the appropriate person to determine.
*"Improvements" was mentioned by a poster earlier in a way that seemed synomous with maintenance. In the legal sense with respect to real property, improvements means constructed items such as buildings, parking lots, retaining walls, driveways, etc.
Separate names with a comma.