Liability and other concerns when a private easement is made public

[quincy]

Possibly. The bridge was an improvement made by the city to the existing easement so there could be property on either side of the bridge that is part of the original easement.

 

[PlaneSpotterJoe]

Possibly. The bridge was an improvement made by the city to the existing easement so there could be property on either side of the bridge that is part of the original easement.

I looked into it and the easement was originally a 5’ wide dirt path. The walkway was constructed directly on top of it and is just about 5’ wide with wood railing. The documents declare it strictly as being 5 feet wide with detailed survey description of its location. The bridge or walkway is indeed an improvement by the city.

Since I posted this, the city has now put up signs on either side of the entrance to the wooden walkway to control the bicycle problems, but they have now actually worsened the problem because (ironically) the signs say No Bicycles. So now more people than ever are placing their bikes along the outside of the walkway on Placid Lakes property. Our board wants the city to remove the signs or move them across the road to where the easement actually begins. Residents now worry this is going to turn into a mess and devalue their property. The board is thinking of suing the city now if they don’t find a constructive solution.

 

[quincy]

I looked into it and the easement was originally a 5’ wide dirt path. The walkway was constructed directly on top of it and is just about 5’ wide with wood railing. The documents declare it strictly as being 5 feet wide with detailed survey description of its location. The bridge or walkway is indeed an improvement by the city.

Since I posted this, the city has now put up signs on either side of the entrance to the wooden walkway to control the bicycle problems, but they have now actually worsened the problem because (ironically) the signs say No Bicycles. So now more people than ever are placing their bikes along the outside of the walkway on Placid Lakes property. Our board wants the city to remove the signs or move them across the road to where the easement actually begins. Residents now worry this is going to turn into a mess and devalue their property. The board is thinking of suing the city now if they don’t find a constructive solution.

The installation of a bike rack at the head of the walkway might solve the new problem - and be cheaper than a lawsuit.

 

[PlaneSpotterJoe]

I agree 100%. The city refuses because they claim there isn’t enough space for a bike rack as the dept of transportation left them very little room in that area. There are two other paths to the park that are between 450 and 500 feet from this one in question, too. The city actually holds a deed to the land in one of those other paths, while the state owns the other. They’re concrete and well maintained. They probably could put bike racks in at least the one other location they own, but I don’t know why they refuse that suggestion. I don’t know if the relatively nearby presence of those paths help us or not. Seems they would help.

 

[LdiJ]

I looked into it and the easement was originally a 5’ wide dirt path. The walkway was constructed directly on top of it and is just about 5’ wide with wood railing. The documents declare it strictly as being 5 feet wide with detailed survey description of its location. The bridge or walkway is indeed an improvement by the city.

Since I posted this, the city has now put up signs on either side of the entrance to the wooden walkway to control the bicycle problems, but they have now actually worsened the problem because (ironically) the signs say No Bicycles. So now more people than ever are placing their bikes along the outside of the walkway on Placid Lakes property. Our board wants the city to remove the signs or move them across the road to where the easement actually begins. Residents now worry this is going to turn into a mess and devalue their property. The board is thinking of suing the city now if they don’t find a constructive solution.

So you found paperwork that showed the granted easement to be only 5' wide? Not that the path itself was only 5' wide but the granted easement was only 5' wide?

 

[quincy]

I agree 100%. The city refuses because they claim there isn’t enough space for a bike rack as the dept of transportation left them very little room in that area. There are two other paths to the park that are between 450 and 500 feet from this one in question, too. The city actually holds a deed to the land in one of those other paths, while the state owns the other. They’re concrete and well maintained. They probably could put bike racks in at least the one other location they own, but I don’t know why they refuse that suggestion. I don’t know if the relatively nearby presence of those paths help us or not. Seems they would help.

Perhaps Placid Lakes could install their own bike rack next to the walkway if the city won’t or can’t?

 

[PlaneSpotterJoe]

So you found paperwork that showed the granted easement to be only 5' wide? Not that the path itself was only 5' wide but the granted easement was only 5' wide?

Yes, in at least two documents it explicitly states the granted easement itself is 5 feet wide. These are the legal documents regarding the easement itself, not agreements regarding constructing a walkway. Thanks!

 

[PlaneSpotterJoe]

Perhaps Placid Lakes could install their own bike rack next to the walkway if the city won’t or can’t?

Perhaps Placid Lakes could install their own bike rack next to the walkway if the city won’t or can’t?

Perhaps Placid Lakes could install their own bike rack next to the walkway if the city won’t or can’t?

 

[quincy]

Worth repeating three times.

 

[PlaneSpotterJoe]

The city asked this too but we as a community don’t want that because it invites people to use our property as a park. They really do overstep their bounds so to speak. So we really don’t want that. We would like the bike rack by the street but they claim they have no room. We really don’t even have the room either, regardless of how we feel about it.

 

[quincy]

The city asked this too but we as a community don’t want that because it invites people to use our property as a park. They really do overstep their bounds so to speak. So we really don’t want that. We would like the bike rack by the street but they claim they have no room. We really don’t even have the room either, regardless of how we feel about it.

I understand the reason for Placid Lakes not wanting to install a bike rack on their property. This is an issue the city should be addressing. To me it seems a relatively inexpensive possible solution, though.

Placid Lakes might have to get its residents as a large group attending city council meetings to bring up the problem and/or write letters to the editor of the local paper.