by "Berang" (berang)
Published 08/08/2017 at 03:06
by "Berang" (berang)
Published 08/08/2017 at 03:06
No Tags
STARS: 0
After reading the story on the FP, I have questions. Like, would you be obligated to maintain the road? What happens if you don’t? Would it even be legal to charge for parking on the street? Would that cover maintenance costs, if you had no other roads/equipment for road maintenance?
I have to assume if you own a street in a residential zone, you wouldn’t be allowed to just let it go to shit. There’s obviously got to be good reasons why streets aren’t generally privately owned.
"DanZman" (DanielHarpel)
08/08/2017 at 03:33, STARS: 1
The way that I understood it, the street is private. It is just another parcel of land(a very oddly shaped one) in an HOA neighborhood. That means I would think that you would be allowed to let it got to shit. You may also be able to cut off access to it and or turn it into a toll road. You would hope that the previous owners made sure that access to each parcel was legally required, but they probably never planned on losing the land.
I think that realistically the best thing for the new owner to do is to just flip it and sell back to the HOA. Unless they are allowed to charge for parking.
"Svend" (svend)
08/08/2017 at 04:44, STARS: 0
I’d imagine or there should be provisions attached to owning a street such as maintenance, public liability insurance, etc...
If someone were to hurt themselves on a section of road or something due to poor or lack of maintenance then they are lining themselves up for prosecution for damages, hospital costs and repairs.
"Out, but with a W - has found the answer" (belg)
08/08/2017 at 06:53, STARS: 0
Then again, it is private property, so technically those people shouldn’t even be there. If someone trespasses on your property and breaks a leg on your badly maintained driveway, you can’t be prosecuted, can you? (Serious question, as sometimes it’s as if you can sue for anything in the US)
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
08/08/2017 at 07:56, STARS: 2
Yes, you can get sued to the moon.
Even posting a space as prohibited does not have much impact on a civil suit. That’s why if you, say, add a pool to your backyard, you cannot get home owners insurance without having a fence installed. You have to add a physical deterrent to protect strangers from a hazard you create.
Letting property you own fall into disrepair is a created hazard.
"McMike" (mcmike)
08/08/2017 at 08:00, STARS: 2
I’m not sure I would want to be responsible for maintaining that road, or have to deal with the angry residents who would do everything in their power to complain about everything.
--So here is my plan--
I would send in survey teams to measure. I would tell them they were free to discuss with any resident that they were measuring the landscaped islands to see how many standard parking spaces would be able to fit if they were removed.
Let the residents spread it around and get fumed about it.
Then do nothing.
Then I would send certified letters, asking the residents how many vehicles they have, where they are parked, if they have guests, housekeepers, what times they are home, etc.. Knowing this survey would never be returned.
Let the residents spread it around and get fumed about it.
Then do nothing.
Then I would send the survey team back and do the same to see how many parking meters would needed to be ordered for them as well as the rest of the block.
(You probably wouldn’t need actual survey folks, just a couple of actors with orange vests, clipboards, and a measuring wheel.)
Then do nothing.
Then I would send another certified letter with a survey, asking the same questions, but saying it’s their second notice.
Then do nothing.
Then I would send the survey team back and do the same, and their task this time is to measure for all the speed bumps.
Then do nothing
After about a year or two of the residents in fear of losing their parking spots, having to pay for them, or (heaven forbid) have outsiders park on their street.. Let them make an offer.
"Svend" (svend)
08/08/2017 at 08:05, STARS: 1
Re: users, that’s another reason why obligations and restrictions would have to be given to the new owner of the street to define what is expected of them.
That’s a grey area in the U.K. Also as my step-father had asked a local Bobby what the legal situation would be if he put concrete and set some broken glass in it (it’s an old cheap method of deterring someone from climbing you exterior wall to gain access to your house, used in place of barbed or razor wire), he was told that while it’s a good visual deterrent, should a potential burglar hurt themself on it, they could sue the owner who put it there.
Regretably that’s another thing we’ve inherited from the U.S. (along with Halloween for goodness sakes) is the culture of trying to sue anyone for our own stupidity or mis-adventures.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
08/08/2017 at 08:09, STARS: 1
The good reason that streets aren’t generally privately owned is exactly what you think - maintenance. Most people don’t realize that when a new development is complete, the “public” infrastructure - roads, drainage, lights, parks, etc. - is usually bequeathed to the local government. By doing this, the community is handing responsibility over to governmental authority and is accepting the rules and regulations that go along with it.
Gated communities have a problem. They can’t legally block access to a public street. So, to keep the gate, they have to keep ownership of all the shared infrastructure. If they want everything to keep functioning, they have to have a home owners’ association to collect dues and perform the maintenance. This puts a disproportionate burden on the residents, primarily because of costs, but also when draconian rules are put into place and enforced with an iron fist. That’s how you end up with stories about people’s cars being booted while parked in front of their own house .
Now that the ownership of this private street has transferred, the new owners can be held liable for things that go wrong. They can also put up their own toll gate and charge for parking on the street. I imagine what they will really do is come to an agreement with the HOA and sell the street back to them for a tidy profit.
"LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com" (limitedtimeonly)
08/08/2017 at 08:41, STARS: 0
I think it is reasonable to assume that all of the parcels served by a private street have been granted ingress/egress easements across the private street parcel and therefore have a right to free passage through the street parcel to the residences.
Assuming that this is true, then I would think that the street owner is obliged to maintain the street such that there are no hazardous liabilities and would not be permitted to make it a toll road.
"Thomas Donohue" (tomonomics)
08/08/2017 at 08:48, STARS: 1
I would do all of this, except I would do it in the first 90 days. No need to hold on to the street any longer, as the residents might start asking for maintenance, etc. The new owners better make sure it’s insured ASAP, and that may not be cheap.
I would also start painting the street bright orange in front of random houses.
"McMike" (mcmike)
08/08/2017 at 09:14, STARS: 1
90 days might be too soon for the fear to settle and the residents realize they can’t do anything about this gated parking garage that may be in their future.
Either way, the sweet spot here in my plan is right before any maintenance needs to be performed on the property.
Could be 90 days, could be 12 months...
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
08/08/2017 at 09:48, STARS: 1
There is probably someone at GM you can ask. But apparently you can just pull the street cars and the city will eventually pave over the tracks.
GM bought the old street car company in Detroit and shut it down. Apparently for more bus/cars sales. There are some fun conspiracy stories.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
08/08/2017 at 14:36, STARS: 0
I’m not a lawyer, just the son of a couple of them, but I imagine if, say, a door to door salesperson hurt themselves on your property while there without permission they wouldn’t have standing to sue. A judge would likely throw out the case on the basis that they were trespassing in the first place and you committed no crime.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
08/08/2017 at 14:40, STARS: 0
I would immediately put up barriers and a toll booth at the entrance and exit of the road and start charging an access fee immediately.
"Berang" (berang)
08/08/2017 at 15:45, STARS: 0
Think about parking lots, they are private property, but open to the public. If you run into a pothole and destroy a wheel, you can hold the parking lot owner accountable for the damage.
"Berang" (berang)
08/08/2017 at 15:47, STARS: 0
I would liken this more to a parking lot. If your car is damaged by a pothole in badly maintained parking lot, the owner of the parking lot can be held accountable.
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
08/08/2017 at 15:48, STARS: 0
Yeah but would you actually win that case? I doubt it.
"Berang" (berang)
08/08/2017 at 15:57, STARS: 0
It’s not uncommon actually.
"Out, but with a W - has found the answer" (belg)
08/08/2017 at 16:12, STARS: 0
Yes, but in that case the owner of the parking lot chooses to open it to the public. I’m talking about the (probably theoretical) case where no provisions were in place and the new owners have no obligation nor intent whatsoever to allow other people on their property.
"Out, but with a W - has found the answer" (belg)
08/08/2017 at 16:13, STARS: 0
You’re serious about that pool thing? Madness.
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
08/08/2017 at 16:22, STARS: 0
The phrase is ‘attractive nuisance’. A pool is an attractive nuisance, and they think it’s going to kill other people’s kids.
"Out, but with a W - has found the answer" (belg)
08/08/2017 at 16:27, STARS: 0
Agreed.
I think there should be a way to hold the government and private parties accountable in case of damage clearly attributable to bad intent and negligence (e.g. wheel and tyre damage due to potholes), but there’s a fine line between that and sue-a-palooza.
"Berang" (berang)
08/08/2017 at 16:30, STARS: 0
They’d probably have to block the whole street off then. Maybe with 5,000 traffic cones or something.
"Svend" (svend)
08/08/2017 at 16:45, STARS: 1
We have a system where I live that if your car sustains damage from a pothole while obeying the rules of the road (ie within the speed limit, correctly maintained vehicle, etc...) and the pothole had already been reported then the local authorities have no recourse but to pay for all repairs.
It’s the same for pedestrians, if you trip over a paving slab which is raised 4mm at the edge from the previous slab and it’s been reported, they’ll pay for damages/lost earnings.
"Out, but with a W - has found the answer" (belg)
08/09/2017 at 03:10, STARS: 0
Imagine the AutoX potential!