Ordinance Constitutionality

[bdgabriel1]

Jurisdiction

California

A General Law County in California signed a dedication of property to maintain the public right of ways in the County to all residental properties. It fails to maintain the public parkways in residential properties in incorporated areas, allowing their own property, parkway trees (1968 Ordinance defined), allowing their tree roots to destroy public sidewalks adjacent to homes, where citizens are getting injured. 50 years later, when people are filling claims, they create an Ordinance 4355, transferring all of government public property maintenance to adjacent property owners, requiring us to remove their parkway trees and fix their public sidewalks, while collecting taxes to do so. How is it legal to neglect repairing and maintainting public property paid for by taxes, then when out of repair, transfer government property to adjacent property owners to maintain and repair. If we fail to maintain their property, we are liable for damages? We were billed, and threaten to pay, or put on property taxes, then repocess our homes. When is a private property owner responsible to cut parkway tree roots underground and put in a root barrier, required by the government, its not private, but public property maintenance paid by property taxes?

 

[zddoodah]

Your questions concern a rather esoteric law and likely will require legal research. I suggest you consult with a local attorney.

 

[bdgabriel1]

Your questions concern a rather esoteric law and likely will require legal research. I suggest you consult with a local attorney.

I tried for years, not one attorney has given me an answer to this question. I have searched case law in California starting back in the beginning of time. There is not one case law that allows a Municipality to transfer duty and responsibility from government to adjacent property owner, quite the opposite. State Constitution provides no authority, cant transfer liability of government property to adjacent property owners, quite the opposite.

 

[adjusterjack]

Sorry, it's legal as long as you can't find anything that says it isn't.

Or, until you get it before a judge who says it isn't.

That won't happen by just "talking" to lawyers. You and the other residents are going to have to get together, pool financial resources and offer an attorney a nice big retainer check.

 

[mightymoose]

Until someone is inconvenienced by fines or some other action against them it does not seem worthwhile to do anything at all.

 

[bdgabriel1]

Until someone is inconvenienced by fines or some other action against them it does not seem worthwhile to do anything at all.

I had a meeting with Board Supervisors and County Counsel on this subject matter, asked them to provide me with 1 court case or California Supreme Court law that allows this to happen. They could not provide either. Their position is this. They know its illegal, it would require 500K for an attorney to take this to court and sue them in a court, Judge is there to protect the County. It would go to an California State Appellete Court and the County would lose. This case would take 3-5 years, cost more than 500K to overturn. This new Ordinance is 100% illegal, County knows its not worth the price for citizens to sue them in court, so they intentionally violate the law with immunity. If we sue them, we are suing ourselves, its our tax dollars, no personal resposiblity from anyone who intentionally violates the State Constitution.

 

[Zigner]

I had a meeting with Board Supervisors and County Counsel on this subject matter, asked them to provide me with 1 court case or California Supreme Court law that allows this to happen.

That's not how it works. You, as the "challenger" will need to show law or case law to show that it's illegal.

They could not provide either.

They aren't required to at this time.

Their position is this. They know its illegal, it would require 500K for an attorney to take this to court and sue them in a court, Judge is there to protect the County.

That sounds more like speculation on your part. Do you have some evidence that this is their position on the matter?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I had a meeting with Board Supervisors and County Counsel on this subject matter, asked them to provide me with 1 court case or California Supreme Court law that allows this to happen.

That isn't how it works. Everything is legal until a law or court ruling says it isn't

 

[bdgabriel1]

That's not how it works. You, as the "challenger" will need to show law or case law to show that it's illegal.
They aren't required to at this time.

That sounds more like speculation on your part. Do you have some evidence that this is their position on the matter?

I provided 4 case laws that proved Ordinance 4355 is illegal, also provided Declaration of Property signed by County Board, Old Ordinance on parkway trees are owned by County, permits of trees, property maps where I own 5" before public sidewalk, etc. I requested County Counsel to provide 1 court case that proved Ordinance is legal. We had a meeting. I asked 4 questions, asked about court cases and case law, asked about the State Constitution that prohibits transfers of government duty to adjacent property owners. County Counsel stood up, said "If you want anwers to your questions, look them up yourself" then walked away. I have proven Ordinance is illegal, they know it, Board of Supervisors know it. Only solution is get in front of an unbiased Judge in the same County, then appeal to State Appeals Court.

 

[adjusterjack]

I have proven Ordinance is illegal,

Then your option is to disobey it.

Beyond that I have no idea what you expect to learn here.

 

[mightymoose]

In what way have you incurred loss/damages by this ordinance?

 

[army judge]

A citizen of the United States of America is free to relocate anytime he/she/it desires.

Said citizen is free to reside in any of the 50 states and/or the 8 or so territories.

No questions will be asked, no passport or other documents are required to move anytime a fancy strikes.

The most amazing thing is that tens of thousands do so every month.

Heck, some even decide to return to the locality from which they originated.

Others just keep on keeping on!

What a great country our founders created, even for the slackers and dullards.

 

[Zigner]

I provided 4 case laws that proved Ordinance 4355 is illegal, also provided Declaration of Property signed by County Board, Old Ordinance on parkway trees are owned by County, permits of trees, property maps where I own 5" before public sidewalk, etc.

In your opinion...

I requested County Counsel to provide 1 court case that proved Ordinance is legal. We had a meeting. I asked 4 questions, asked about court cases and case law, asked about the State Constitution that prohibits transfers of government duty to adjacent property owners. County Counsel stood up, said "If you want anwers to your questions, look them up yourself" then walked away.

Right - it's YOUR job to look these things up...and you would be smart to do so. Don't focus only on finding case law or statutes that support your position. You need to know what they other side may present and be ready to counter that as well.

I have proven Ordinance is illegal, they know it, Board of Supervisors know it.

In your opinion.

Only solution is get in front of an unbiased Judge in the same County, then appeal to State Appeals Court.

Let me echo the question asked by @mightymoose above: In what way have you incurred loss/damages by this ordinance?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I have proven Ordinance is illegal, they know it, Board of Supervisors know it.

You may have proven it is illegal to yourself but until you prove it to a court of law it is meaningless.

Only solution is get in front of an unbiased Judge in the same County, then appeal to State Appeals Court.

Yep, and I guess since you are already talking about appeals you think you won't be able to prove it in court the first time around?

 

[army judge]

Asserting or stating something is easier than proving something.

 

[welkin]

A General Law County in California signed a dedication of property to maintain the public right of ways in the County to all residental properties. It fails to maintain the public parkways in residential properties in incorporated areas, allowing their own property, parkway trees (1968 Ordinance defined), allowing their tree roots to destroy public sidewalks adjacent to homes, where citizens are getting injured. 50 years later, when people are filling claims, they create an Ordinance 4355, transferring all of government public property maintenance to adjacent property owners, requiring us to remove their parkway trees and fix their public sidewalks, while collecting taxes to do so. How is it legal to neglect repairing and maintainting public property paid for by taxes, then when out of repair, transfer government property to adjacent property owners to maintain and repair. If we fail to maintain their property, we are liable for damages? We were billed, and threaten to pay, or put on property taxes, then repocess our homes. When is a private property owner responsible to cut parkway tree roots underground and put in a root barrier, required by the government, its not private, but public property maintenance paid by property taxes?

Did the county vacate the dedication or just pass the ordinance.

Either way, accepting the dedication does not force them to maintain the dedicated roads.