They've lived there for decades, but now some homeowners are being told by the city of Sacramento that their backyards are too big.
КОМЕНТАРІ: 3 100
@Norcalwtr3 роки тому
How long till the “trail” becomes a homeless camp
@cosmokwong12623 роки тому
How did they live without a walking trail all those years? Yeah i think city's like to create homeless camps.
@debbierushing7233 роки тому
Days!
@Chris_dolmeth3 роки тому
Probably the day it opens there will be new residents
@moyolinux3 роки тому
@@cosmokwong1262 or it could become a famous tourist walking trail, which would increase their property price which they can sell at a massive profit and then retire to florida and moan about the weather
@Dgafsranger3 роки тому
Day one
@giuseppe49093 роки тому
Oh...the city wants to build a new murder trail.....awesome.
@chrisargento20953 роки тому
That's the truth
@yayaokok35613 роки тому
@Drukstylz hes clearly being selfish, only thinking of non murderers
@jasonvon81153 роки тому
Well the park down the road is full of drug addicts and serial rapist like their privacy.
@shaggybreeks3 роки тому
@@chrisargento2095 No, it's a fucking cynical whining opinion. Sha
@rustinstardust20943 роки тому
It looks like it's a murder trail right now. The city's probably trying to make it less of one.
@bonnieswenson99252 роки тому
That trail is going to be PACKED with homeless. Let's be Honest.
@buddyboy67832 роки тому
*cough* Modesto *cough*
@nic123442 роки тому
Where the fuck do you live to think that? Or right, it's USA...
@mizzury542 роки тому
Can you see that the trail is already there ? Are you blind ? They are improving it.
@lalarimekaki51732 роки тому
its how we hide the problem.
@Bradmhj2 роки тому
Why did those stupid neighbors build there fence past there property line? They thought they could get one over on the city but think again :)
@SixPackDan2 роки тому
They have been there for more than 7 years. The city LOST the right to that property by NOT claiming it much much sooner. People look it up and file a class action suit.
@ChickenSoupMusic2 роки тому
Yes that IS the law but in CA you’re 50/50 on winning that in court. However, if the neighbors band together that would probably be close to a 100% win. Just pointing out that even though when it comes to easement law in CA judges and juries fail at supporting that law often.
@jhanna99012 роки тому
I think state and local government owned lands are immune from adverse possession laws in California.
@qualicumwilson51682 роки тому
I do not think this is "time limit" thing. Trespass is not made legal because the law was not enforced. You build on someone else's land, they can and do say "Git off my land, Hombre!" Good thing that is not Texas, someone's a$$ would have been shot!
@michaels.ramsey78032 роки тому
@@qualicumwilson5168 Texas actually has a fence line "grandfather" law. If a fence row is not contested for "X" amount of time, that fence becomes the property line. And BTW, if Texas was so bad ass, why do you need tax money from the entire country for a wall to protect your border from bare foot, starving Mexicans? Please sit down with that bullshit.
@qualicumwilson51682 роки тому
@@michaels.ramsey7803 I looked for your concept of "grandfather" a wrongly places fence and only found references to both parties agreeing to purchase/sell lands to "very old pre-existing fences" Usually put up when one person owned both the existing lots and the fence was definitely on their land. Could you please provide some sort of references that support the view that if I put up a fence illegally on your property I can lay claim to it legally? Thank You
@ELCLAVE3003 роки тому
A backyard can never be too big.
@giannipuface94413 роки тому
It can only be as big as your property line.... so yeah it can be
@ClaudBol3 роки тому
I know right. Why can governments just come and take your land
@auntiem8733 роки тому
Spoken like a person who has never had to look for and clean up dog poo. 🤣
@ELCLAVE3003 роки тому
@@auntiem873 That's right because I would never own a dog.
@MrSqurk3 роки тому
@@ClaudBol because in reality you dont own anything.
@jamesjoung27933 роки тому
$100 says the trail will be lined with tents and transients as soon as they’re done building it.
@aaronpangle21853 роки тому
Dang you folks in CA must have trouble dealing with your homeless
@Sulfen3 роки тому
@@aaronpangle2185 its mostly because rent is way too expensive but they also have to deal with homeless people who go there from other states with really hot or really cold climates. Personally if I were to be homeless I'd try to move to California because of the calm weather.
@blyhur19743 роки тому
Yup , ima go set up ! 🤣🤣
@ggamer773 роки тому
Only $100? Lol
@JustAPersonalUseBarb3 роки тому
There's already a makeshift trail there and no homeless. Try again
@doubtful46832 роки тому
I'd help the old couple if I lived nearby. No senior citizen should need to go through that🙏❤
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
I'll help also - I can help them tear down their fence that was built off of the property they own
@TEverettReynolds2 роки тому
Go through what exactly? Illegally using someone else's property and getting told to get off?
@chargermaster5862 роки тому
Gentrification at its best
@catlover19862 роки тому
@@TEverettReynolds Legally, they aren't responsible for moving the fencing. The property owners are, that being the city.
@mrtahoe3 місяці тому
Murica
@spooky49852 роки тому
The homeowners are NOT being told that their backyards are too big. They are being told that they have fenced in property that does not (nor has it ever) belonged to them and the city wants every inch of it back.
@user-ii3vn8tn3q3 роки тому
Trail finished last year across the street, now I have homeless living against my fence. This is California. If you build access they will come.
@nolongeramused81353 роки тому
Just wait until they burn your fence down.
@arnoldlayne14243 роки тому
You get what you vote for.
@BlastinRope3 роки тому
@@arnoldlayne1424 why antagonize someone who seemingly agrees with you? How do you know how he voted? Is this what you do in your free time? Antagonize people on youtube?
@jacob-cs5fx2 роки тому
@@BlastinRope Most people in California have voted for stupid laws and politicians. This is what they get lol. Mass moving to Texas, hope they don't ruin another great state.
@ssj2camaro212 роки тому
@@jacob-cs5fx they won't. We don't play that crap
@mrmle0033 роки тому
It really went from “this land is yourrrr land” to “this land is myyyy landddddd”
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
Not their land... they just built on it.
@theobserver29203 роки тому
The sign said "Private Property", but on the back side it didn't say nothing! This land is made for you AND ME!!!
@main_tak_becus66893 роки тому
Ironic, the so called democracy practices communism without realizing it 😁. I'm not a commie, but the government really violates their citizen's right.
@raymundo65903 роки тому
DO NOT FORGET "FREEDOM". JIJIJ
@shaggybreeks3 роки тому
@@HeyUncleA BINGO! It's not their land, it never was their land. They just used it, without paying taxes on it.
@accuratealloys2 роки тому
All of these people need to lawyer up and cost the city millions and just stall it forever.
@brianhaflin97992 роки тому
There might not be much the homeowners can do at this point because the legal system is packed and it can be hard to prove that the city is in the wrong.
@raybod17752 роки тому
They never owned the property, never paid rates on it and illegally encroached. Not a chance of winning.
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Amer brother. The Government stooges should clearly step aside a let people all over the state put up fences on public land wherever they like. Lot of law suits like that would help make that happen
@anncoxwell70152 роки тому
I’d be having a private surveyor in there to check that property line.
@brianhaflin97992 роки тому
Might be too costly and you might not be able to get someone willing to get involved in this dispute.
@AStanton19662 роки тому
Never purchase property without a survey certified to you. I'm constantly amazed at the amount of people who don't know where their property lines are or know where--if any--their surveyor pins are located.
@myRefuge37103 роки тому
"You will own nothing and you will be happy"
@myRefuge37103 роки тому
My comment is a mockery. My comment came from the great reset agenda.
@myRefuge37103 роки тому
ukposts.info/have/v-deo/boCcZK2DhWum1ok.html
@aucklandsadventures3 роки тому
Your statement is one from the books of The NWO. It’s more real than you realize.
@Mssweet253 роки тому
Everytime I see this.✔
@dazedandconfusedstacker99233 роки тому
They never owned the land
@tylerday3 роки тому
At the homeowners expense??! Oh hell no. Especially for the older people, the city better come do the removal work themselves
@MK_ULTRA4203 роки тому
Tbh the city would bulldoze the fence and the shed just to make a statement.
@shawnl26923 роки тому
Or just leave people alone and not steal their land
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
@@shawnl2692 it’s not their land genius... they just built on it. If you pushed your fence back 30 feet you think that’d be ok?
@411adaptivegolf3 роки тому
Should be a grandfather clause! If it's been there for 20 years that's the line! Developers and investment groups are just as bad as politicians and lawyers! All crooks, someone got a huge payday to build it! Um p.s. how wide does a walking trail need to be?? Seems like the width of the tracks is enough for walkers and bicycles!!
@411adaptivegolf3 роки тому
@@HeyUncleA do u know where the line was 20 years ago?? Then all of a sudden it's getting rezoned! It's happening all over the states today, they want it they take it
@SSJIndy2 роки тому
Room enough for a train, room enough for a pedestrian trail.
@piercehawke80212 роки тому
You saw those tracks as well.... ^^^
@SupahBigg5772 роки тому
I knew I wasn't crazy! LOL! There ARE railroad tracks there!
@pippilongstocking96342 роки тому
I feel so bad for these people who are being treated with no compassion for their own home’s.
@cryogeneric2 роки тому
Sucks, but there isn't much recourse for the homeowners since it's not their land. I do, however, feel the city needs to extend the deadline at least 6 months.
@mnoble2472 роки тому
Not sure what the controversy is. It's the City's land and they have rights within zoning ordinance to use it for the public good. Private owners are the ones that over built.
@TrishBenedict2 роки тому
@@mnoble247 yup.
@stormisuedonym45992 роки тому
@@mnoble247 How long has it been city land?
@chargermaster5862 роки тому
Gentrification at its best
@UhtredOfBamburgh3 роки тому
It looks like there's already a foot trail there on top of abandoned railway tracks. It also looks like its already more than wide enough
@leehank86933 роки тому
Exactly they just showed on video a guy walking dogs. Wtf. Thank goodness I live in Florida and not crazy Cali
@peterdarlington41173 роки тому
@@leehank8693 wtf are y’all talking about I live in Florida what’s that got to do with it not being there land? So what if I just push my fence line back a few hundred feet that land suddenly becomes mine? The city is not taking their land they are just making trails on city property or did I miss something
@diyoregonnowtexas92023 роки тому
It needs to be a bit wider for all the tents on either side and a walkway down the middle.
@Jiji-the-cat54253 роки тому
I live in an area with a paved trail over a former railroad. They didn't need to tear down properties to widen it at all. The railroad was big enough to just pave over the flat part. The city is just being stupid in this case.
@shihtzusrule91153 роки тому
@@peterdarlington4117 It was probably railroad right of way and the railroad either abandoned the land or sold it to the city. Would have to look at the records to know for sure. You can have alleys, easements, right of ways evacuated, you just have to use it as your own for a certain amount of time unopposed and then file it and have the city rule on it.
@User-546313 роки тому
I enjoy how the city uses the term “relationship” that implies a mutually beneficial endeavor.
@apm95073 роки тому
Sounds like an abusive Me Too type relationship. Abusers often claim that their abuse is part of a relationship.
@alisha46353 роки тому
Seems dangerous
@dazedandconfusedstacker99233 роки тому
Dont build on land you dont own
@bark1actual7853 роки тому
@@dazedandconfusedstacker9923 Jesus fuckn christ.... this fkn guy over here
@murraymadness46743 роки тому
well they are getting a bike trail. maybe YOU don't think that is a benefit, but there ARE lots of people that DO.
@jayp2242 роки тому
Oh hell no! If they wanted to do this to my backyard, I wouldn’t lift a finger to do anything and I’d sue because it sounds like they apparently don’t even have an eminent domain claim.
@integr8er662 роки тому
That's because they don't need one, its not the homeowners property, they built their fences and sheds on railroad right of way.
@clinthowe76292 роки тому
@@integr8er66 what makes you think “they” built those fences? Maybe the home builders did? What if you bought a house 15 or 20 years ago and lived there all this time unaware of this? The city should forfeit this land because they failed in their regulatory practices.
@charliesschroedinger2 роки тому
@@integr8er66 agreed. But is there a law like in most N.E. states that allows for a claim to the land since they've been maintaining it for 4 decades? In MA, I believe it's 25 years if you've maintained land without being told it's not yours in ANY MANNER, you have a claim to that land. The state would then need to take it back through eminent domain through the courts and pay fair market value IF they could even show the taking was "necessary for the greater good of the town or state".
@shawnlangseth88812 роки тому
You are speaking of Adverse Possession - the ability to legally claim property after maintaining it for a set number of years. Unfortunately for these homeowners, units of government are usually exempt from the adverse possession rules.
@charliesschroedinger2 роки тому
@@shawnlangseth8881 did not know that! Son of a Land Surveyor here. Thank you for that info!
@carefulconsumer86822 роки тому
"If you want to keep your backyards, you can keep your backyards. I promise!"🤣
@mizzury542 роки тому
except these aren't THEIR backyards.
@AStanton19662 роки тому
Well said, Obammy.
@sugarman083 роки тому
You have to make room for the tents 🏕 ⛺️ haha 😂
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Haha yes exactly!! The government fools should clearly step aside a let home owners all over the state put up fences on public land wherever they like. No way that could cause a problem down the road..
@meatpopsicle15673 роки тому
How wide is this walking trail going to be? 50, 60 feet wide? Hell, that's a road!
@tommitchell84253 роки тому
There has to be room for Tents- Shopping carts- trash-get with the program bro😂😂
@meatpopsicle15673 роки тому
@@tommitchell8425 I keep forgetting we must always make way and accommodate the droppings of socialist Progressivism. My bad. Sorry.
@JM-nt5ex3 роки тому
@@meatpopsicle1567 If California was progressive they would have dealt with the homeless problem long ago, and San Francisco wouldn't be a late stage capitalist hellhole. Democrats≠progressives≠socialists. There are some progressives in the democratic party, and people who may wrongly call themselves socialists but they have no real power anywhere, beyond a few ineffective senators
@meatpopsicle15673 роки тому
@@JM-nt5ex Wow, you really have not been paying attention to recent events or to recent Democratic rhetoric, have you. But then, it has always been very Progressive to deny their policies are the problem and to pass the blame for them onto others whenever they hold the reins of power. Their useful idiots, true to the Progressive dogma, will always parrot the current narrative; somehow, this is not a problem of their making. It never is.
@JM-nt5ex3 роки тому
@@meatpopsicle1567 I see you're too soup brained for the discussion so I'll leave you be, enjoy your CNN, and Facebook, Karen
@appomattoxross67518 місяців тому
The home owners need to declare that they are illegals and drug addicts. The City will leave them alone.
@markeverett76302 роки тому
Try giving the city a 2 month deadline for anything and see how that goes for you.
@MissMarinaCapri3 роки тому
Find those politicians responsible for this and publish their names so they can be properly rewarded for their good work.
@goodpools3 роки тому
The work to bring homeless into the homeowners’ neighborhood?
@MissMarinaCapri3 роки тому
@@goodpools , Excuse me, I was being sarcastically facetious. I was saying the politicians responsible for causing the homeowner’s such troubling anxiety should be castigated for their thoughtless administration’s of their constituents. I hope that clears it up for you. 🙂 ( May all beings be happy )
@vincentlaguardiagambini57022 роки тому
You do realize the people in this video DO NOT OWN the parcel of land they're being told to vacate, right? They're 21' past their property line. Look closely at the property plot lines and boundaries clearly displayed on the map at 1:00. They've built a fence 21' into property that's not theirs. Doesn't matter if it's been there for 100 years it's wrong.
@MissMarinaCapri2 роки тому
@@vincentlaguardiagambini5702 , it does matter if it’s been there 100 years. That’s called grandfathered in or homesteading. Therefore your idea that it’s wrong is wrong. Of course this can be argued in court
@gantz4u2 роки тому
@@MissMarinaCapri It also looks like a strong case for adverse possession awarded to the property owners. Looks like that land was granted to Southern Pacific. Making ownership a private entity. Once the homeowners house was appraised for tax purposes the clock starts ticking on adverse possession law. The city would have to refile as imminent domain, which compensates the owner for their adversely possessed land. I would hope a lawyer would be willing to represent this in court for a percentage of the imminent domain proceeds.
@katrinalee21483 роки тому
I find it mighty "convenient" that a new trail being planned by the city, "needed" this property to proceed, AND all of a sudden EVERYBODY along the way has a property line that has exceeded their "property limit".
@elizann20233 роки тому
Exactly if I was them I for sure would have a professional look in too deed and if they have them older property layouts. It just seems like major corruption is at play.
@imxploring2 роки тому
Not usual.... I know of one in my neighborhood where several folks just decided over the years to encroach onto a right of way and extend their yards 25 feet.... didn't end well.... they all had to remove the fences, sheds, and other structures they had built on the land they didn't own.
@rogerhwerner69972 роки тому
If the City doesn't have a land survey to back up their claim I'd have an attorney rexpond with a polite F you. Then I seek an injunction to prevent the City from doing anything with proofs of their claims.
@richardtknees2 місяці тому
Pretty tough for old folks on a fixed income to hire a lawyer.
@eyejohnson2 роки тому
They took my friends mom’s house in San Diego that she grew up in, lived there her whole life. They took it to make a running trail around the regional airport there by the house. The trail would go one foot into the house. There was a bunch of space across the street. They could have just moved the street over 6 feet and been fine. But no.
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
They took it?!?! You mean Like Eminent domain or land owner stopped paying property taxes and then the city assumed responsibility for the property? If the city really tried to just steal the house from them they should have found a lawyer and they could have started the case without a retainer fee.
@eyejohnson2 роки тому
@@CastleBomb44 eminent domain. They were paid, but not enough. If they would have tried to fight it, they would have lost, then they wouldn’t have been paid.
@erikh99917 місяців тому
@@eyejohnson My sister's front yard was taken over. They can flood her property up to the front step. We all know if it gets that high it's going into her home.
@musicloverchicago4373 місяці тому
This is a different situation though. This is a set of properties where owners built structures outside of the property lines and the city is reclaiming the area. So the owners just need to remove the structures, they aren't having their property taken away.
@2000sborton3 роки тому
During my experience as a surveyor in Canada I learned about "Encroachment Laws". That is, if you build a fence or other structure on a piece of property that isn't yours and no one complains then after twenty years the property is legally yours. It seems like that should apply here in some of these cases.
@mountainguyed673 роки тому
Correct, that is the law in California.
@robertmorris89973 роки тому
@@mountainguyed67 Yeah, but the commies running California will ignore the law.
@@PandaMan02 you mean eminent domain (where the city/town can take possession of property when its (supposibly) in it's best [uhm...cough...] interest)?
@Lea-rb9nc3 роки тому
One more time, the city gets it terribly wrong. Their list of priorities is a testament to Murphy's Law. There are many real problems in Sacramento that need to be addressed.
@Ageez173 роки тому
Homelessness is a big one
@radrich2273 роки тому
I hate to call names but you.... you!!!!! Do you realize that you probably voted yes on a measure or bond to "improve" parts of Sacramento? If not, oh well, it passed. This included the walkway they're about to install and in doing so, found these residents went beyond their property lines in an attempt to make their backyards bigger.
@moyolinux3 роки тому
@@radrich227 I feel sorry for them, but let’s be honest they attempted to steal land that didn’t belong to them and owners were demanding it back. Yes if it wasn’t for that dam trail they would gotten away with it but let’s be honest if it was someone else who did they would be phoning their councillors/congress/senators complaining about it.
@767bob3 роки тому
This land never belong to the owners, it is past 20 feet beyond their property line. It belongs to the city! Go to 1 minute and 11 seconds into the video.
@acedealien81368 місяців тому
This is a top priority! The reason is because this path in particular leads from land park where the homeless mass encampment is to the pocket neighborhood where the majority of fentanyl and meth is. Creates a direct root for these people to make there day more efficient. If someone has to lose some backyard space so be it.
@ArizonaJoshua2 роки тому
The White House's front yard is too big let us (the people) take half of it.
@sugarshaker91629 місяців тому
They must need more room for homeless tents city of Sacramento and Steinberg are ruining our community
@Alexandra-xt1vf3 роки тому
They don't have to do anything. Consult an attorney. It's an easement after a certain amount of time that becomes their legal property. Also they can contest putting in a trail altogether.
@Dgafsranger3 роки тому
Yup I agree like they mentioned in the video the encroachments were supposedly grandfathered in and if thats the case the property reverts to the property owner and thatd be a strong case against the city assuming it really was grandfathered in
@deborahsunflower9393 роки тому
So worst case scenario the city takes their land. Do u think their assessments and property taxes will go down? I think not.
@britzel713 роки тому
You're 1000% correct, that is why the city is handling it this way. They're hoping to strong arm these poor people to get what they want regardless of the laws in place to protect them. I pray an attorney will teach out to these homeowners and help them. We have got to stand up to these Corrupt officials every single time regardless of how big or small their over reach is as we're in critical times of losing everything our country stands for!!!
@Alexandra-xt1vf3 роки тому
@@britzel71 🙏💪🤞
@seandepoppe67163 роки тому
100%!!!!
@wmtrader3 роки тому
The land is an old railroad line that went from downtown Sacramento, past Land Park, along Freeport Blvd, and to towns along the Sacramento River. The city government acquired the land when the Southern Pacific Railroad closed the rail line. When the trains stopped running various neighbors extended their backyard fences and called the land theirs. These neighbors didn't buy and were not gifted this land, they simply rebuilt their fences to include the land behind their homes. The worst of the land grabbers are the ones who are being told to remove their fences while the lesser land grabbers are being allowed to keep their informal land claims. The city should remove the extended fences and build a new fence line that allows the residents to keep the lesser amount of land and to establish a consistent property line for all residents along the old rail line. A new fence or wall running the length of the parkway would give the parkway a cleaner look while better protecting the residents from people trying to access their backyards from the parkway. It will establish a consistent property line for all of the residents along the old rail line.
@marilynmitchell73943 роки тому
Doesn't it become theirs after a certain amount of time?
@RobbyTripp3 роки тому
@@marilynmitchell7394 adverse possession doesn’t apply to government land or property, in any state.
@wmtrader3 роки тому
@r h they've not been taxed on it because they never bought it. the definition of squatter is "no legal title to the land" which means it is not their land. the city can compromise by allowing them to keep some of the land, by paying to remove the fences, and by paying to building a new fence. cheaper than a lawsuit.
@RobbyTripp3 роки тому
@r h they couldn’t be taxed on it because it is government property,who determined how much extra in taxes they would pay, how did they pay “extra” in taxes, so like I said, adverse possession DOESN’T apply to government property or land.
@alisont.69403 роки тому
Thanks. Informative and sensible. Unfortunately the city is unlikely to be that sensible.
@justgotravel66462 роки тому
Does these property owner have to Pay taxes for the illigally extended land that they claimed decades ago.
@colincampbell7677 днів тому
Property taxes are based on the assessed value of the property. Since the assessed value would be based on the apparent size of the property - they would have been paying taxes on it.
@ride4kix2 роки тому
This is so wrong in so many ways . I feel for the homeowners, Government at it's best destroying lives.
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Amen! How dare the government not let home owners illegally take over pubic land they didn't pay for. Government stooges should clearly step aside a let home owners all over the state put up fences on public land wherever they like.
@Anthony-fo8no3 роки тому
I would not do a single thing. Take it to the court. EDIT: i didnt pay attention lol oops, didnt know that the city still technically owns the property.
@impossibledrms3 роки тому
With what money.
@chichimeka62043 роки тому
They would lose, the property line is the property line these thieves tried to steal land... Old habits die hard no sympathy for these idiots
@Imnottapinata3 роки тому
You sound very entitled.
@truthlover23193 роки тому
Yea, It's SO Unlikely That The Judge Will Side With The Govt.....Good Thinking Dummy .
@robertdouglas88953 роки тому
@@Imnottapinata A squatter can claim rights to a property after residing there for a certain time. In California, it only takes 5 years of continuous use or maintenance for a squatter to make an adverse possession claim (CCP § 318, 325). When a squatter claims adverse possession, they can gain ownership of the property legally.
@debbiethomas26223 роки тому
so everyone's property (not just a small few) just happen to "encroach" on this trail and railway? especially since these owners have had these properties for over 40 years? I don't think so. bet someone "decided" to redraw all the property surveys.
@amandalewis41472 роки тому
right?! something doesn't seem right.
@Muskers922 роки тому
They'll need to find the old original records which won't be easy
@imxploring2 роки тому
@@Muskers92 No doubt many of these properties have changed hands over the years.... recorded surveys should be available. Unfortunately most surveys and deed records are more concerned about encroachments on to the property being transferred.... not the property encroachment onto another.
@bamahama7072 роки тому
Adverse possession?
@imxploring2 роки тому
@@bamahama707 Yeah.... try that with a government agency and see how it works out! LOL
@jayrezz9882 роки тому
But you built the fences and structures on property that wasn’t yours in the first place. Not factoring in the effects or problems that come with the project, move your stuff, move along.
@phubble18772 роки тому
The title description showed easement and they should have been aware but put fence up anyway. I had a client almost buy house til I pointed out a third of yard did not belong to property. Fenced easement owned by city
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Yes!!! If people want to be a dumb landowner before they decide to check what property they are building on, that is fine I guess. But don't cry to me when the city makes you rip down your fence built off of your property
@iamchillydogg3 роки тому
It seems there's more than enough room for a trail.
@AAAFilm-yt7gx3 роки тому
Exactly.
@user-ym2kb1cp5e3 роки тому
They say trail but it will probably be more like a 2 lane road .
@donaldstrubhar46973 роки тому
Do I see railroad tracks that can be used as a trail
@techwatch12283 роки тому
Not if the city is building a place for the homeless and junkies.
@barrycomer58353 роки тому
This is a common occurrence when people's homes back up to vacant or little used land. Say you buy a lot split off from a farm. You don't bother to pay attention to the lot lines. You mow onto his property, maybe put up a shed. He starts to farm the area behind you. You try to stop him, because you think it's yours. He takes you to court and wins. Now you have to remove the stuff at your own expense. The court gives you X amount of time. You don't do it. He does, and bills you for it. You sue him for destruction of property. The court rules against you, and you have to pay him, plus interest, plus HIS COURT COSTS. Being an assessor since 1986, I've seen the above scenario played out many times. Barry.
@debbiethomas26223 роки тому
I get it and if it is only a couple of homeowners is one thing but it looks like its every homeowner in that few miles of former railway. and allowing for human error of assessors and survey people, would that many people intentionally or not encroach on "town land?" isn't new surveys of properties done every so many years for property tax purposes, forget refinancing or selling? does the area, in general, have laws requiring permits for certain structures to be built? sorry, there just seems to be too many holes in this story (granted a news clip that can only be so many minutes or seconds long) especially since its targeting folks who have been residing there for more than 40 years, mainly the elderly.
@carlosz72083 роки тому
@@debbiethomas2622 the parcels were already subdivided, even well before any living residents were born. Encroachment is encroachment, there isn’t any grey area when you look at the plat map.
@debbiethomas26223 роки тому
@@carlosz7208 I understand. I think because it isn't just a few people but a good sized group is what is stuck in my head here. unless each one followed the other thinking that "hey, if that's the neighbor's line, it must be mine too."
@raptorshootingsystems33793 роки тому
@@debbiethomas2622 When people build a fence like they did on a right of way, it is often a tale of follow the leader. It is why it is critically important that buyers of real estate spend the money to get a complete proper survey including property lines, right of ways, set backs, easements and all improvements that exist to identify issues before they become your problem.
@porcelainthunder22133 роки тому
Often there is a time limit until that property is considered abandoned by the legal owner if they never said anything about the encroachment and the land legally becomes owned by the party that encroached . It often ends in some kind of settlement in court where the property lines are redrawn. I can see that happening here since its been 40 YEARS.
@CallardAndBowser4 місяці тому
The City can offer to buy part of their property, but they can not force an illegal seizure.
@redsocks7715 місяців тому
The Home owners are SOL. They encroached on an established easement. Now that the old rail line is being re-purposed and the city checked up on them, they have to move. If the roles were reversed the homeowners would be insisting the legal boundaries be respected.
@AmusedChild3 роки тому
I hope they get together and fight this.
@shawndayvis61693 роки тому
@daniel ....YOU ARE A WISE MAN.
@shawndayvis61693 роки тому
Daniel said it best, the land doesn't belong to the homeowners , they just encroached on land that was never theirs...DO YOUR RESEARCH YOU CLOWNS
@riwagojr93433 роки тому
@@shawndayvis6169 I dont know about all the properties but the one old couple that had been there for 40 years has a claim to that land.The railroad company or city who ever was the owner at the time basically give them rights to the land they built on. They give them rights to it because it removed their obligation to maintain it. Now after 40 years of paying taxes and yes they have been paying taxes for the land they (encroached on) and using that land they are having it taken from them.
@stevejackson50002 роки тому
@@riwagojr9343 They never paid a dime in taxes on that land. They attempted to steal that land and now they have been caught.
@mc3lizard3 роки тому
If the city wants the land my shed is on, THEY can tear down the shed. I want nothing to do with it, and I will not pay them to steal it from me.
@ThePainkiller36663 роки тому
Sure but not before they fine your ass over and over again and finally put a lien against your house and take it. Believe me I've gone through the process, we were forced to comply.
@myprophet13 роки тому
Charge the city for maintenance of the property for the past 40yrs.
@ceceb62643 роки тому
I would blow up my house if that happened
@greg62353 роки тому
@@myprophet1 They will then counter you owe them for the use of "their" property for 40 years. They get to use attorneys paid for by your tax dollars as well. You WILL lose.
@frankhage17343 роки тому
How naive. If you build on someones adjacent property, YOU are responsible for removing your stuff. In my city, the trail bonds (taxpayers) paid for a nice new fence along the trail.
@BraddahHuna2 роки тому
If there was a problem, the city should have done something about it 40 years ago. Now they have abandoned the property and it belongs to the people….
@raybod17752 роки тому
How long before stolen property becomes legally yours... never.
@wadestanton2 роки тому
So, you didn't notice the railroad tracks? Idiot.
@JohnnyGification2 роки тому
From what I'm getting from this, the owners yards are sticking out OVER there property line. Their yards aren't getting any smaller.
@johnassal58382 роки тому
That does seem to be the claim. It's not clear just how much room this trail improvement could possibly need but even if the home owners are in the wrong, assuming the bounds weren't like that when they moved in decades ago, then the simplest solution would seem to be taxing them the appropriate amount for the bigger lot size. Odd for a municipality to pass on more revenue.
@robertthomas59062 роки тому
Yes. They took over property that isn't theirs and now they're upset that they have to give it back. Cry me a river LOL.
@ryansheffield59302 роки тому
Yeah that’s what I got out of it to, and honestly the older couple actually pissed me off a bit. I mean really, there fence was 21 feet over the property line? Bull crap they didn’t know, most people living in highly developed areas have less backyard total then those two are “loosing” and it’s a surprise that they don’t own several hundred extra square feet of yard? They tried to steal what doesn’t belong to them and it’s finally caught up to them.
@drron56083 роки тому
So they homeowners decided my backyard is too small and just built another fence 25 ft further out onto government land and now they have been caught why r people complaining
@jennyanimal90463 роки тому
Creating more space for homeless encampments.
@TheElrocker3 роки тому
So true
@bamamade-jf1mg3 роки тому
Jenny you are Gorgeous are you single 😍😍
@jennyanimal90463 роки тому
@@bamamade-jf1mg yes and I'm a Republican. 😆😁🤣 and your not.lolol
@bamamade-jf1mg3 роки тому
@@jennyanimal9046 What make you think I’m not because I’m from Alabama 😂
@jennyanimal90463 роки тому
@@bamamade-jf1mg no because we have had political banter before. I remember your surname.
@spankmynubs2 роки тому
Looks like there is plenty of room for a trail without removing peoples backyards!!
@brianhaflin97992 роки тому
They might need to pave it for vehicle access or make it wider for ADA requirements.
@rdukes57792 роки тому
As a home owner I don’t want a trail anywhere near my house... especially my backyard. I like my privacy and sense of security. Watch crimes such as burglary and etc increase...
@wadestanton2 роки тому
You didn't notice the railroad tracks the reporter was standing between? You want a railroad behind your house but not a walking trail. Then move to loveland colorado.
@toddstafford99093 роки тому
Plant some Redwood seedlings along the fence line.
@harryballsacky2 роки тому
POISON IVY
@nopez1nu3 роки тому
They need to appeal this. If the city wants the fence built back they need to pay for it. The home owners need to look in to the legal aspect.
@kaceycarter29723 роки тому
So they illegally encroached
@767bob3 роки тому
This is not the owner's property, they went over 20 feet past their property line. Meaning it is not theirs!
@jeffreygrajek5832 роки тому
Two words for the home owners: Adverse Possession If you can prove that you have been using the property in question for more than a certain amount of time you may have good shot of claiming Adverse Possession even if you made use of property that might not have been technically yours.
@9ZERO6Місяць тому
Pretty sure adverse possession does not apply to city owned land in California. They will be wasting their time and money trying to fight City Hall.
@jonathanleonard11522 роки тому
When you purchase a property you need a survey and this survey needs to be filed at the county clerk’s office. Too many people never get that survey and get it filed properly.
@CosmonautAngel3 роки тому
Homeless: Nice area, can't wait to move my camp there.
@murraymadness46743 роки тому
Umm, according to some posting here, if they camp there, then they now OWN the land their tent is on and can't be forced to remove their tent....and btw, the trail already exists. But yeah, homeless is a problem, we had people put up tents in my alley, but drive down it once and run it over and they move.
@RealMTBAddict2 роки тому
@@murraymadness4674 Lol they need to change that law. I would rent a firetruck amd hose the fucks down every morning.
@niveknospmoht87433 роки тому
Time for a land survey to see where the lines actually are
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
Oh no don’t pull those out.... the owners won’t like that. We already looked at those.🤣
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Lol. The home owners should have done that when they were building the fence
@a2cryss2 роки тому
It looks like it already is a trail with more than enough room.
@josephastier74218 місяців тому
"He thinks he can do it himself and he can't".
@anunnakimenagerie3 роки тому
Looks like plenty of room for a trail as is
@nitrocell92873 роки тому
you know what could have helped avoid all this. if homeowners just stuck to building on there property and didnt try to take more land than what they owned...
@seanmcaleavy23693 роки тому
Yep.
@bforman13007 місяців тому
40y? In the last 3 states I have lived in, if you use a piece of land for 7y and the owner doesn't tell you to stop, the land is yours.
@kc8tyk86Рік тому
why would people build on property they don't own? Maybe stick within your property line and this wouldn't have been a issue when the township decided to make use of it for future project.
@BookJay353 роки тому
Amazing when residents of the city needs it to do something funding is always a problem but when they need you to do something there's a deadline and it needs to be done right away
@timothytisor30063 роки тому
Damn, I can understand if the City pay the land owners for the land, but they just want to take it.
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
It’s not their land genius.🥴
@rashidasimmons61803 роки тому
They are over their property line. It is the city's land.
@radrich2273 роки тому
@@rashidasimmons6180 It's quite funny the comments. You can see who are slow in the head and who are paying attention. How is it that people think the city is trying to take away property when it was these residents that illegally expanded their backyard? How is this not clear to these slow people?
@marilynjackson57528 місяців тому
I thought if you had a fence on that property for years it was yours. Get a good lawyer!
@jasondonnelly89402 роки тому
The most troubling part of this whole video is that people actually live in Sacramento .
@mr.noneyabidness2 роки тому
Nailed it!
@harryballsacky2 роки тому
THE WORST THING YOU CAN HEAR " I'M YOUR NEW NEIGHBOR FROM CALIFORNIA "
@kevinwhite58273 роки тому
How wide does the walkway need to be? It looks pretty big back there without having to move the fences.
@moyolinux3 роки тому
Let me get this straight, these people essentially stole land that didn’t belong to them and the city is demanding it back and there complaining 😁😁 only in America
@baileylore35912 роки тому
This is one reason why I'm happy to live in the country, a small town in Florida.
@stevethomas52092 роки тому
That looks to me as though thousands of wildlife are going to be displaced. The residents should file an injunction to protect the wildlife habitat. That should tie it up in court for at least 50 years.... I do belive I seen a Kangaroo rat and a Nat catcher fly and an endangered Horned Owel in that clip. Didn't you?
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
That isn't gonna help them save their shitty old fences that a 30 years old. Those crappy fence are not doing anything for the wildlife habitat
@philippointon86513 роки тому
I listened to this story twice to make sure I heard it correctly. The reporter stated that the fence was 21 ft past the property line. If that's the case, it's not the city encroaching but the homeowner. Just because it's been there a long time, doesn't give you the right to occupy land you're not paying taxes on.
@sanseiryu3 роки тому
I am pretty sure every one of the property owners know that they encroached on city property. They should know exactly where their property line is. That's what they pay for with property taxes. The city has no responsibility to pay them to remove illegal/unpermitted structures. Probably built the fences and sheds without getting a building permit knowing that the permit would not have been issued to begin with. Now using the 'poor me, I can't afford to remove it and rebuild the fence' excuse. I know neighbors who nearly came to blows and end up going to court over a one foot encroachment of a fence over a property line. 21 feet?! They have three months to remove it not one week.
@Dgafsranger3 роки тому
Actually you are both wrong if you watched it twice then you'd know that the encroachments were supposed to be grandfathered in which means that property reverted to the property owners please read some laws from California they are screwey
@sanseiryu3 роки тому
@@Dgafsranger You can see the property lines using google maps. It only affects maybe less than three homeowners. I found two including the shed and fence that was in the video. The city property is situated along an old railway track going through the city. Even though the train tracks are abandoned, no way is the city just going to say, "oh yeah, you took over that amount of city property, go ahead it's yours!" You may be confusing adverse possession or encroachment on a neighboring property owners land. Example:WOODSHED AND LANDSCAPING ENCROACHMENTS In 1994, Denese Welch, owner of Lot 7 in the Shasta Holiday subdivision, built a woodshed and planter boxes which extended over her property line onto Lot 8 - about seven feet for the shed and almost 10 feet for the landscaping. In 2001, the owner of Lot 8, the Harrisons, had the property surveyed and the encroachment was discovered. The Harrisons sued Welch seeking to have the long-standing improvements removed. Welch claimed she had a prescriptive easement and/or was entitled to prevail under the legal theory of adverse possession. ADVERSE POSSESSION If a property owner makes use of a part of a neighbor’s property for over five years, he or she may request a court order that they “own” the land underlying the improvements if the encroachment has been (1) open (visible) and notorious (obvious); (2) continuous and uninterrupted for five years; (3) hostile to (without consent of) the true owner; (4) under claim of right; and (5) they paid taxes on the encroached property. The Court of Appeal, in an unpublished portion of this case, ruled against Welch because she had not paid taxes on the portion of Lot 8 she inadvertently built on. Welch lost on her adverse possession claim that she owned the land underlying the woodshed and landscaping. No surprise. Adverse possession claims are difficult to perfect. Forget about trying this on city owned property. Prescriptive easements fall into this category as well. PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT Welch’s much stronger theory to keep her encroachments in place was a prescriptive easement. The elements of a prescriptive easement are exactly the same as adverse possession, but there is no need to pay taxes on the neighbor’s built-on land. Prescriptive easement claims are easier to achieve. Welch made a strong showing of a prescriptive easement as the woodshed and landscaping had been in place over five years in an open and obvious manner without the Harrison’s permission. Under older prescriptive easement cases, Welch would have had a slam dunk prescriptive easement and could have asked the court to allow her encroachments to remain permanently. However, recent California cases on prescriptive easements correctly note that an easement is a right to use someone else’s property in a non-exclusive manner. A driveway or path, for example, could be a shared use. A fenced area or a shed or bordered landscaping partially over the property line is exclusive use of the burdened property - more akin to true ownership. Justice Robie in Harrison v Welch, a 2004 Third District Court of Appeal case, wrote: “We discern the rule that an exclusive prescriptive easement, which as a practical matter completely prohibits the true owner from using his land, will not be granted in a case (like this) involving a garden-variety residential boundary encroachment.” Robie concluded that the woodshed, made of railroad ties sunk into the ground, effectively excluded the Harrisons of any use of that portion of their property, and likewise, Denese Welch’s planted trees, railroad tie planter boxes and buried irrigation system completely prohibited the Harrisons from using that part of their Lot 8. Because the encroachments essentially gave Welch exclusive use of that part of Lot 8, she was not entitled to a prescriptive easement. The woodshed and other improvements spilling over the mutual boundary line must be removed.
@Heart2HeartBooks3 роки тому
Actually by law if the line was drawn 40 years ago and not disputed then they may have rights to the land....kind of like squatting rights.
@sanseiryu3 роки тому
@@Heart2HeartBooks I gave you an example of the law and they don't have rights to city property. For squatters to gain rights to land, they need to practice their particular brand of theft (otherwise called trespassing) unchallenged for three to 20 years, depending on the jurisdiction. In California, the period is five years of continuous occupancy, plus five years of paying the "property taxes" on that property. Gaining ownership this way is called “adverse possession.” This only applies to residential or commercial real estate, not city property.
@767bob3 роки тому
This is not the owners property, they went past their property lines, one by 20 feet.....imagine if your neighbor took 20 feet of your property.....
@myprophet13 роки тому
40 yrs ago! Should be grandfathered. Charge the city for 40yrs of maintenance.
@767bob3 роки тому
@@myprophet1 it does not work that way....if they were on your property, will you allow them to grandfather in you property? I doubt it....where property is ends is theirs, after that is not.....period!
@merhona34723 роки тому
@@myprophet1 So if someone steals your goods after a certain time it belongs to them!
@lizpas016393 роки тому
In certain states if you've been encroached someone else's property and the actually owner hasn't made any object within 10 years then that property belongs to the opposite party, but I guess that doesn't count in this case Just like if people start cutting through your yard as a short cut and you do nothing within 10yrs, then you the owner technically can't suddenly put up a fence to stop them from cutting through if it been more than 10yrs, it's considered an easement in trust/prescription..... But that person would actually have to know that law and if it applies in their state, c and if they have proof
@plp46183 роки тому
That what I thought I heard. I certainly feel bad for them but they fenced in property that does not belong to them.
@EmmaDee4 місяці тому
Do I understand correctly???? The homeowners have crossed their property lines, put up fences on property NOT belonging to them, and even a shed over a property line? If that is the case, then they absolutely need to be moving their fences and shed.
@matthewwade41962 роки тому
The title is purposely misleading. So they're encroaching onto someone else's property (public). It may have happened long ago. Someone pushed out their fence to take over unused space and use it for their own purposes. Say what you will about the city going after it now when there's plans for the space, but that wasn't the homeowners' land to begin with. I'm sure a solution can be found to make both sides happy.
@RobbyTripp3 роки тому
How are they allowed to violate our all of our rights, even property rights.
@rllr11173 роки тому
No one is having their rights violated. It's town property, the homeowners built on public land.
@RobbyTripp3 роки тому
@@rllr1117 obviously you didn’t watch the video, it is PRIVATE land, they have an EASEMENT that they were all told would be grandfathered in and removed, thus no EASEMENT, thus they can’t build on the PRIVATE property. Clearly they were lied to by the city. They shouldn’t of taken the government for its word but they did. It is still their land regardless the easement just gives access for people to use the trial, you can’t build there or live or camp there it is still THEIR property.
@rllr11173 роки тому
@@RobbyTripp ya clearly have no idea what you're talking about or what an easement is
@RobbyTripp3 роки тому
@@rllr1117 you’re the one that clearly doesn’t know lmao, don’t embarrass yourself and go google it. I’m not going back and forth with you when you’re clearly uninformed. There are different types of easements, none of which give YOU as an individual a right to do anything other travel. Obviously the government can build the trail etc.
@rllr11173 роки тому
@@RobbyTripp yes. On govt land. Which they are doing. Are you that dumb that you just argued my point for me?
@mrgropius663 роки тому
You own property based on your deed legal description. If you’ve encroached you don’t own it. I hope these folks get help but claiming you own it, and owning it aren’t the same thing.
@tainadelcaribe3 роки тому
Thank you! The one comment I see here with common sense. Just because they pushed their fences years (decades) ago further to have access to and use land that did NOT belong them does not make it theirs. They think that because the land wasn’t used by the city for so long they should have it. If it’s not in the deed which is what they paid for then it’s not theirs. Also, if someone from the city told them they’d “give the land to them”, but they didn’t get it in writing then there’s no claim.
@shaggybreeks3 роки тому
There IS such a thing as "adverse possession", which is actually designed for situations similar to this. No idea why the term was not mentioned in this report, but the report was clearly pro-owner propaganda, not interested on who-owns-what.
@skgerttula3 роки тому
I agree. But who's to say the city is being honest about the encroachment? I'd be getting a new survey done ASAP.
@whathappenedtomyYThandle3 роки тому
At 1:02 if stop the video the map partially shows a property line noted on the left but can't tell if it's the owners & if it is why there would still be an encroachment unless that was part of the subdivision Plat as a covenant & restriction then also part of the homeowners recorded deed. The other issue is if given notice and specifics related to that. No different often times own property and appears its all the way to the street, only legally the property line is in the front yard before a sidewalk or other public improvements. People plant & mow then get upset when the city digs it up destroying what they created in that space but never owned by who owns the property in the first place.
@mrgropius663 роки тому
@@shaggybreeks "Adverse possession essentially allows a trespasser onto a piece of land to gain ownership of that land if the true owner fails to object within a certain period of time and if the trespasser pays faithful property taxes on the subject land." The key component being if you have paid property tax. It will be interesting to see if they have but its unlikely.
@masterspin77968 місяців тому
That old lady hunched over needs to see Dr. Cipriani and get the Y-Strap treatment...
@musicloverchicago4373 місяці тому
If the property owners have structures that are outside of their property lines, then they can't really complain about being asked to remove the structures. But it would be nice if the city had some compassion for the people who are unable to remove the structures themselves and at least help them out. And they should have been given a much more generous warning.
@CarlosLopez-oi8cn3 роки тому
If you build on public land then there is nothing you can do about it, it simply never was your land, don't even wast money on a lawyer, you will lose... If they are using eminent domain then you stand a chance because its your property and a walkway is not only not a priority but can be dangerous as it now will invite possibly strange people onto your land.
@Aaron-or6ov3 роки тому
I don’t see why they need to remove it. There is plenty of room for a trail. Also after the trail is built it will just be a home for the homeless anyways.
@rudyruiz95213 роки тому
Well they put a fence on property that isn't theirs. I don't think it is wrong in this case to tell them enough is enough. If someone put a fence on part of your yard, you'd demand it back.
@Aaron-or6ov3 роки тому
@@rudyruiz9521 very true I agree with you. But if anything give them more than two months.
@rudyruiz95213 роки тому
@@Aaron-or6ov agree that that part sucks. Not saying it's sufficient but, it is better than the city or county just doing it and sending them a bill. It would be cheaper for them to just hire a fence company and out if on a credit card or do whatever they need to in order to get it done. I think it sucks and could have been handled better. But, that doesn't mean much overall imo.
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Haha yes exactly!! The government fools should clearly step aside a let home owners all over the state put up fences on public land wherever they like. No way that could cause a problem down the road..
@wind-upbird95132 роки тому
City officials want to be cooperative by forcing the homeowners to do all the work for them. Truly disgusting.
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
Pro top- Don't build on city property. Because then you won't need to take down your crappy 30 year old fence you built on city property.
@rokan813 роки тому
Middle of the night reporter is literally the only one out and has the biggest mask she could Find to stuff on her face. Virtue signal galore.
@readingfrenzy38183 роки тому
The headline is misleading. It should read "City makes homeowners stay within their property lines" These homeowners encroached onto land that doesn't belong to them. Whether they did it two decades ago or two weeks ago, the land is NOT their "backyard ", it doesn't belong to them. It never has.
@WinstonWolfe733 роки тому
The homeowners built beyond their property line. Shouldn't be a surprise.
@esmeraldagreen19923 роки тому
So says the city and why did it take the city 40 years to enforce its rights? Houses get assessed periodically for tax purposes and no city surveyor noticed that homeowners living on that street had all built their fence beyond the city's easement and into city property, perhaps it's because it is not true and the city is lying. It looks like older people like that couple live on that street and they ate easy pickings. I smell a major rat.
@toddgaak4223 роки тому
@@esmeraldagreen1992 Yep. It's called Adverse Possession, and the homeowners now own it. If I were them, I'd tie this up in the courts until I died.
@stevejackson50002 роки тому
I grew up there. That was a Southern Pacific agricultural branch line that went as far as Isleton. By the 1960's It was only used to haul some occasional cars of sugar beets to Freeport to be transferred to trucks to go to the sugar plant in Clarksburg. In the late 1970 SP mothballed the line and some of the folks whose yards backed up to it thought they could steal some land from the railroad so they extended their fence into the railroad's right of way. The chickens are coming home to roost.
@jenniferrevilla52988 місяців тому
They need to fight it. These cities are out of control!
@chasingsunsets873 роки тому
I have been trying to warn people about this
@crystalmasters85823 роки тому
I hope someone sees this and helps the elderly couple do that work 💔
@CastleBomb442 роки тому
I would love to help them take down their illegally built fence they constructed on city property
@crystalmasters85822 роки тому
@@CastleBomb44 good. I’m sure they’d accept it. As the city ordinances changed so did their land likely. My property has literally 2 different land surveying maps. One is correct the other they modified when they realized I have a natural spring. They didn’t necessarily do this knowingly. So if this is a smart ass comment go on with your bad self otherwise it’d be awesome of you to help!
@Bobbyliscious3 роки тому
My backyard is 5.5 acres! I let the city build a foot trail through the woods so others can enjoy it. But I was smart and had the Mayor sign a release relieving me of any responsibility in the event of ANYTHING.
@marilynjackson57527 місяців тому
How can this be legal? The city will lose this lawsuit.
@lindaya79273 роки тому
Soon it's more than a back yard it will be the home .
@bobbys4053 роки тому
The city needs to pay them out at least. That's F up.
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
They’re not paying anything to these crazy people... just because you build something on vacant land doesn’t make it legally yours.
@bobbys4053 роки тому
@@HeyUncleA Wow you sound Soo privileged. You must work for the city council. You have clearly never experienced anything in your life that made you feel wronged. They built on it 40 year's ago and used the land to rise a family. That property is more there's then anyone elses. You sound like the selfish person on the planet.
@HeyUncleA3 роки тому
@@bobbys405 hahaha I washed windows at the gas station off Mack when I was 8 in the early 90’s. Eat a fat one, I’m from the gutter. 👌🏽 I bought my house and looked at the property lines first like anybody with a brain should do. If I built my fence out an extra 30-40ft I wouldn’t expect the city to give me free land. That’s just dumb. Have a good day.
@jerrythompson59673 роки тому
This is the same city that tells you if some squatter takes over your house there is nothing you can do!
@thomastessin166310 місяців тому
This is B.S., with the right attorney this can not only stopped immediately and the city will have to pay big bucks for the land.
@oscarmedina15973 роки тому
The news reporter misrepresented the truth. Those property extensions were never legal, so it was never “their” property. Those home owners simply encroached on public property and assumed that they would never be called on it. We once considered buying there and looked into the matter. No thanks.
@rebeccacaraska41123 роки тому
Not true. Go to the county assessor's parcel viewer and look at Crestwood Way. Every backyard is the same and only a few feet from the rail. There's no possible way they could be 21 feet out of bounds. It's a land grab.
@nathankoroush79188 місяців тому
Ok, now it makes more since. thanks for the info.
@roscoejones45153 роки тому
So the homeowner's put up buildings and fences on land that wasn't theirs, and now they're pissed. Ooookkkaayyyy.
@janet19313 роки тому
For reals, even people in the comments mad
@seanmcaleavy23693 роки тому
@@janet1931 It's ridiculous. This whole story is bogus. Nobody is being told their backyards are too big. They are being told to remove fences and structures that they had built on property that was never theirs to begin with.
@mr.robinson19823 роки тому
No, they put up fences 40 years ago. Paid taxes for that land & suddenly within the last 2 months the city wants the land for itself... I say take up the unused railroad line & use that...You don't need 40-60 feet wide for a paved bike path...
@seanmcaleavy23693 роки тому
@@mr.robinson1982 Where in this video does it say they paid taxes for the land? Give me a timestamp and if that is true then my opinion will change. Seriously. Show me where that is.
@clayton77573 роки тому
@@mr.robinson1982 They didn’t pay any property taxes on that land because it legally wasn’t their’s
@ClubOceanBlue223 дні тому
Class action lawsuit. Someone had better file something quickly and demand fair compensation.
@houchi692 роки тому
Sue. The city just want to illegally take space back because those are valuable realty spaces.