@@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
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.
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.
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!
@@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.
@@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
@@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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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
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.
@@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.
Ironic, the so called democracy practices communism without realizing it 😁. I'm not a commie, but the government really violates their citizen's right.
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.
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
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!!
@@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
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
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..
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.
@@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.
@@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".
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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 )
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.
@@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
@@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
@@PandaMan02 you mean eminent domain (where the city/town can take possession of property when its (supposibly) in it's best [uhm...cough...] interest)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!
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
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
@@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.
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.
@@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.
These people stole land. I have zero sympathy for them. They KNEW the land didn't belong to them. If it was by accident, then "adverse possession" kicks in, and they have a genuine legal claim to the land. As it stands now, this land is extremely valuable. Ten thousand square feet in central California is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also need to pay back taxes on the land they used, stretching back 40+ years.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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."
@@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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
i was on their side until i watched and learned that they actually built their fences and yards past their own property lines....you should never build anything on land you dont own
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...
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.
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.
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-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.
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..
What I heard is they were using land they didn't own because they were entitled and now some proud old man won't admit he can't do something. My sympathy is somewhere on vacation right now.
The city will never do that with MANSIONS. Those are paying more taxes so the city won't treat these rich people (who lives in castles) like they do with the poor who cannot pay for a lawyer.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
@@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.
@@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?
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
@@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!
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
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.
If I take something that doesn't belong to me, I have a right to be angry if the owner suddenly says he wants it back. He needs to give me a date for when he wants me to hand it back that's a long time in the future from when he notifies me. It's not fair to demand your stuff back immediately! The folks do not own that land. They expanded their yards onto railroad right of way after the railroad stopped running. Those people did not pay a dime for it, they never got permission to be on it, or to put up fences around it. They had dreamed the city would eventually let them have it for nothing. And that is exactly how unethical people think. They should be glad they haven't been charged rent for using it.
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?
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
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.
Actually, under California law :-"In California, adverse possession occurs when a person who wants to claim someone else's must not only use it for at least five years, but they must also pay taxes on it." So if you want to claim adverse possession you must prove two things, that hard one would be that you were paying taxes (and the state was accepting those taxes) on state land. If they were, then go ahead, If they were not, better build a new fence where it should have been long ago.
Wrong headline! The city is not telling people their "backyards are too big". The city is telling them that they have to move their fences back onto their own properties. How does fencing in land one does not own translate into ownership rights of said land??? The irony is that in ten years when those houses get put up for resale the real estate ads will boast that the houses are "right on the trail" and be more desirable for it. I've seen this over and over...
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.
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.
These same folks would go bankrupt if instead of city taking back the land they paid all the taxes and penalties for Kate payment. They paid 40 years of taxes on deeded property not the extra they stole from the rightful owner. Adverse possession laws would require they paid the taxes before it could be relevant.
It's not that the backyards are too big but that the homeowners built fences on city property. City needs to help where they can. If you owned property and wanted to build on it but found someone else had put a fence on your property you would ask them to remove it.
@@PandaMan02 you're right. Atleast in the old couples case because its been over 40 years. They might be able to go to court and win. Idk about the other neighbors though.
@@PandaMan02 absolutely correct. I worked for a city that lost it’s property rights to build docks on the waterway because the neighbors were using it for 10 years or more to navigate their boats to their own docks. I hope someone helps these people.
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.
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.
1:02 I worked with (but not for) the City on many infrastructure projects. It is not uncommon for homeowners with properties along canyons, etc., to build out beyond their property lines, even massive decks, or guest houses. They often it do it knowing full well it is illegal, but count on no one noticing. Until the City has to go into these areas to add, repair, or improve things like stormwater drains, plumbing, etc., and in this case add a trail. Just because they're two elderly people doesn't make them above the Law. If it was about a fence between them and their neighbors, they would be very aware of their & the other neighbor's PL. They wouldn't be able to claim ignorance. But the City, as property owners themselves, seem invisible to these homeowners, so they disregard it. They are lucky they had it for so long.
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.
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 or early 1980's Southern Pacific 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. They stole the land and now they have been caught. They're getting what they deserve. The chickens are coming home to roost.
It's not that simple. That land was Southern Pacific Railroad land when the encroachments were built and SP allowed it. Then SP abandoned the old right of way down to Rio Vista and the land inside city limits was acquired by the city. Now the city wants residents to remove improvements that were allowed by the previous owner. That's why the talk of grandfathering in the encroachments.
Wish you had the same tone towards the homeless. At least the property owners aren't desecrating the area. Now that new "trail" will be a homeless encampment. Watch...
@@joeysfather2723 I don't think so. That's South Land Park. Lots of money in that hood. My bet is any homeless that set up camp there will be moved out fast.
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.
The homeless situation is real but moving your fence line to grab land is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Respect your property lines and don’t try to steal land that is not yours. Good luck
