Easement issues
One issue that came up at the Town Meeting last night was the pink wall on US 1.
Three property owners refuse to give up the five-foot easement to the city in order to replace the pink wall along US1 from 17th Ave. to the Museum of Science. So rather than fight, the city has agreed to let those people keep their wall. It will look like crap, but guess the whiners have some sort of political pull.
Wonder if Slice 'N Ice and E-Z Kwik will have the same pull since they don't want to give up their easement for the 27th Avenue project. I guess this is a great precedent for them to use when that issue comes up.
If three selfish homeowners can screw up a project, maybe two businesses, which we want to stay, can do the same -- I'm sure they give more tax money to the city, county and state than the homeowners.
Three property owners refuse to give up the five-foot easement to the city in order to replace the pink wall along US1 from 17th Ave. to the Museum of Science. So rather than fight, the city has agreed to let those people keep their wall. It will look like crap, but guess the whiners have some sort of political pull.
Wonder if Slice 'N Ice and E-Z Kwik will have the same pull since they don't want to give up their easement for the 27th Avenue project. I guess this is a great precedent for them to use when that issue comes up.
If three selfish homeowners can screw up a project, maybe two businesses, which we want to stay, can do the same -- I'm sure they give more tax money to the city, county and state than the homeowners.
posted by Tom Falco at 7:28 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
24 Comments:
Why should they be forced to give up part of their property that they paid for? Say they have 25 feet against Useless-1, that’s 125 square feet that they are going to loose. That’s worth a lot to their property values.
Anyways, why doesn't the city worry about plans for how they are going to improve traffic on Useless-1 instead of trying to give us a nice wall to stare at when we are stuck in traffic trying to get to work?
Because an easement doesn't belong to the property owner. It belongs to the city or county.
There is a difference between granting an easement and an easement already existing. One has little to do with the other.
Where an easement already exists -- a la 27th Ave. -- the city doesn't have to wait for permission from anybody.
Trust me, if you were a homeowner there you wouldnt want to give up your 3 feet either. Who would want to lose that much backyard/distance between US1? I sure wouldnt and I doubt anyone would. And who really gives a crap about the wall. People that are bothered by it need to relax. Look straight ahead or to the left instead.
The issue here is that the City is requesting an easement where none exists. Were there an easement, the city wouldn't need to ask for one.
As for the traffic on U.S. 1, what conceivable action could the City of Miami take? Ban through traffic from Kendall? The "U. S." part of the name is the big hint that this is a Federal highway.
The property lot size which the owner owns and gets tax on is up to US1.
Check the public record.
No Easement currently exist.
Again, no easement currently exist.
That is why the city is "asking" the homeowners to transfer ownership to the city.
A better plan needs to be put forth than pressuring the homeowners into a transfer of land to the city.
I am really disappointed that our commissioner Marc Sarnoff does not protect the property rights of the homeowners.
Pressuring the Homeowners through one way discussions on why they should give up their land and conform to the location of the new wall is simply WRONG.
(please note, there is no sarcasm in this note - honestly want to know - don't be mean and call me stupid):
So there is a big pink wall now. They want to replace it. Do the homeowners own the wall currently? Is the state pushing the wall back or just using the exact same land but now formally claiming it?
Basically, what's going on?
Like the above poster stated, I am confused as to the status of the pink wall. If there is no easement whatsoever then who built the pink wall, the individual owners?
It seems odd that the city would have constructed the original wall without such easements.
Additionally, I think that these individuals should keep in mind that easements are the foundation of many public utilities. Without easements there would be no place to put telephone or electric transformers.
As a final note, I find it shocking that these people would prefer to keep the potential liability of their current crumbling pink wall instead of allowing the city to construct of new wall for they would have the responsibility to maintain and therefore the liability if something occurs related thereto.
If there is one thing I know its that people in this city, indeed everywhere, enjoying being contentious just to be contentious. To be honest, the atrocious pink wall likely has more of a negative impact on their property value than a new wall w/ its easement would.
how bought they just take it with eminent domain. how to we determine the fair value for a crumbly ugly pink wall. if i were the homeowners id make a deal, otherwise they are going to really get upset when they each get 200$ lol
The homeowners' actions are so typical of "it's all about me Miami". Rather than be part of a project that will vastly improve the appearance of the approach route to Brickell, they cling to a worthless strip of their property. Where's their civic pride? Oh, wait, this is Miami.
Do the homeowners own the wall currently?
Yes the homeowners own the wall.
Is the state pushing the wall back or just using the exact same land but now formally claiming it?
The state does not own the land, every homeowner has paid taxes on that land and the lot size listed in Public records shows that they own the land up to US1.
When the homeowner bought the land the lot size listed includes the wall and all the way to US1.
If the wall is destroyed because of hurricane etc… the homeowner owns the wall on their property and is responsible for the cost to replace it.
The state wants to push the wall back significantly.
Look, I think everybody agrees that the wall is old and ugly. But my point is that individual property rights must be respected.
What good would it be to work hard to buy a home in the neighborhood that you love and always wonder if the state can take part of the land that you own. To speak to the home owners as if the state has every right to take what you own.
A solution could be found that does not trample on home-owners property rights.
Since the homeowners are giving up their land, they should have a say on how the wall should be built.
For decades the city has worked with the homeowners on issues about the wall. To simply forget that and pressure the Homeowners is WRONG.
People will have to replace what is destroyed, which was built with city permits and not illegally, with their own money, and some of these people will have to use their retirement money, because they are currently retired.
No question that the reality is that financially this project will hurt the homeowners. That is reality. Keep in mind that the state will spend 2.1 million dollars to replace that wall.
to answer another question:
how bought they just take it with eminent domain. how to we determine the fair value for a crumbly ugly pink wall?
The Land Value listed in the public records shows how much that land is worth.
Finally, Any-body that calls somebody names anonymously, well that speaks for itself.
If the city gets away with what it wants to do at the homeowners expenses it will lead to further problems in the future. Individual property rights must be protected and an active compromise between the city and the homeowners can be reached. For elected city officials to simply disregard the homeowners as if they do not exist or harassed them into giving up a portion of their land is wrong and a mistake.
You gotta admire the enthusiasm for grabbing somebody else's property. Some of these folks may have structures built up to the wall, as they apparently have every right to do. An easement would mean giving up part of a structure, not just a strip of back yard. As for the presumed negative effect of the pink wall on property values...probably next to zero since the whole point of the wall is to separate the residents from the highway. An effective low cost solution might have been to plant some agressive clinging vine so that the whole stretch would become green in relatively short order.
I find it hard to judget the homeowners without knowing more details. Square footage is precious in the Grove, and if I was in their position I wouldn't casually give it up. What kind of deal is Miami offering? How can the homeowners be assured that they won't be asked for more in the future?
The Takings Clause of the Constitution entitles each citizen to just compensation for property that is taken for public use. I'd like to know more about what they have been offered.
Anon September 28, 2007 11:46 AM - thanks for answering my questions. Now knowing that homeowners would not only lose the property from the new wall to the street, but additional land as well, I think they should fight it.
I think it is OK for people to opt out. But it would be nice if those opting out allow their US 1 facing facades to be finished to match the new walls. Similiar looking stucco...? Same color paint...?
Great idea. Let people keep their existing walls if they want. But allow the City to use the same paint on the side facing traffic. Let it all blend in.
Yes, it is important that abutting segments be uniform. The last thing Coconut Grove needs is an appearance of non-conformity which might upset the harmonious commuting experience along US 1.
Viva le resistance!
We shall fight not to be confused with Coral Gables! (shiver)
What kind of deal is Miami offering?
The city is offering no deal, no compensation.
The homeowners just got a letter in the mail with a courteous request that they give up the land to the city. Also a few meetings that have sounded like the city will take it from the homeowners sooner or later.
It seems that if the homeowners do not agree to the wall plan than the current wall may be condemn by the city. So if the new wall is suppose to add safety, than why would the city condemn the old wall? This will force the homeowners to accept the request of the city to turn over the land with no compensation.
How can the homeowners be assured that they won't be asked for more in the future?
Based on past history, the city will ask for more land in the future. Time after time these lots have been reduced.
This topic is important to every homeowner in this community because if the city gets its way it will send a signal that they can pressure a homeowner to give up their land.
I cannot understand how the city of miami expects people to give up their land for free for the common good. If the city can afford to subsidize a frickin new baseball stadium that nobody will go to, the least they can do is cut some checks for the poor homeowners losing substantial amounts of their hard-earned property.
Forcing or "tricking" citizens to give up their property for public use, without just compensation, would be unconstitutional.
If you are a homeowner who has received one of these letters, or know one who has, drop me a line at swlipblog-at-gmail-dot-com. I will be happy to represent you.
At the Town Hall meeting the Director of the Capital Improvement Department (they are responsible for the new pink wall) stated very clearly that the City of Miami would NOT use eminent domain to acquire any easements. Partcipation is voluntary. Homeowners who choose to particapate get a new wall that hopefully is considerably stronger than what they have currently. It appears the new pink wall will look considerably better than the sections of the existing wall.
The Commissioner said the existing wall "may be condemn" which will essentially force the homeowners to accept the terms for the new wall.
Note:
In the United States, easements may be acquired by the government using its power of "eminent domain" in a "condemnation" proceeding in the courts. Note that in the U.S., in accordance with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, property cannot simply be taken by the government unless the property owner is compensated for the fair market value of what is taken. This is true whether the government acquires full ownership of the property ("free title") or a lesser property interest, such as an easement.
For the Commissioner Marc Sarnoff to state that the homeowners are not losing land, because they are still paying taxes on it, but are not allowed by law to use it in any way. It is simply lawyer talk, beware in this situation “the devil is in the details”.
The reality is that when a person agrees to the plan outline by the city the owner will lose the right to use the land as they wish. Even though the city will still generate tax revenue on that land from the homeowner.
So it’s a win, win for the city at the expense of the homeowner. The homeowners are essentially paying for the wall through the taxes that will be paid by them for the land that, by law, they cannot touch.
That's what bothers me about this. The City seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too. Use of the term "easement" is misleading when the homeowner is going to permanently lose access to the property in question.
Post a Comment
<< Home