Idahoreader
05-10-2006, 02:56 PM
We purchased two adjoining parcels of land in Idaho from the railroad. The fact that it was RR land sold by Quit Deed throws a large enough glitch into the land itself, but there is another issue that we are most concerned about. All maps of the area show a 25 feet wide city street as the land access to the western parcel, but the road has not been built or opened by the city yet. The eastern parcel has a different street access that is existing and maintained.
We verbally asked about street access for the western parcel. The city came back to say we needed to apply in writing for a street access permit. If granted, we would be required to have the road location surveyed and build them a new road, down their right of way, to their specifications, at our personal expense. The city told us if we did not agree to those terms, the access would be denied. Reluctantly, we agreed to their terms and submitted the written street access permit. However, the access permit was denied with the verbal excuse that the city's platted right of way is not wide enough to meet their new 60 feet wide street "subdivision requirement" (which by the way is not of city record in any ordinance to date). The written reason for denial on the access permit is extremely vague, purposly avoiding any specifics on their part. The land we purchased has not been part of any subdivision for the past 50 years!
There is an old closed road through both of the parcels that is also part of a river levy system and was once the prescriptive use access to the land. We asked the city about their postition on this road since it was closed over 10 years ago, due to the levy being considered unsafe for vehicle traffic after the river eroded a large portion of the levy. When the levy colapsed 10 years ago, the city emergently moved the levy and quickly rip rapped the bank to help restore the integrity. As the result, they closed the road and no longer maintained it. Since the re-built portion of the levy is not on the original prescriptive use land any longer and the city did not follow through with maintenance for the following 5 years, the question of prescriptive use through that portion is yet to be determined. We asked the city to state their position to posession of the road. The answer was "we're not sure what we want to claim for that road yet." At that point we were certain there is foul play and manipulaiton against us. Since we were denied the street access permit from the much safer and wider street we offered to build, we asked how we could get access to the westerly lot. Their response was "we might give you access from the levy."
Because the city "is not sure how they want to claim the levy road yet," and their refusal to allow us access through the platted city street, we are very disturbed with their responses. We do not want to "give them" prescriptive use access by re-opening an old road across the levy for them to eventually claim, since it is not yet determined after the loss of the original levy. The road has been closed for the past 10 years with other legal city platted streets that parallel the levy that can be used. If we did not already own the adjoining property, we would have to force easement by necessity with the owner, so it is obvious the city is manipulating the situation since we do own the property.
What options can we take against the city for using the rightfully platted city street for the property access? Can they purposely and knowingly land-lock that property just because we own the adjoining parcel and force us to give prescriptive use or easement by necessity to the next buyer? We've all heard the saying "You Can't Fight City Hall." Surely, the laws do not support them to manipulate the public this way - does it?
We verbally asked about street access for the western parcel. The city came back to say we needed to apply in writing for a street access permit. If granted, we would be required to have the road location surveyed and build them a new road, down their right of way, to their specifications, at our personal expense. The city told us if we did not agree to those terms, the access would be denied. Reluctantly, we agreed to their terms and submitted the written street access permit. However, the access permit was denied with the verbal excuse that the city's platted right of way is not wide enough to meet their new 60 feet wide street "subdivision requirement" (which by the way is not of city record in any ordinance to date). The written reason for denial on the access permit is extremely vague, purposly avoiding any specifics on their part. The land we purchased has not been part of any subdivision for the past 50 years!
There is an old closed road through both of the parcels that is also part of a river levy system and was once the prescriptive use access to the land. We asked the city about their postition on this road since it was closed over 10 years ago, due to the levy being considered unsafe for vehicle traffic after the river eroded a large portion of the levy. When the levy colapsed 10 years ago, the city emergently moved the levy and quickly rip rapped the bank to help restore the integrity. As the result, they closed the road and no longer maintained it. Since the re-built portion of the levy is not on the original prescriptive use land any longer and the city did not follow through with maintenance for the following 5 years, the question of prescriptive use through that portion is yet to be determined. We asked the city to state their position to posession of the road. The answer was "we're not sure what we want to claim for that road yet." At that point we were certain there is foul play and manipulaiton against us. Since we were denied the street access permit from the much safer and wider street we offered to build, we asked how we could get access to the westerly lot. Their response was "we might give you access from the levy."
Because the city "is not sure how they want to claim the levy road yet," and their refusal to allow us access through the platted city street, we are very disturbed with their responses. We do not want to "give them" prescriptive use access by re-opening an old road across the levy for them to eventually claim, since it is not yet determined after the loss of the original levy. The road has been closed for the past 10 years with other legal city platted streets that parallel the levy that can be used. If we did not already own the adjoining property, we would have to force easement by necessity with the owner, so it is obvious the city is manipulating the situation since we do own the property.
What options can we take against the city for using the rightfully platted city street for the property access? Can they purposely and knowingly land-lock that property just because we own the adjoining parcel and force us to give prescriptive use or easement by necessity to the next buyer? We've all heard the saying "You Can't Fight City Hall." Surely, the laws do not support them to manipulate the public this way - does it?
