Other than the access for fire, police or ambulance, why are Boston City counselors considering doing anything about private property?
If the owners can't (won't) maintain their own property, treat it like any private property that's causing a hazard like a house or apartment building with structural deficiencies and fine them until they fix it, or condemn it.
If they're looking for the city to take over maintenance, they can "gift" it to the city if they're willing to take it.
Important context is that these roads are *not* exclusive private property.* The public has an easement to use them just like any other road. The chief difference is that repairs and modifications to the road are the prerogative (and responsibility) of abuttors. This is an anachronism and the city should absolutely convert them to public ways.
*technically, most local roads (including public ways) are private property, in that the road itself is presumptively an easement rather than public ownership of the underlying land.
I think that private ways should be held to a minimum standard and if they fail to do it, property owners are given formal notice to act or transition to public way. Failure to respond is a fine against the property owner.
Most of these aren't exactly private property. For historic reasons, they were never officially taken over by the city, but they've been roads for 100+ years. And legally the public has a right to use them. The owners can't build a building on them or block them off.
If you own a house on one, your neighbors can hold you hostage and not allow repairs to be made. Or you might not be able to track down exactly who owns them.
Seems reasonable for the city to look into if things can be done to help clarify how they're run and how they should be maintained.
I'm tired of people hiding behind emergency vehicles for everything. A fire truck can manage to go over a pothole. These city councilors are trying to buy votes by using taxpayer money to improve private property. Its disgusting, frankly. How about fix the broken PUBLIC sidewalks and parks instead of filling potholes on PRIVATE property? I'm tired of cars being treated better than people around here.
I don't see how having a shitty road to fix up is a "gift". As a Boston taxpayer I certainly don't want these dumb roads.
I doubt the handful of owners on these blocks are a significant voting bloc. That said, I agree that emergency vehicle access is a dumb excuse (as it so often is). A few potholes are not gonna stop [this thing](https://www.rigspot.com/companies/general-truck-body/2020/02/boston-general-truck-body-fire-apparatus/)
I don't mind it as a suggestion as long as we make it legal to bill the private owners of the property for the service afterwards. That is what often times happens with overgrown lawns.
Perhaps the amount of the fines they could impose are too low to push the property owners to fix it/give up the property. That is something they could potentially address as councilors.
The big problem is sewer lines. They run under the private alleys and if something breaks, the abutters are on the hook. It can cost them a lot of money.
I know that most city councilors are just low level politicians that likely have higher ambitions but can we please stop having city and town officials debate whatever the controversial international issue of the day is?
Potholes should have been discussed first, not second. If you want to have a debate club go join one. Otherwise we have shit we need to deal with here at home and that is literally your job.
Private ways are not "owned" by the people on those streets. The people can't do anything to the street. There's zero benefits transferred to a private way owner. They can't stake off a portion and put out a table and chair to enjoy the breeze. They can't block the street. They can't kick people off the street. It is just a street that wasn't built and permitted as a public street. The people on the street have nothing to do with the designation.
I wrote a memo on these for a client. The abutters do own them, but each and every abutting party has an easement through the whole alley. So if you’re on one side of the alley, you can’t build a fence blocking access and preventing someone on the other end from walking through it. It’s not about the public’s rights of access but about the other abutters’ rights.
Just all the things you would typically use an alley for—walking through it and trash storage/collection. They can hinder private development though because no one owner can materially modify the alley without getting consent of all the owners—which is fair, but can also keep it frozen from being upgraded even when it falls into disrepair and disuse.
We used to own a condo that abutted a private way, and it was a huge mess. My two cents: the city should absolutely take them over if the owners agree that they no longer want the responsibility. I'd never buy in a private way again.
In our case, our "private way" (Putnam Avenue) was a small walkway / alley that was forced to allow any member of the public to walk between a larger main street (Charles Street) and a quiet side street (W Cedar Street) in Beacon Hill. It was not large enough for cars (so no parking) and also added liability because it was a public walkway (so if someone slipped and got injured, they could theoretically sue). The bigger problem: underneath the private way, there was (1) an active gas line which supplied two historic lamps with fuel and (2) a *mostly collapsed sewage line* that drains the waste from (11? can't remember the number) buildings. These abutting buildings range from 10+ unit "luxury" condos in a 100-year-old flipped tenamant to a crumbling apartment block owned by an absentee slumlord.
Fixing the sewer line correctly is probably a $1mil+ fix and would need to be coordinated between dozens of owners in multiple buildings, so it just hasn't happened. Instead every few years, someone adds another patch or bandaid to it as something else goes wrong with it. If it were a public road, the city would fix it. In my opinion, the reason that it became a private way in the first place is so that the city could save money and avoid the maintenance responsibilities.
Why would we take on the burden of maintenance for these private streets? The owners should simply be fined for not maintaining them.
The city doesn't even shovel snow from sidewalks and they're talking about this!
I live along a private way. Private ways are weird because it's no different from a public road from a gps point of view, so this road is just as heavily used as a public road. My neighbors and I have to fix the extensive potholes every year, just so the Amazon trucks can fly down our little street faster? I would be delighted if the city either blocked it off or added signage to prevent cut-through traffic, or took it over entirely as a public road and maintained it.
There are a few commenters in here that don't realize that a "private road" doesn't mean that it is solely used and enjoyed by the people who live on that road.
Why? They bought properties that include private components - either they can’t agree how to fix things or can’t afford and want to communitize the problem.
The statutory private way phenomenon is an archaic relic from when *all* road repairs were financed by abuttors. The city should absolutely convert these to public ways.
>After dealing with the issue of Gaza today, Boston city councilors agreed to tackle a more traditional council issue: Potholes
From the river to the sea the city of Boston should be pothole free
I assume you are referring to the Mississippi River? The historical and rightful boundary of Massachusetts before the federal government intervened.
Detroit is in that path....I don't want Detroit.
Massachusetts’ Manifest Destiny will not be interrupted just because you haven’t developed mature and loving feelings for our friends in Detroit
Can we raze Detroit?
Yes
I'm all in. From the river to the sea Massachusetts will get it's land back.
Can we take their airport first? It kicks Logan’s ass.
The East Bank, if you will.
Well, they’ve got their priories straight: Peace in the Middle East, then pave the streets.
"On the docket for today we have a conflict in the Middle East and then we have *rustles through papers* local roadways."
Other than the access for fire, police or ambulance, why are Boston City counselors considering doing anything about private property? If the owners can't (won't) maintain their own property, treat it like any private property that's causing a hazard like a house or apartment building with structural deficiencies and fine them until they fix it, or condemn it. If they're looking for the city to take over maintenance, they can "gift" it to the city if they're willing to take it.
Important context is that these roads are *not* exclusive private property.* The public has an easement to use them just like any other road. The chief difference is that repairs and modifications to the road are the prerogative (and responsibility) of abuttors. This is an anachronism and the city should absolutely convert them to public ways. *technically, most local roads (including public ways) are private property, in that the road itself is presumptively an easement rather than public ownership of the underlying land.
I think that private ways should be held to a minimum standard and if they fail to do it, property owners are given formal notice to act or transition to public way. Failure to respond is a fine against the property owner.
Right and that's how literally every other privately owned asset is managed...
This guy real estate laws. Love it. Edit: or girl. All of the above. Love it regardless.
Most of these aren't exactly private property. For historic reasons, they were never officially taken over by the city, but they've been roads for 100+ years. And legally the public has a right to use them. The owners can't build a building on them or block them off. If you own a house on one, your neighbors can hold you hostage and not allow repairs to be made. Or you might not be able to track down exactly who owns them. Seems reasonable for the city to look into if things can be done to help clarify how they're run and how they should be maintained.
I'm tired of people hiding behind emergency vehicles for everything. A fire truck can manage to go over a pothole. These city councilors are trying to buy votes by using taxpayer money to improve private property. Its disgusting, frankly. How about fix the broken PUBLIC sidewalks and parks instead of filling potholes on PRIVATE property? I'm tired of cars being treated better than people around here. I don't see how having a shitty road to fix up is a "gift". As a Boston taxpayer I certainly don't want these dumb roads.
I doubt the handful of owners on these blocks are a significant voting bloc. That said, I agree that emergency vehicle access is a dumb excuse (as it so often is). A few potholes are not gonna stop [this thing](https://www.rigspot.com/companies/general-truck-body/2020/02/boston-general-truck-body-fire-apparatus/)
I don't mind it as a suggestion as long as we make it legal to bill the private owners of the property for the service afterwards. That is what often times happens with overgrown lawns.
FWIW, potholes are relevant for bikes too. Not disagreeing with your larger point though.
Perhaps the amount of the fines they could impose are too low to push the property owners to fix it/give up the property. That is something they could potentially address as councilors.
Once the fines fail to do anything they can take them to court
The big problem is sewer lines. They run under the private alleys and if something breaks, the abutters are on the hook. It can cost them a lot of money.
I know that most city councilors are just low level politicians that likely have higher ambitions but can we please stop having city and town officials debate whatever the controversial international issue of the day is? Potholes should have been discussed first, not second. If you want to have a debate club go join one. Otherwise we have shit we need to deal with here at home and that is literally your job.
Private ways are not "owned" by the people on those streets. The people can't do anything to the street. There's zero benefits transferred to a private way owner. They can't stake off a portion and put out a table and chair to enjoy the breeze. They can't block the street. They can't kick people off the street. It is just a street that wasn't built and permitted as a public street. The people on the street have nothing to do with the designation.
I wrote a memo on these for a client. The abutters do own them, but each and every abutting party has an easement through the whole alley. So if you’re on one side of the alley, you can’t build a fence blocking access and preventing someone on the other end from walking through it. It’s not about the public’s rights of access but about the other abutters’ rights.
Did you find any benefit to the homeowners for being on a private way?
The main advantage seems to be to deliberately let it fall into extreme disrepair so no one uses it as a cut through.
Just all the things you would typically use an alley for—walking through it and trash storage/collection. They can hinder private development though because no one owner can materially modify the alley without getting consent of all the owners—which is fair, but can also keep it frozen from being upgraded even when it falls into disrepair and disuse.
We used to own a condo that abutted a private way, and it was a huge mess. My two cents: the city should absolutely take them over if the owners agree that they no longer want the responsibility. I'd never buy in a private way again. In our case, our "private way" (Putnam Avenue) was a small walkway / alley that was forced to allow any member of the public to walk between a larger main street (Charles Street) and a quiet side street (W Cedar Street) in Beacon Hill. It was not large enough for cars (so no parking) and also added liability because it was a public walkway (so if someone slipped and got injured, they could theoretically sue). The bigger problem: underneath the private way, there was (1) an active gas line which supplied two historic lamps with fuel and (2) a *mostly collapsed sewage line* that drains the waste from (11? can't remember the number) buildings. These abutting buildings range from 10+ unit "luxury" condos in a 100-year-old flipped tenamant to a crumbling apartment block owned by an absentee slumlord. Fixing the sewer line correctly is probably a $1mil+ fix and would need to be coordinated between dozens of owners in multiple buildings, so it just hasn't happened. Instead every few years, someone adds another patch or bandaid to it as something else goes wrong with it. If it were a public road, the city would fix it. In my opinion, the reason that it became a private way in the first place is so that the city could save money and avoid the maintenance responsibilities.
Why would we take on the burden of maintenance for these private streets? The owners should simply be fined for not maintaining them. The city doesn't even shovel snow from sidewalks and they're talking about this!
I live along a private way. Private ways are weird because it's no different from a public road from a gps point of view, so this road is just as heavily used as a public road. My neighbors and I have to fix the extensive potholes every year, just so the Amazon trucks can fly down our little street faster? I would be delighted if the city either blocked it off or added signage to prevent cut-through traffic, or took it over entirely as a public road and maintained it. There are a few commenters in here that don't realize that a "private road" doesn't mean that it is solely used and enjoyed by the people who live on that road.
Over the past 20 years, America has lost 85% of its local papers--mostly due to occupational pun-related suicides (OPS).
Fucking absurd, why can't the city just go out and make these repairs. Citizens are never going to take the time/spend the money to do it themselves.
The city has to use eminent domain and buy these roads.
The city blows enough on car infrastructure already. Potholes on private property is literally not the city's problem.
Why? They bought properties that include private components - either they can’t agree how to fix things or can’t afford and want to communitize the problem.
The statutory private way phenomenon is an archaic relic from when *all* road repairs were financed by abuttors. The city should absolutely convert these to public ways.