Letters, Aug. 19, 2014: Messages on t...

Letters, Aug. 19, 2014: Messages on the wall do not affect homeowner

There are 6 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Aug 18, 2014, titled Letters, Aug. 19, 2014: Messages on the wall do not affect homeowner. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

The memorials on the wall at Seacliff State Beach are very special to me. When my mother, Louise Wollenberg, was alive, she walked to the wall every day until she was 88 years old.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

HuH

Danville, CA

#1 Aug 18, 2014
"Yep, I'm all for a sanctuary. Here is my idea for one: I am a taxpayer, public servant of 35 years, fixed-income kind of gal, a real salt of the earth, down-home sort. I want a sanctuary, a beautiful place of refuge and safety, a holy place to commune with Mother Ocean. How about calling it Santa Cruz? Take back Santa Cruz."

OoooooooooKay.......
Okaaaaay

Santa Cruz, CA

#2 Aug 18, 2014
HuH wrote:
"Yep, I'm all for a sanctuary. Here is my idea for one: I am a taxpayer, public servant of 35 years, fixed-income kind of gal, a real salt of the earth, down-home sort. I want a sanctuary, a beautiful place of refuge and safety, a holy place to commune with Mother Ocean. How about calling it Santa Cruz? Take back Santa Cruz."
OoooooooooKay.......
I thought that letter was straight forward and to the point. What part of it confused you, "huh"?
Wayne

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Aug 19, 2014
IANAL but as I understand that if a property owner lets the public walk across their land then that can establish a public easement. So, if I were the wall owner I would want to know if knowingly letting the public cross my land to get to the wall, and letting the public use that wall as a memorial, would establish a burden on me (and successor property owners) to maintain that access and maintain that wall. Of course, getting that legal opinion would itself be an expense and a bother ... maybe it's just easier to shut down the memorial access (or demand the City or State Parks etc take ownership and maintain the wall, too)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4 Aug 19, 2014
Wayne wrote:
IANAL but as I understand that if a property owner lets the public walk across their land then that can establish a public easement. So, if I were the wall owner I would want to know if knowingly letting the public cross my land to get to the wall, and letting the public use that wall as a memorial, would establish a burden on me (and successor property owners) to maintain that access and maintain that wall. Of course, getting that legal opinion would itself be an expense and a bother ... maybe it's just easier to shut down the memorial access (or demand the City or State Parks etc take ownership and maintain the wall, too)
The wall is a fence or boundary. People have been placing memorials there for years. The fact is that the wall is owned by both the private owners on one side and the Park on the other. The park staff could legally assert their ownership and force the memorials to stay in place.
Wayne

Santa Cruz, CA

#5 Aug 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The wall is a fence or boundary. People have been placing memorials there for years. The fact is that the wall is owned by both the private owners on one side and the Park on the other. The park staff could legally assert their ownership and force the memorials to stay in place.
I thought the Park explicitly pointed out it's not their wall? I had assumed the wall sat inside the private owner's property, and thus they needed to protect themselves from it becoming a de facto easement. But if it *is* jointly owned, then that would seem to take away that concern.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6 Aug 23, 2014
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the Park explicitly pointed out it's not their wall? I had assumed the wall sat inside the private owner's property, and thus they needed to protect themselves from it becoming a de facto easement. But if it *is* jointly owned, then that would seem to take away that concern.
You are correct. Fence ownership is complicated. Generally, fence ownership is determined by which property the fence is located, who uses the fence, and who paid for construction. In this case, all would be the right of the owner. The Park makes the owner 100% responsible for upkeep by disavowing public use of the structure.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How many Welfare checks to pay off Capitol One (Jul '15) 16 hr WooF 19
FAT Pat made Mom go SPLAT (Jun '15) 21 hr Lucius 117
Fail again John Sun WooF 21
DBS: Stop stalking and I will employ you (Sep '13) Sun Woof 173
News Scrapped bill stalls broadband project Sun More Info 3
Please update the ColbyLOON website (Sep '15) Apr 29 Woof 43
Why did fat chicks with colostomy bags steal th... Apr 29 More Info 18
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Santa Cruz Mortgages