I just approved this comment on " Private street goes public UPDATED":
Noticed today that a homeowner on this street was posting a more "official" looking sign stating that it was a private street and only Authorized Vehicles were allowed. Any thought on if this is legal or not?
Posted by Anonymous to Lebo Citizens at May 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM
If it's not legal, it should be. Shame on Mt Lebanon for its treatment of residents. This municipality and its elected officlals are so corrupt that they have absolutely no capacity to be fair, thoughtful, considerate, or reasonable. Shame. There is no hope for them -- they are too satisfied with themselves and their power. Babylon has rotted.
Blaise threw out trespass charges on Hoodridge: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2006/01/05/Fence-makes-neighbors-good-and-mad-in-Mt-Lebanon/stories/200601050349 Easement by necessity makes it hard to prohibit public use of private streets.
5:24, Why isn't it irresponsible leadership by the folks who live on the private street? My family lived on a private street in Mt. Lebanon for 40 years and the schedule for resurfacing was better than anything the municipality had to offer and everyone on the street was always responsible about saving and contributing to the effort. My experience with private streets is that the residents generally prefer to remain independent rather than have to give up a lot of their front yard in order to comply with the requirements of a public street. There are trade offs to becoming public that some residents of private streets simply don't want and that's their choice.
I recently discovered one reason why Summer Place is used as a cut through. If one prefers to avoid the Greenhurst/Bower Hill intersection, which is so off-kilter and prone to accidents that St Clair Hospital donated $50,000 to efforts aimed at improvement, one would cut through Summer Place to enter or exit Bower Hills via another street.
I am mostly unfamiliar with the neighborhood but due to a change in my kids’ activities that now requires traveling in that area, I see why the Summer Place residents argue that their street is used like a public street. Didn’t they request a traffic study to measure volume?
9:01 AM, yes they did request a traffic study, but it was never done. I remember something being said during a commission meeting that a resident did an informal traffic study which resulted in 200 cars before school started in the AM. It is a cut through for parents traveling between Jefferson and the high school. Elaine
A private street is considered "private" in how it is maintained and not in access. The public has access to a private street (especially if the private street connects to at least two public roads as Summer does). Property owners abutting a private street cannot limit public access with signs, gates, etc. A private street is not the same thing as private driveway.
Private streets came about because developers wanted to cheap out on road development. Most municipalities have minimum road standards if a developer wants to turn over responsibility of road maintenance to a local municipality. Why should any municipality, including Mount Lebanon, take on the burden of bringing a private road up to a minimum standard, when the whole point of a private road was to skirt such standards? Most private roads do not have an adequate road bed and drainage. It should not be a municipality's responsibility to fix a private road when the developer and subsequent homeowners enjoyed the economic benefits of a cheaply built road.
Q: "Why should any municipality, including Mount Lebanon, take on the burden of bringing a private road up to a minimum standard, when the whole point of a private road was to skirt such standards?"
Not that I don't think decency ought to be a factor in public policy, decency does not really provide the sound basis as to why a municipality should take on the burden of fixing a private developer's bad decision or the bad decisions of private property owners to purchase property abutting a private road (try getting a mortgage for a property on a private road without a maintenance agreement signed by every property owner -- one hold-out neighbor can blow up a property sale). There other factors involved beyond decency that need to be considered when taking over a private road -- like the cost of upgrading a purposefully substandard road and liability.
Mount Lebanon did not build our public residential streets. The streets were built and paid for by developers (built to a minimum standard) and then turned over to Mount Lebanon for long-term upkeep. Those costs were passed on to the homeowners who purchased the developers' properties. With developers who built properties on private roads, those owners were able to purchase properties at a lower cost.
It would be quite decent of the private property owners, who want their private street to go public, to pay for the costs of upgrading the road to the minimum standard after having enjoyed an economic benefit of owning a property on private street. Owners of private property on public streets have already paid for having a road the met a minimum standard when their street was taken on by Mount Lebanon.
Mt Lebanon did play an important role in the development of our residential streets by creating and enforcing zoning regulations in some cases, and in others, permitting streets to be developed that did not meet these same requirements.
Mt Lebanon has the lion's share of responsibility to ensure the streets we use are safe. If this street no longer functions as a private street, by definition, Mt Lebanon needs to find a way to negotiate a fair resolution with the residents. There is no economic benefit to owning a property on a private street that is actually widely used by the public. In fact, there's an economic cost to the current scenario for these residents and they have explained this to the commission on multiple occasions.
If Mt Lebanon can't find a resolution... dead-end it.
The fact is that the sign was not approved by the municipality. The signs should be removed by the municipality and homeowners should be billed for the expense of the removal. In these circumstances, the responsibility of the homeowners is to maintain the road. I hope they were fully aware of this when they closed on their properties.
A formal complaint about the illegal needs to be issued to Mt. Lebanon or Allegheny County.
Why does the municipality need to approve the sign when they install signs that are inaccurate? Let's take for example the sign in my local Lebo park that was installed recently. It reiterates the former ordinance that no guns are permitted in the parks. The sign was installed several months AFTER the controversial change in Mt Lebanon's local ordinances which now permit guns in our parks. So, if Mt Lebanon can install inaccurate signs without consequence, why should there be a double standard?
There are two signs on either end of the street. Both signs need to be taken down as soon as possible. The resulting change in traffic patterns is putting additional traffic on other streets around Summer Place. I think it is creating additional risks to pedestrians and children walking to and from school.
If this is really a public street that certain residents are barring the public from using, it seems like they could be opening themselves up to some serious legal ramifications if accidents happen as a result. Does anyone out there know the legalities here?
Good question 7:12. I also believe the signs should be taken down because Mt. Lebanon considers that portion of Summer Place as a land company street which means that it is "dedicated to public use, but not improved to municipal standards. Maintained by the abutting property owners."
See here: http://www.mtlebanon.org/documentcenter/view/10409
In the spirit of the current psyche in Mt. Lebanon, why don't we make it a Pay As You Driveway (PAYD)? Why should the majority of us pay for something we'll never use, but why should the residents on the street carry the burden for the others that do?
At 2:49 AM, I think as tax-payers, we all pay for things we don't use. Not every tax-payer in Mt Lebanon has children is schools.
Here are some questions to consider:
As far as the tax verses private funds issue- was this a surprise to the residents on that street? Did they somehow not know that they were responsible until the road fell into extreme disrepair? If this street was made into private property, shouldn't the residents pay for the land that was once public? (that might pay for the new trophy case at the high school) Also shouldn't the properties be reassessed for the additional land.
9:00, I didn't say I subscribed to the Pay As You Throw philosophy. I happen to think how we pay for a service like garbage collection is pretty much fine as it is. It might need a few tweaks here or there as the value of recycled materials change, but other than that I have no issue with paying for my neighbors 3-4 garbage bags while I only put out 2.
All was saying was if we apply the PAYT agenda to garbage pick up, why don't we apply it to other things like the private street or turf. On this private street issue, I agree with you. The owners certainly bought knowing they were buying into a private street. On the other hand if traffic has substantially increased on it over the years perhaps it isn't a private street any more. This is a tough one.
23 comments:
I just approved this comment on " Private street goes public UPDATED":
Noticed today that a homeowner on this street was posting a more "official" looking sign stating that it was a private street and only Authorized Vehicles were allowed. Any thought on if this is legal or not?
Posted by Anonymous to Lebo Citizens at May 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM
If it's not legal, it should be. Shame on Mt Lebanon for its treatment of residents. This municipality and its elected officlals are so corrupt that they have absolutely no capacity to be fair, thoughtful, considerate, or reasonable. Shame. There is no hope for them -- they are too satisfied with themselves and their power. Babylon has rotted.
Blaise threw out trespass charges on Hoodridge:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2006/01/05/Fence-makes-neighbors-good-and-mad-in-Mt-Lebanon/stories/200601050349
Easement by necessity makes it hard to prohibit public use of private streets.
Leaving a street in as poor condition as the street with a Private Road sign is irresponsible leadership from our commissioners.
It appears everything can be repaired and upgraded with a $-one- million cost overage as long as the money is squandered on sports.
Quality streets are not needed by our commissioners.
5:24, Why isn't it irresponsible leadership by the folks who live on the private street? My family lived on a private street in Mt. Lebanon for 40 years and the schedule for resurfacing was better than anything the municipality had to offer and everyone on the street was always responsible about saving and contributing to the effort. My experience with private streets is that the residents generally prefer to remain independent rather than have to give up a lot of their front yard in order to comply with the requirements of a public street. There are trade offs to becoming public that some residents of private streets simply don't want and that's their choice.
The only trade-off is, it's much easier to sell your house if you live on a dedicated public street with municipal maintenence.
I recently discovered one reason why Summer Place is used as a cut through. If one prefers to avoid the Greenhurst/Bower Hill intersection, which is so off-kilter and prone to accidents that St Clair Hospital donated $50,000 to efforts aimed at improvement, one would cut through Summer Place to enter or exit Bower Hills via another street.
I am mostly unfamiliar with the neighborhood but due to a change in my kids’ activities that now requires traveling in that area, I see why the Summer Place residents argue that their street is used like a public street. Didn’t they request a traffic study to measure volume?
9:01 AM, yes they did request a traffic study, but it was never done. I remember something being said during a commission meeting that a resident did an informal traffic study which resulted in 200 cars before school started in the AM. It is a cut through for parents traveling between Jefferson and the high school.
Elaine
It's also a cut through to the rec center, tennis center and the forthcoming crown jewel.
A private street is considered "private" in how it is maintained and not in access. The public has access to a private street (especially if the private street connects to at least two public roads as Summer does). Property owners abutting a private street cannot limit public access with signs, gates, etc. A private street is not the same thing as private driveway.
Private streets came about because developers wanted to cheap out on road development. Most municipalities have minimum road standards if a developer wants to turn over responsibility of road maintenance to a local municipality. Why should any municipality, including Mount Lebanon, take on the burden of bringing a private road up to a minimum standard, when the whole point of a private road was to skirt such standards? Most private roads do not have an adequate road bed and drainage. It should not be a municipality's responsibility to fix a private road when the developer and subsequent homeowners enjoyed the economic benefits of a cheaply built road.
@ 11:07 am
Q: "Why should any municipality, including Mount Lebanon, take on the burden of bringing a private road up to a minimum standard, when the whole point of a private road was to skirt such standards?"
A: Decency
Not that I don't think decency ought to be a factor in public policy, decency does not really provide the sound basis as to why a municipality should take on the burden of fixing a private developer's bad decision or the bad decisions of private property owners to purchase property abutting a private road (try getting a mortgage for a property on a private road without a maintenance agreement signed by every property owner -- one hold-out neighbor can blow up a property sale). There other factors involved beyond decency that need to be considered when taking over a private road -- like the cost of upgrading a purposefully substandard road and liability.
Mount Lebanon did not build our public residential streets. The streets were built and paid for by developers (built to a minimum standard) and then turned over to Mount Lebanon for long-term upkeep. Those costs were passed on to the homeowners who purchased the developers' properties. With developers who built properties on private roads, those owners were able to purchase properties at a lower cost.
It would be quite decent of the private property owners, who want their private street to go public, to pay for the costs of upgrading the road to the minimum standard after having enjoyed an economic benefit of owning a property on private street. Owners of private property on public streets have already paid for having a road the met a minimum standard when their street was taken on by Mount Lebanon.
Mt Lebanon did play an important role in the development of our residential streets by creating and enforcing zoning regulations in some cases, and in others, permitting streets to be developed that did not meet these same requirements.
Mt Lebanon has the lion's share of responsibility to ensure the streets we use are safe. If this street no longer functions as a private street, by definition, Mt Lebanon needs to find a way to negotiate a fair resolution with the residents. There is no economic benefit to owning a property on a private street that is actually widely used by the public. In fact, there's an economic cost to the current scenario for these residents and they have explained this to the commission on multiple occasions.
If Mt Lebanon can't find a resolution... dead-end it.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/easement-by-prescription-lawyers.html
I'm not lawyer, but I think it would be illegal to dead end the street under "easement by prescription" rules.
There is no economic benefit to owning private property anywhere in Mt. Lebanon.
The fact is that the sign was not approved by the municipality. The signs should be removed by the municipality and homeowners should be billed for the expense of the removal. In these circumstances, the responsibility of the homeowners is to maintain the road. I hope they were fully aware of this when they closed on their properties.
A formal complaint about the illegal needs to be issued to Mt. Lebanon or Allegheny County.
Dear 9:59 am,
Why does the municipality need to approve the sign when they install signs that are inaccurate? Let's take for example the sign in my local Lebo park that was installed recently. It reiterates the former ordinance that no guns are permitted in the parks. The sign was installed several months AFTER the controversial change in Mt Lebanon's local ordinances which now permit guns in our parks. So, if Mt Lebanon can install inaccurate signs without consequence, why should there be a double standard?
Thanks,
Just Reading
There are two signs on either end of the street. Both signs need to be taken down as soon as possible. The resulting change in traffic patterns is putting additional traffic on other streets around Summer Place. I think it is creating additional risks to pedestrians and children walking to and from school.
If this is really a public street that certain residents are barring the public from using, it seems like they could be opening themselves up to some serious legal ramifications if accidents happen as a result. Does anyone out there know the legalities here?
Good question 7:12. I also believe the signs should be taken down because Mt. Lebanon considers that portion of Summer Place as a land company street which means that it is "dedicated to public use, but not improved to municipal standards. Maintained by the abutting property owners."
See here: http://www.mtlebanon.org/documentcenter/view/10409
Nick M.
I can see that Mt Lebanon has come a long way since 2009:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2009/08/13/Private-road-upkeep-a-headache-for-Mt-Lebanon-board/stories/200908130309
In the spirit of the current psyche in Mt. Lebanon, why don't we make it a Pay As You Driveway (PAYD)?
Why should the majority of us pay for something we'll never use, but why should the residents on the street carry the burden for the others that do?
At 2:49 AM, I think as tax-payers, we all pay for things we don't use. Not every tax-payer in Mt Lebanon has children is schools.
Here are some questions to consider:
As far as the tax verses private funds issue- was this a surprise to the residents on that street? Did they somehow not know that they were responsible until the road fell into extreme disrepair? If this street was made into private property, shouldn't the residents pay for the land that was once public? (that might pay for the new trophy case at the high school) Also shouldn't the properties be reassessed for the additional land.
9:00, I didn't say I subscribed to the Pay As You Throw philosophy.
I happen to think how we pay for a service like garbage collection is pretty much fine as it is. It might need a few tweaks here or there as the value of recycled materials change, but other than that I have no issue with paying for my neighbors 3-4 garbage bags while I only put out 2.
All was saying was if we apply the PAYT agenda to garbage pick up, why don't we apply it to other things like the private street or turf.
On this private street issue, I agree with you. The owners certainly bought knowing they were buying into a private street.
On the other hand if traffic has substantially increased on it over the years perhaps it isn't a private street any more.
This is a tough one.
Post a Comment