Hobart Lane Gilreath Manor (3 buildings on left)
Yellow shows town right of way property
The Amherst Select Board, acting as "road commissioners", voted to allow the Temporary Town Manager to negotiate an annual "license fee" for Gilreath Manor in North Amherst after officials became aware they borrowed land in the public way for a parking expansion over the years that will also require Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
Lincoln Real Estate attorney Tom Reidy suggested $100 per year but since the Lord Jeff in town center pays $8,000 per year for the same type of license the price may end up a tad higher.
Gilreath Manor was built in the early 1970s back in the good old days when UMass had e-x-p-a-n-d-e-d exponentially and housing was a gold mine market ... as it remains today.
The reason the Lord Jeff pays such a high fee is they are taking as their own seven metered parking spaces and ten permit parking spaces on Spring Street which formerly generated revenues to the town.
And Hobart Lane is a tad off the beaten path for parking meters, one of the reasons it has a party central reputation.
Crowd of 1,000 behind 17 Hobart Lane Sunday April 17, 2016
You overlooked a relevant word in your title. The only one that really counts.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the folks that work for and worship the town, it is really all....
THEIRS
This is why their is so much conflict, there are still people out there that think they own things in Amherst and that they get to decide vs. the town officials with their increased mental capacity that results from a vote. As you pointed out, you may even have to start registering you dinner parties. Very little is yours, mine or ours.
What is the number of years for adverse possession to take place in MA? Is that why this fee is primarily paid?
ReplyDeleteI think the last comment is interesting.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe you can attain adverse possession from a government entity so easily.
The interesting part is that adverse possession comes from an archaic, especially in Amherst, viewpoint. The viewpoint is that land should be utilized and productive. Thus, someone using it would be able to get use rights (not ownership) if they were able to use a property for say 7 years without any arrangement with the owner - this may be the case if your driveway was on your neighbors lot with no arrangement. If there is an arrangement, then it is rented, money or not.
Since most in Amherst specifically do not want land that is not currently used to be used for anything new, regardless of whether they own it or not, adverse possession would reflect the opposite of what is appropriate for this type of community community - where employment, property rights, being prosperous take a back seat to the desires of the town employees. What would be more in line is a medium paced change where all property is either owned or under the specific control (regulations) of the town itself. The people are tenants rather than owners. Again, there is no reason or space for adverse possession under such a climate. Rather just a need for someone in the community to pay the town or give up rights.
Or more simply, adverse possession is a traditional American thing, which is really the opposite of an Amherst thing.
Sounds a bit like communism to me.
ReplyDelete