When I said “statute” I meant to include ordinances by municipalities, as I noted later when I said “absent any law to the contrary.”
The NY law is the common law, and was the law in Illinois until the enactment of the Plat Act, which changed it so that the abutting owner gets title to half the public way. The abutting owners in downtown Chicago have title to half the streets. They have used the underground portions of those streets for their own use, a little known fact. Another important difference is that upon vacation of the public way (or “abandonment” as some jurisdictions refer to it), title to half the street goes to the abutting owner, which is why that upon conveyance, the deed should include title to all interest in abutting streets, alleys, etc. (If only the lot is conveyed, half of the street is not included, although that probably was the intent.) Anyway, that’s a digression.
That portion of the Chicago ordinance quoted does not state what the penalty would be in the event of violation. The penalty provisions probably appears elsewhere in the municipal ordinance. Although the ordinance may not make the owner liable directly, it does impose a duty upon the owner. As a result, the owner probably would be liable.
Tom Tildrum:
We covered torts in law school 40 years ago (editorial “we”), but my recollection is that so long as the homeowner does nothing - and I mean nothing - he is not liable for natural occurrences,such as snow. If the owner puts salt on it, causing partially melting and then freezing, he would be liable if anybody slipped on it. Case law may be contrary in some jurisdictions as to “hidden” hazards.
Let me amend my prior post. The Plat Act gives the municipality title to the street. Downtown Chicago is in the OT of Chicago, subdivided before the Plat Act. Conveyances now don’t have to include all interest in adjoining streets, public ways, etc., if the lot is in a subdivision which conforms to the Plat Act. However, statutes in abrogation of the common law must be strictly construed, and if the developer erred in some respect as to the Plat Act (such as not getting an official seal), the common law would govern the subdivision. Hence, it’s a good idea to use those words in all deeds.
The original townsite of Chicago, north of Madison and west of State, was platted and sold by the Canal Commissioners. Merely by terms of the recorded dimensions, I don’t believe the lots they sold extended into or under the platted streets regardless of whether a Plat Act was in effect.
The School Section, from Madison to Roosevelt, State to Halsted, was sold off later and there is a longstanding legend that it was not properly recorded in some way, so that adjacent landowners do have a property interest of some kind in the streets, with the public only having an easement to use them. Supposedly this allowed First National Bank to build the skyway to Three First National Plaza circa 1980 without payment to the city—and to consider the tellers in the new building to not be a branch bank (forbidden at the time in Illinois).
Sure. I’ll give you that. Now how much would you agree to have your property taxes go up so that the city can hire people to shovel the sidewalk in front of every house in the city?
Banks and other buildings on several downtown streets, including Clark, Dearborn, and Monroe, have underground vaults under the streets. Once the OT of Chicago was laid out by the Canal Commissioners, the lots would have been conveyed by a legal description containing the lot number and block number in the OT of Chicago. They would not have been sold by a metes and bounds description. Usually deeds contain the lot number, together with all interest in appurtenances thereunto belonging, and often with verbiage including all interest in the streets. I don’t have access to the Cook County records any more, and a Google search came up empty. The Plat Act wasn’t, of course, enacted yet. So under the common law, the buyer of the lot obtained title to his portion of abutting street(s).
I’m confused. If we are talking about the sidewalk that runs directly from the street, across your yard, to your front door, then I tend to agree with you. However, the open and obvious nature of the snow mentioned above should put a reasonably prudent person on notice that he should take care walking to my door, so liability would be sketchy.
If we are talking about the sidewalk that runs parallel to the street that pedestrians use, then I stand by my statement.
I didn’t intend on commenting further, but a recent post brought me to this thread again. I don’t understand “a longstanding legend that it was not properly recorded in some way.” The “school sections” in townships are sections 16. They were designated as school sections by the law providing for the surveying of those lands. Nothing had to be recorded. I don’t know what you refer to by “it.” Deeds conveying portions of the section were either recorded or not recorded. There is no “proper” way to record deeds. The skyways in downtown Chicago were built over streets owned by the adjoining lot owners. Since they have fee simple in the streets, they also have fee simple in the air rights, subject, of course, to the rights of the public for ingress and egress.
The School Section (of T39 R14) was platted in the fall of 1833 (the Plat Act dates from Feb. 1833), and the legend is that the plat was somehow not properly recorded. Thus, landowners in the school section—and only in the School Section—supposedly have title to the streets.
I have never heard of any question being raised about city ownership of the streets in the original townsite (Section 9) or of later additions. All I know is in this 1981 Chicago Tribune story.
Clicking on your link, I get the message: “Oops! Server could not be found.” Anyway, I once looked at the plat of the OT of Chicago, and it did not appear to conform to the Plat Act. It was a very basic plat and did not appear to have all the necessary seals, such as the County’s seal.
Maybe try again. It works fine for me (brings up a PDF).
How would you know? The original plat was destroyed in the big weenie roast of 1871.
The one floating around on the web is a facsimile made for printing, which of course wouldn’t even be in (surveyor) James Thompson’s handwriting, much less have the various seals and signatures.
Also, I’m not sure why the 1833 Plat Act would be especially relevant to the 1830 plat of Chicago.
I got your link to work, and it shows that the city does not own the streets. Your link said that because the plat was defective, the adjoining owners did and did not have to pay rental to the city for their skyways. It further mentioned underground vaults.
The town of Chicago was incorporated in August, 1833. I don’[t recall if the plat was dated in 1830. The Plat Act was enacted in Feb, 1833, but that doesn’t matter since the plat was defective and title to the streets, in any event, belongs to the owners. Exactly what I’ve been saying.
BTW, I didn’t see the plat of the OT of Chicago on the web. I saw a letter pressing of it, which, of course, reproduced it exactly. Chicago Title and Trust made pressings of all instruments recorded in Cook Co., and kept them in binders. In fact, after the Great Fire, the county had to go to CT&T Co. to get reproductions of all the recorded instruments.
My error. All the property mentioned was south of Madison street, in the school section, and the school section plat was defective because a school official did not sign it. Nonetheless, I believe the OT plat was not in compliance with the Plat Act. It did mention the loop, which extends north of Madison street (to Lake street).
It appears I was commingling some of the school section with the OT. However, you said that the OT was platted in 1830 and that the Plat Act was enacted in 1833. So, the streets in the OT would also belong to the adjoining owners.
The Tribune article suggests this situation (ownership of streets by the abutters) only applies to the School Section. You keep saying it also applies to the OT in Section 9, and I’ve never heard any evidence of this. So far as I know, the city collects substantial rent for skyways, overhanging signs, awnings, and underground vaults in the OT, and this has never been questioned.
Nor do I see how the Plat Act of 1833, with its strict rules of construction, would apply to a plat filed in 1830. Surely there were mechanisms for the dedication and acceptance of public ways in Illinois prior to 1833.
It seems that, at least recently, Boston itself has become rather more strict. I remembered this story, which i read a few weeks ago, after the big blizzard hit the northeast:
Yes, dedication of public ways occurred prior to 1833, and they occur to this day. Owners of lots often dedicate a private road for a public road so they won’t have to be responsible for it and won’t have to pay taxes for it. But those plats of dedication don’t comply with the Plat Act and fee simple remains in the dedicators. Upon vacation (or abandonment), they would (or their successors or assigns) have the fee simple with no easement.
So, if the plat was recorded in 1830, title to the streets would be in the adjoining owners (under the common law.) Perhaps somebody should question all the rents being paid to the city. (I think, however, estoppel or laches would now apply, considering all the years nobody questioned it.)
OK, found the citation. The Illinois Supreme Court, in City of Chicago v. Rumsey, 87 Ill. 348 (1877), apparently decided that the city had fee simple ownership of streets in the original townsite, based on the intent of the state government/canal commission to convey only the lots and to dedicate the streets to the public.
I don’t find that decision online, so I can’t easily read it until Monday, but the 1910 decisions regarding street ownership in the various parts of downtown Chicago are at 93 N.E. 153-169. The most relevant discussion is on p. 164.
I find it strange that the court held that plats made by the canal commissioners (being an arm of the state) have the same effect as statutory plats, but that plats made by the school commissioners (also being an arm of the state) do not. I know that the school plat was not only not in compliance with the Plat Act but was defective, not being signed by a commissioner (as well as not naming the streets, which doesn’t appear vital). Even so, although defective the policy is that title shall vest in the public when the plats are made by the state. This would imply that the plat was a nullity, as if never made. However, the court said that the plat was defective, not a nullity. The canal commissioners plats were also defective: not having the county surveyor’s seal and other defects. I guess there are degrees of defectiveness.
