General reminder please
Please stick to facts about the object and do not make or imply comments about individuals.
At this point this discussion is becoming heated. Points have been made please consider if you are adding anything new to the discussion.
this does seem like a somewhat different twist on the SFPRP debate but I wouldn’t expect Niantic to reverse the decision.
without a sidewalk there’s no clear public pedestrian area separate from the street. and the plaque is directly in front of the gate which could very easily cause problems for the residents.
but it’s not on the fence and it does seem that it’s on public land.
Thank you for the comment. I appreciate you noting the plaque is not on the fence and seems to be on public land.
I can assure every that the physical location of the plaque does not cause problems for residents.
Excuse me but, I would note for the record, when the portal first appeared, the county property records were checked to verify the portal location was on public land and the Appellant who advocated for this portal removal was informed of said fact many months ago.
Moderator Edit
Removed comments that referred to a person rather than the object.
This is in the walkway leading to the homeowner’s house. This is more akin to being in the homeowner’s driveway than on a public sidewalk. If you have any evidence that the town or other responsible body has installed and maintains this plaque, you should present it.
A little time may have passed but my previous comment about staying focused on the object rather than individuals still stands.
Attached is the property survey, performed by a licensed surveyor, and recorded with the county. It is publicly available. A copy of the entire survey (with the client’s name redacted) and a zoom-in of the area in question is attached.
To a standard that would hold up in any courtroom, the plaque is permanently located on City property NOT private property. The entire removal started with an assertion by an appellant that the Wayspot was on private property, it is NOT.
The center of the plaque (designated by blue dot) is located 43 feet 4 inches north of the the property corner and 1 foot 9 inches West of the property line. (on City property). The coordinates of the property corner are underlined in yellow. The wayspot has been removed, but NIA would still have the geographic coordinates in its files and can thus verify with 100% certainty that the removed Wayspot was on City property. It can also been seen the City property is 40’-wide. This includes the streets and the the berms.
This plaque IS the homeowner’s private property. It is their fence, their gate, their entranceway, and their plaque.
This a ~75-year old neighborhood and not as affluent as many. According to a City official, based on available budgets, the City retrofits with brand new curb and gutter. That retrofitting hasn’t it made it to the Wayspot location yet, but it is still City property.
In fact, a large fraction of public sidewalks in the City (and the country) are actually build and paid for by developers. Upon completion, ownership automatically transfers to the City (or another public entity). Businesses and homeowners remain responsible for routine maintenance even though owned by the City. Who owns the property is clearly spelled out in the critera as a driving force. If who built something, paid for it, or maintains it is (versus owns it) is used as a new criteria. Tens of thousand of Wayspots (plaques, signs, lightposts, statues, etc.) would be deemed questionable or invalid.
The Wayspot criteria are reasonably clear and the Wayspot meets them.
This debate is about a plaque in concrete on public property. It is not about fences, gates, or anything else… I posted legal facts hoping to provide some definitive clarification on the geography and property ownership. I will leave it there.
Thanks for the appeal, @StrayCat01. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire the Wayspot.
A plaque for a SFPRP gate located on that home’s individual walkway that is “1 foot 9 inches” (53cm) from the property line is for all intents and purposes part of that family’s home. It wouldn’t be there if not for the family’s gate.
