“The land is often public property with maintenance usually being a municipal responsibility; however some municipal authorities require that abutting property owners maintain these areas and also sidewalks.”
Would this proof help support these types of submissions?
It all depends on the reviewer. These LFLs are just hard sells because of the clarification on PRP. I’d still personally err on the side of the PO, put myself in their shoes, and that they may not want a game play location there. Safe pedestrian access may also be seen as an issue, since it’s so close to the street.
The burden of proof is always on the submitter, not the reviewer. When you submit anything, you have to prove it meets critiria.
In the end, this will be a hard sell.
I agree with you.
I wish there were better guidelines in place to avoid confusion like this.
The whole point of this post was to figure out how to convince reviewers when something is eligible, without having to provide 5 extra sources that could be viewed as “influencing” the voters.
Hey there, I grew up in Portland and I understand what you are talking about. PDX has many LFL like this as the city of Roses loves to read. Arguing here is not going to get you anywhere. Anyone commenting here is not likely to see your nomination and vote on it. Reach out to people in Portland, I know there is an active community. Ask them what language they use for their nominations.
This forum tends to get preachy with people making statements saying they would or wouldn’t approve and don’t know the submitter nature area.
People here are trying to help, but they are looking at it through their own lens vs giving general information. DON’T GIVE UP. No decisions are made here in this forum unless it’s from an employee Anything else is someone’s personal opinion.
If you believe in your nomination make sure you get the best photo you can for the main and a super wide angle for the 2nd photo to show it’s not on PRP.
Pro tip, I’d read this article Road verge - Wikipedia
I’ve used some of this information in my supporting info as well.
Also, just be aware, Portland is different that other cities. The area you are talking about in the City of Portland is public land via several ruling by city counsel. Look it up. It’s there.
Overall, good luck explorer!
Thank you for your comment I feel like I am taking crazy pills!!
I am active in the local community and have a small group that discusses nominations and how to improve them, which I am so grateful for.
Thank you for the link, I will definitely try to figure out proper phrasing and I won’t give up lol
As someone who knows nothing about verges, this would really help me if I got this in review.
You might want to read this again. It seems ineligible because its facing street.
Anyway the issue about SFPRP will be even harder to sell. But u are welcome to try submitting. But in my experience reading here, LFL in such position have chance to be removed, even if somehow it pass community review , because SFPRP issue.
You know, the discussion was finished and frankly it comes across rude when you say things like, “you may want to read that again”. I have read it multiple times.
Per the person above who commented on Portland streets, I don’t see this as being an issue on a residential street here. I’ll make sure to include that in my supporting info.
Around here, we call that area a “tree lawn”.
Generally, I would accept a wayspot on a tree lawn because, typically, that is city owned property.
My rule of thumb: Between the sidewalk and the house: SRPRP. Between the sidewalk and street, probably all right.
However, I would reject this one because the door faces the street. So I would reject it as unsafe.
FTR, I have managed to get about half of the LFL around here removed. Most because they were on SFPRP, some because they were unsafe (usually no sidewalk, sometimes because they open into traffic like this one, etc), some because it turns out they were on school property.
It is not really possible for someone reviewing to know “this is a slow neighborhood, so it is all right to stand in the street for this one.” Any nominator could say and there is no way to know it is true or not.
I tend to look at these nominations with suspicion. If the land is indeed public property, then does the homeowner have the right to set up a LFL on land they don’t truly own? Who’s the listed sponsor of the LFL on the official website? If it’s a private individual, then they’re likely the property owner for this plot of land…thus making it PRP. If the land is truly public, then it would be the town, a civic organization, or a public group installing the Library, not the homeowner. That’s just an opinion, of course, and it doesn’t mean I blanket-reject all such nominations…it’s just my perspective and I try not to hard-code any biases into my review process. There are always exceptions!
