[What Lacon Ct. Should Look Like]
Since our most recent story about the Dead End Land Grabs All Over the Beach the team at GerritsenBeach.net has been studying and looking into property law. It turns out that there is something called Adverse Possession. Adverse possession is a concept in law which concerns title of real properties.
You may thinking to yourself that your abandoned neighbors property looks real nice and you want it for yourself. Maybe if you put a fence around it and maintain it for X number of years you will own it by law. That was the case where you could do a minimal amount of “this land is mine” work and hold it for 10 years and it would be actually yours, as long as the owner didn’t ask for it back.
However, there was a law on the books, that changed a few years ago, that said adverse possession of property can occur simply because someone mows someone’s lawn for 10 years or because a fence, or minimal, non-structural item is placed across the deeded property line.
Adverse possession now requires that the claimant must have a “claim of right†or “reasonable basis for the belief†that the property is theirs to take adverse possession. Basically, your neighbor can not take adverse possession of property regardless of how long he squats on it. He has to have proof that he has a right to the property in question (i.e. a dispute over property lines). As well as: you cant be sneaky about it (The possession must be open for all to see.)
In our case in Gerritsen Beach, if you’re the adverse possessor and you didn’t already claim your stolen land from the actual owner to amend your deed. You missed your chance. On our dead ends and Courts, New York City is the actual owner, and I’m sure they don’t have smart lawyers which would be willing to allow you to keep “your” land.
Do they now OWN the the land they STOLE?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
No, ‘Basically, your neighbor can not take adverse possession of property regardless of how long he squats on it. He has to have proof that he has a right to the property in question (i.e. a dispute over property lines). As well as: you cant be sneaky about it (The possession must be open for all to see.)’
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
So who do we call to start the ball rolling? It’s time to make these streets open to the waterfront again! These robber barons have had free reign for way too long. They are greedy pricks with a feeling of entitlement because they own the lot next to the streets end. This does not give them the right to the waterfront. They have been getting away with this for far too long. I tried calling Anthony Weenies office about this 5 yrs ago & they did not want to hear about it. The whole community should be pissed off about this.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Maybe I am wrong, but I believe I heard a Property Owners Meeting that the Property Owners owned many of the “ends”. Is this correct?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
wrong
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
So this sounds like good news for those of us who have joined CREEK.
(Coalition of Residents Entitled to accEss to the creeK) Anyone have a bolt cutter? We got some fences to cut down. OK, that may be premature, but in any case nice work, GB.net. Keep on diggin’. This story has legs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Keep it up! just beacause these self entiltled water barons stole these streets awhile back does not make it right. The ends of these streets are supposed to be open, can you imagine if you fenced in your neighbors property while they were away? it’s the same thing. These people fenced in community property & claimed it as thier own. I hope they get what’s coming t to them. They owe years of back taxes & community restitution..Every property owner should be pissed off. I know I am.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
when is the first meeting?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Cutting down fences might not be premature. It should have happened as soon as they were put up. What will they do, call the cops & say people are cutting down the fences on our stolen property? CREEK should become a reality & just take back the neighborhood.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
10
The point is that the end of the street is NOT their property. Just because they fenced it in & made it look nice does not make it right. They are piece of shit greedy squatters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
8
The point is that the end of the street is NOT their property. Just because they fenced it in & made it look nice does not make it right. They are piece of shit greedy squatters.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Adverse possession works even less against government agencies because the property is in the public trust. In general, until a claim is made, accepted as valid (the hard part), and property lines are redrawn, NYC’s Tax Map is what you should go by. The more you dig, the more squatters you’ll find.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Where’s the Community Board on this this ? Shouldn’t they be leading the charge, isn’t it “community” property and waterfronts that have been taken away from the community. I think once they start pushing a few buttons the Buildings and Finance Depts should be all over this in both recovering the properties and all the loss monies (taxes). Hell even if the city just went in and sold the properties as lots and billed backed taxes they would recover a few bucks and just maybe some of the hard working hinest people here won’t get a property tax increase for a little while
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The Community Board as well as Councilman Fidler have been working on this issue for several years. The City of New York, Department of Transportation in particular is the agency that handles Dead End Streets. DOT has sent notices of violation for encroachment on City property to the property owners in question and have sent letters warning them to move the fencing and obstructions. DOT has dragged their feet on this issue for many years. Councilman Fidler as well as the Board recommended that Sanitation come in and remove the obstructions and open the waterfront for the entire community to enjoy. To this day DOT is reluctant to act and is using various delay tactics.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
12
A lot of “waterfront” owners should read their deeds and check out the metes and bounds for their lot(s), or look at a property survey. Just because you bought a house with a bulkhead and float doesn’t mean your property lines include those areas, your property could end five feet short of the water, meaning the previous owner(s) could have squatted on public land.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
wrong you have no idea because you never owned a water front property
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
6
Bet you I’m right. NYC is cracking down on waterfront owners who request permits from NYCDOB, NYSDEC, etc. because the work (bulkhead, docks, etc.) exists outside of their property. Just because your survey shows a dock, doesn’t mean it is technically “your” property if it is outside of your deeded property lines.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Theresa, if DOT is dragging their feet for years then why isn’t that someone in DOT being called out to answer, doesn’t our City Council Member have the authority and right to inquire. If not my gut tells me Christine Q likes to push a few buttons and rock the boat
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
What happened to my post? Is this one sided or what?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Since you’re anonymous there is no real way to know which post you’re talking about. Is there.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Adverse Possession does not apply to public land in New york State.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
So then if i went to the tamaqua every night for say 11 years and sat on the same stool in the same spot, that spot is now mine? excellent.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
What about ol post court just took over the street its not even a dead end its post court and this family has a pool and deck built out over the street I’m pretty sure that’s supposed to be a block that goes threw but I guess since he has lived down here his whole life he is allowed to just take city streets for nothing right look into that gb.net
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
That is a whole street that was stolen! It is supposed to run from Madoc ave to Just ct. This really has to be lookd into. Not just this one but ALL of the stolen community property.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Anonymous from January 22 knows what he’s talking about. Most people on
bartlett place and gotham avenue don’t own the waterfront lots. That canal is a motorway..not a waterway and can be filled in…at any time. All we need in Gerritsen is alot of noise to the army corps of engineers and those people will have their docks pulled up and bye bye boats. I would end these conversations soon before too much damage is done by opening up a can of worms.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Army Corps and NYSDEC won’t just let you fill in a canal.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
No but they can!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Wellllll! if the city owns the waterfront property than when are they going to come in and replace THERE bulkhead behind my house like they did at the end of the streets, and anyone who spent thousands of dollars replacing the bulkheads behind there houses should reimbursed by the city. ( Oh and btw my survey does NOT end 5 feet short of the water it goes to the water)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Then you’re a lucky one. NYC is letting people who technically [based on property lines] don’t own their bulkhead, docks, etc., or who want such structures, to do work on [or build] these structures, but NYC is not giving up title to the “land grab.” Some people have had to sign lease agreements with NYC, others have to acquire $1 million liability insurance to cover accidents on “NYC” property. Contact NYC Small Business Services (they “own” quite a bit of NYC’s shorelines and underwater lands) and tell them you want to do work outside of your property and within their lot, they’ll give you an application form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hence you do not own the water rights!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I have been watching these postings with great interest..And watching most of the know-nothing nonsense written here…. In order to understand the “BIG WATERFRONT HEIST”. You would have to know some history… At one time back in the 1950′s all of the under water property was owned by the GBPOA. From around Cyrus Ave to Frank Court it was known as “Parcel A” Around 1957 or so all of the waterfront property was offered to the upland owner only. If not purchased ,the GBPOA retained ownership. Most was bought in this manner.Most of it went 50 feet or so out under water…So those people do OWN that land.
The reasons for selling off the property was to improve “Kiddie Beach” which at that time was a salt marsh..If the DEC for some reason was to flex their power you could just lose that beach and have to restore it to its former state….or they might do it for you !!! Or if Post Court was extended from Madoc to Just it would go right through the gate to “Kiddie”
All of the property at the end of Merit and Landis Ct. was privately owned by Jack and Margie Schmidt….They offered that land to the people who then lived on those Courts all they would have to have done was chip in and buy it.. They could not agree and the land was sold to the present yacht club..
Another point is that on the city maps their was a road planned to start at Ave X and come down the creek, connect to the end of Gerrittsen Ave and on to the Belt Pkwy. If you don;t believe it ask yourself If Knapp St is Exit 9 and Flatbush Ave is Exit 11 Where the hell is Exit 10 Well Gerrittsen Ave was going to be Exit 10.
As far as the Canal it was only built for the purpose of bringing in barges with pre-fab houses. It was the first ever done and mostly in the “New Section” They were putting up 20-30 houses a day. At the end of its use it was to be filled in for more houseing. The builder went bankrupt in the 1920′s and it was just abandoned….
You truely may be opening a can of worms here. If the useless Army Corp or DEC were to come and snoop around. You just might end up with some changes that may not be so nice for the neighborhood….. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
You are WRONG! The land at the end of Landis & Merit were NOT purchased by the present squatters. Niether was Post CT. Look at any map, Post CT runs from the water, across Madoc to Just ct. The ends of Merit, Landis & Kay ct were never privately owned. I grew up down there & so did my parents before me . Those streets were open to the creek. The only people afraid of opening a can of worms are the squatters & thieves. I think (& hope) the can has already been opened.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
No, Anonomous, YOU are wrong. You are also very angry and obviously jealous. These are the facts. Jack and Margie owned alot of Beach property, including houses on other courts. It saddened him that the people on those courts didn’t/couldn’t buy those lots and make a little beach out of it because there were SO MANY kids on and around those courts at the time. And I guess he wasn’t just going to give it away. Hey, does anyone remember Jack Schmidts fishing boat- The North Star? He used to take all the kids out to the fireworks for a quarter.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Shame on anonymous for being so jealous that they want to ruin what we have.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Thank God! Someone who finally knows the facts! Every word of that is true and Non believers should read Irma Stilifsons book about it, entitled Parcel A.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If the Schmidts owned any land down there, it did not include the dead ends, which my family and our neighbors going back 45 years used to be able to regularly access for recreational activities. The land they owned included what is now Shellbank Yacht Club. It’s interesting you claim that land is part of some sale that the Schmidts had a hand in, BUT THAT LAND DID NOT INCLUDE THE DEAD ENDS OF THESE BLOCKS. The dead end of Merit Court was open until about 10 years ago, the Shcmidts sold their property ABOUT 30 YEARS BEFORE THE DEAD END WAS FENCED OFF. Explain that one. Also,why then have the residents of CYRUS Avenue taken over this land at the end of Merit?? Has either of you lived on Landis or Merit for the past 45 years?? Didn’t think so..
It is obvious that the two of you have some personal stake in this, and are using fear to try and make this issue die down and just go away, as evidenced by your quotes–”…….Remember be careful what you wish for ……You might just get it” and “you will all be the worse off for ever opening up ,the can of , forget the worms, change to Deadly Snakes”. Yea, onewhodoesn’tknow, what I wish for is the chance to enjoy the waterfront I enjoyed with my parents as a child, and to have my children enjoy it with me. I think most of GB residents aren’t dumb enough to fall for your obvious attempt at intimidation and lies. It’s easy to make up a fake name and make claims. Provide links to these “tax records” you claim to have seen that proves the DEAD ENDS are privately owned. The members of CREEK are waiting.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
No, of course not the dead ends. The city owns the dead ends. I am talking about the bonafide lots and I think that 2 different things are being discussed here. I am responding to the idiotic statements about people not owning the waterfront property they live on. Most do own it, pay a separate real estate tax on it. You can tell who didn’t buy it during the short time it was available for sale (Parcel A) because those are the houses with no dock, ie 1 Post ct, on the creek. LOL, I guess I haven’t been to alot of dead ends in a while. If what you are talking about is the actual bulkhead/railing at the end of courts being blocked from non water neighbors from coming down and looking, that is just wrong. Although, in their possible defense I will say that they are notorious hang outs, and I even as a kid remember the end of Bartlett being one of the worst. You get tired of watching kids smoke weed, drink, piss, and abuse the wildlife. You idealize what access to the creek for you and your children COULD be, but the reality is that kids like to come down and throw rocks. They hit boats and although they throw bread to the ducks when they are small (BTW,Not good for the ducks or the creek)they inevitably throw rocks at them later on. After that, it becomes an adolescent drinking spot, graffitti on the bulkheads, both at the end and facing the water, and the smell of piss when you leave your house in the morning. There are 2 sides to this.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I checked the tax map for that property at landis and merit court.. It show that the end of the (street) Merit court is included in the tax map for that yacht club so I am assuming that that yacht club owns and is paying taxes to the city for the end of the court . the back of the property ends where all the other property lines end after that it is listed as plumb beach avenue that is not part of their property., (don’t know if this is land or water)… I don’t know if this helps or not
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
If Post Court was supposed to run through “Kiddie”. Than why were the sewer lines
not run through. ? That property always belonged to the GBPOA for the sole purpose of a community beach…… No DEC yet…All was handled by the City Beareau of Docks and Ferries……Look at an old map. As for Landis an Merit they owned by oyher people than the GBPOA. and was offered to the residents of the court who declined to buy it….. It hence was sold to others…. and not “squatted” on by the ones there now…. You sound like a very angry person, who would bring Politicians, City and Federal agencys into what should be handled as a local issue…….Remember be careful what you wish for ……You might just get it
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Thank You beachwalker. I remember Jack very well he was my neighbor and it did sadden him when the people on those 2 Courts would not prchase his property as a joint venture. The North Star was a great boat…… My only reason for my post is to set the facts straight for those who were not here in the early 1950′s…To try and stop this nonsense before City,State and Federal agencies get involved…… Also if I understand the complaint by anonymous.Then the true squatters on his mythicial Post Court would be the GBPOA. whose fence runs along Post Court…… Some of you others out there I could some other backup against some of the other fabracations and assertions of some sort of theft….and the personal attacks against some people should stop…. Know the facts before you open these controverses
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Looks like the property at the end of Landis court is also privately owned also according to tax records
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thank You atlanticdare. It proves my point, The land was privately owned and was offered to the Landis and Merit Ct residents…. It is now owned by 2 Realty Groups……Check the Dept. of Finance web site for maps and ownership…. Oh ! by the way Plumb Beach Ave is the roadway that was to run to Exit 10 on the Belt Pkwy….. I would not worry any more about that ever being done. With all of the new State and Federal enviormental laws it could never be done
This nonsense should die soon and figure out who is in violation and who is not. Like I said before my purpose is protecting “Kiddie Beach” If the DEC finds one blade of marsh grass on that beach. They will declare it a wet land {which it once was } and you will all be the worse off for ever opening up,the can of , forget the worms, change to Deadly Snakes
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
NYCDOB seems to have posted NYSDEC’s maps online:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/reference/tidalWetlandsMap.shtml
GB’s map looks to be 590-492, showing GB surrounded by what’s marked as ‘LZ’ or littoral zone. Since it is not mapped as a grass marsh, guessing ‘IM’ or ‘HM’, “Kiddie Beach” looks safe to remain as a beach.
Have to check out NYSDEC’s website to clarify the terminology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh ! Just one more post to anonymousE. If you would learn how to read the City Map none of this would be even be discussed…..On the left of the map is a thing called a legend, it tells you what all of the lines mean. Much like a nautical chart helps you… Well anyhow if you look at Post Ct. you will see a black line, that indicates a roadway….. Then you follow that across Madoc Ave….. And your mythicial Post Ct. disappears No black line on that yellow patch means no roadway…..Stop acting like the sky is falling and learn that sometimes it is O.K. to be wrong
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
It’s called an easement butthead, & it’s supposed to be open access. It’s not mythical.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
THANKS to onewhoknows for re inforcing the fact that if we complain too much that we will be opening a can of worms. There is no need to disturb what we have now. People are angry and jealous of each other and its a shame that they want to ruin it for others. That wasn’t the way it used to be.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
“If we complain too much we will open a can of worms”??? “Ruin it for others”?? “No need to disturb what WE have now”??? Who exactlty do you mean by WE?? Tell us!! Please?. What about the residents of Merit court and the children who live there whose access to the Dead end was illegally cut off??
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
post to CREEK ….Go to Dept. of Finance website Check Block 8876 Lot 2762. Owned by Landis Court Realty Corp. 1 Landis Ct……..Check same Block Lot 2800 Owned by Skouche Realty Corp. 2 Kay Court or 1 Landis Ct. Same Block Lot 2724 Owned by Down East Yacht Club…. If you scroll down to same Block Lot 5545 it runs from Bartlett Pl. to Cyrus Ave Owner is City of New York, Finance Administration……Those are the people who cut off your streets Not any one person or fellow beachite As far as post by Clay “Kiddie Beach” is safe for now… The other side is a Class “A” wetland, salt marsh…. All I have been trying to say is that before the DEC, they would not have let all of that sand to be dumped on a wet land to create a community beach….That the GBPOA fought hard for years ago. I would hate to see some kid lawyer from Minnasota or South Carolina working for The City come snooping around asking questions…….Some pretty nasty posts’ considering my only intention was to give some input on a wonderful community asset like the “Kiddie:
Like or Dislike:
3 
1