Looking south along the Santiam Canal from Sixth Avenue on Saturday, a rainy day. The driveway in the curb leads to the right-of-way of Vine Street on the canal’s east side.
Vine Street in Albany lines both sides of the Albany-Santiam Canal. Over many years, some property owners have taken over the street right-of-way on one or the other side of the canal, and now the city wants to give them licenses to keep doing so.
The issue comes up Monday afternoon when the city council meets — virtually, on Zoom — for a work session.
According to a memo to the council, the owners of property at 636 Sixth Ave. S.W, adjacent to the east side of the canal, asked for permission to put a fence across the Vine Street right-of-way in order to secure their property.
The city staff is asking the council to issue them a license, as allowed by the city code with conditions, to encroach on this portion of the public right-of-way so they can put up the fence and a gate. The conditions include building no permanent structures, and permission can be revoked with 90 days notice.
The canal runs down the middle of the Vine Street right-of-way. The city staff memo notes that several other properties have also encroached on the space on either side where the street was not developed. That happened on the east side between Sixth and Seventh Avenues, and between 10th and 12th, and on the west side between Seventh and Ninth, and for half a block north of 12th.
“Staff intends to contact those property owners and enter into similar licenses to occupy the right-of-way,” the memo reads. “Doing so would both legitimize their occupation of the right-of-way and put them on notice that the city of Albany retains full authority over the right-of-way they are occupying.”
Back in 1995, the council adopted a “Town Center Plan” that called for, among other things, developing Albany’s canals as an attraction. The CARA urban renewal plan in 2001 envisioned an “esplanade” along the canal down Vine Street.
Sadly, though, the canal projects were dead in the water from the start. I’ve complained about it before, including here.
This action on the encroachments makes sure the status quo remains just that. (hh)
On the other side of Sixth, looking north, Vine Street is open, though unimproved, on both sides of the canal.
Does this mean that vine street can be blocked off? I live on 14th and Vine behind the old safeway. Do I need to attend the council meeting?
There are 51 project activities (“investments”) identified in the CARA Plan that was imposed by the city council without voter approval.
By design, not all of the projects will be accomplished given they are “subject to the availability of appropriate funding.”
So it’s a function of funding priorities. And there are other projects in the Plan that didn’t make the cut.
Placing overhead utilities underground and multi-floor parking structures come to mind.
I can’t put my finger on which projects that received public funding are better…perhaps awnings for downtown shops.
But after 20 years some of them are looking rather haggard. Perhaps a second round of awning “investment” is needed. The “tax increment” created has to be huge.
Thank you for posting. A hidebound city council that acquiesces to a small group of private property owners can only create the dysfunctional city of the future. We are already seeing it, are we not? Isn’t that the way it goes though? Small, inconsequential decisions made by a city council, while no one is paying attention many years ago, are seen in the broken city we inherit now. Of course sitting council members will long be out of office and no longer held accountable…out of site, out of mind. It’s called planning for a purpose. A decision is a plan, and has a significant factor that must be included in all decision-making—future generations.
Thank you, total agreement.
This encroachment thing on Vine St. stinks. If the property owners want to “secure their property,” they can put up a fence around their own property. I’ll bet there’ll be a “No Trespassing” sign across Vine St., just like that underpriced place which was “proposed” to be open to dog walkers. My prediction: both signs will be up forever or until somebody can make a profit at the expense of Albany taxpayers.
Adverse possession is a tricky part of the law. If you read the city proposal it would clarify things greatly.
So the city is considering legitimatizing a “taking” of public property by private citizens. Giving so much confidence by their deference.
“Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that essentially allows trespassers on a piece of land to gain ownership rights if the true owner doesn’t stop them within a certain period of time. That period is ten years in Oregon.”
The city has been dealing with these folks for a long time.
“Doing so would both legitimize their occupation of the right-of-way and put them on notice that the city of Albany retains full authority over the right-of-way they are occupying.”
A settlement would be cheap. It takes them off the hook as long as they own the other property, without conveying ownership of the right-of-way but also explicitly recognizes the City ownership.
Thanks Hasso, I’ve always advocated and thought that making the Vine St. canal an
attraction would be a real positive for downtown Albany. It would certainly make more sense than dumping $ ten million on Water Ave. for whatever that plan might be
Neighbors on Vine – move BACK on your own property. This is ridiculous. OR, the City can increase the property taxes for the land they are utilizing….
The city should just charge them a lease fee for the use of the property that is not theirs. Make it the amount it would cost them to store their junk cars etc in a storage unit. Put the fee on their water bill so they can’t get out of paying it!
I could say the same about the pedestrian paths near Sunrise School that were given to the adjacent neighbors who were parking their RVs on them. The city would make some money on it.
Put up a fence and I’ll kick it down when I want to walk through OUR property.