Fighting city hall over land
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
This article first appeared in The American Surveyor.
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far from where I live, Francis Galdo bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia.
That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation in 1974, subsequent to a 1956 consenting ordinance and 1962 agreement to the Pennsylvania Department of Highways' plans to establish and occupy certain rights of way, streets and traffic interchanges as part of the construction of the Delaware Expressway within the city. The parcel was not needed for the highway project and sat dormant, tended better at some times than at others.
Soon after moving in across the street, Galdo began using the vacant parcel. First, he poured a concrete slab to park his vehicles, then temporarily used the area to store debris while rehabbing his home. By 1992, Galdo had poured another concrete slab, enclosed by a fence for storing materials, but later removed the fence to use the area for parking.
By 1994, he had installed a fire pit and permanent picnic table. When a nearby factory burned down in 1997, he collected materials from it to create a driveway. He planted trees and grass, built a treehouse deck between 2010 and 2014, and eventually replaced a carport he built with a wooden pavilion.
What was the city doing during all of this? Apparently the answer was "not much" — until 2006. At that point, Philadelphia entered into a contract with an investment company for a parcel just south of Galdo's big encroachment. That group offered to buy what is posted and known locally as "The Notorious Galdo Parcel," along with several other city parcels in the immediate area in 2008.
The city's failure to pass a timely ordinance allowing the sale to the investment firm killed the sale, not Galdo's use of the land. But in February 2013 — 24 years after Galdo had moved in and taken over — the city posted public notices on the tract to remove all personal property within 30 days. Galdo tore the notices down and threw them away.
It is relevant to mention at this point that the statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for adverse possession and prescriptive use of real property is 21 years. This will seem extraordinarily long to surveyors in many other states where statutes require landowners to step up and speak out within less than half that time.
The main issue was whether Galdo could adversely possess against the city, which is not specifically granted statutory immunity from such claims. But Philadelphia claimed in the Court of Common Pleas that it was acting as an agent for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is exempt from adverse claims. Furthermore, the City argued that it was holding the land for public use (further protecting the land from adverse claims), in that it planned to sell it (some day).
The lower court bought these arguments and found in Philadelphia's favor in June 2016. By accepting these immunity arguments and rejecting testimony by the Philadelphia Planning Commission and others that the city had not used the property after the 1970s, the court found it unnecessary to rule on Galdo's actual possession. There is an appeal pending, which potentially could overturn that decision if Galdo's arguments against the city's claims of "immunity" and "public use" are successful.
The site is clearly different from anything else on the block. (Check out The Notorious Galdo Parcel's Facebook page with many photos. For a Google Street view, spin to the aerial view from the initial view from beneath the elevated train.)
Public opinions posted on Reddit are divided regarding Galdo's rights and include arguments about the aesthetics of his "improvements," with some calling the site a "hideous compound with aggressive signs" warning the world to stay out. But many point out the imbalance between the arguments that each side can legally raise.
No matter how unlovely it is, clearly possession by Galdo has been open (not hidden), notorious (well-known), hostile (excluding all others who might claim it) and continuous (uninterrupted) for more than the statutorily required period of time. He did not pay taxes on it (not required by Pennsylvania law), and he also does not have color of title (also not mandatory).
But is this an attempt at an illegal land grab?
If we mere mortals neglect our property, the local government can step in and fine us for creating a nuisance. If we don't keep others from using our property, we may be dragged into court for a quiet title action that may cost us our ownership rights.
Even though I don't accept the city's claim that holding land for potential sale at some unspecified (very) distant future date is true "public use" that should protect against adverse claims, I have doubts that Galdo can win.
- The stress of 911 call-takers and emergency dispatchers
- EPEE: Cooling has an essential role to play
- US vs. Europe: Comparing different approaches to renewable energy
- Can solar energy compete with fossil fuels?
- Big winners in California’s new healthcare plan: Households and small businesses
- Modern slavery and the hidden world of human trafficking
- Nurses rally in DC to address staffing issues with Congress
- 9 steps to more concise business writing
- The future of boutique hotels
- Study: Controlling the risk of osteoarthritis with proteins
- AI on the rise in healthcare
- What can woodpeckers teach us about brain injuries?
- Law enforcement supports variety of gun control reform efforts
See your work in future editions
Your content, Your Expertise,
Your Industry Needs YOUR Expert Voice & We've got the platform you needFind Out How