[nhyrnut]

What is this old road act? I met a guy that had some land taken from him due to an old unused RD that went through it? Then he tells me about someone that lost there house due to it? And the state isn't paying for it just taking it? Well the towns more so than the state. He said they have til 2015 or something like that to reclaim all old rds even if never built. For free without reimbersment. What the heck is this about.

[harry chickpea]

Vermont has a lot of old roads and rights of way that were allowed to go dormant. With the surprising growth of population after many years, those routes are becoming needed. Rather than invoking eminant domain, the old rights are being re-asserted. The deeds should already reflect the roads, and title insurance protect the landowners. If the landowner neglected to get title insurance, whose fault is that?

I can think of a few situations where landowners were just not thinking when they placed their structures. Example: there is usually only one narrow route through a notch between mountains. If a landowner decides that the old gravel road is a great place to build, he has no one but himself to blame when eminant domain takes the route back.

I also know of a landowner who built directly on an old railroad bed when the land on either side was just as good. If you have ever studied the engineering of railroad placement, you know that the land used for a rail route is unique and changes of route are next to impossible. Once the need for that route becomes apparent again, his house is history.

The law has plenty of historical precident. In England, the ancient pathways are sacred and the public is protected from tight(ahem) landowners by similar laws. There have already been incidents in Vermont of landowners attempting to block known hiking trails, etc.

When you buy land, it is your responsibility to know what you are buying. Even then, you can be in the thick of it, as many Vermonters discovered when I-89 was built in the early 1960s.

[nhyrnut]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Vermont has a lot of old roads and rights of way that were allowed to go dormant. With the surprising growth of population after many years, those routes are becoming needed. Rather than invoking eminant domain, the old rights are being re-asserted. The deeds should already reflect the roads, and title insurance protect the landowners. If the landowner neglected to get title insurance, whose fault is that?

I can think of a few situations where landowners were just not thinking when they placed their structures. Example: there is usually only one narrow route through a notch between mountains. If a landowner decides that the old gravel road is a great place to build, he has no one but himself to blame when eminant domain takes the route back.

I also know of a landowner who built directly on an old railroad bed when the land on either side was just as good. If you have ever studied the engineering of railroad placement, you know that the land used for a rail route is unique and changes of route are next to impossible. Once the need for that route becomes apparent again, his house is history.

The law has plenty of historical precident. In England, the ancient pathways are sacred and the public is protected from tight(ahem) landowners by similar laws. There have already been incidents in Vermont of landowners attempting to block known hiking trails, etc.

When you buy land, it is your responsibility to know what you are buying. Even then, you can be in the thick of it, as many Vermonters discovered when I-89 was built in the early 1960s.

So rather than take it by eminant domain and having to pay the land owner fair market value. They are just taking it and saying sucks to be you? I understand title insurance but that pays pennies on the dollar. And some of these roads where never even built from what this man said. I can see if you built your house in the middle of a road as you said. BUT if you bought the land first from the town than why should they have the right to just say hey it is mine again ha ha ha. I'm not being sarcastic I just want to know how the state got the right to do this. To me this sounds insane. Your land you bought and paid for. They should at least give fair market value for it.

[harry chickpea]

Simply put, if there is a defect in the title, and you buy land knowing that, you live with the consequences.

Also be aware that although the common thought is that you "own" land, you don't. If you "owned" land, you wouldn't have to pay taxes on it, nor would it be subject to emminent domain. The state owns that land you sit on, and you get the right to use it within the rules the state sets forth. Cheer up, you could be a native american.

[chaz longue]

I'm a Realtor.

This is a hot topic in Real Estate in VT now.

Whenever I have an initial conversation with a prospective buyer-client, I suggest they assemble some important people before they fall in love with a property.

Aside from a Realtor, these include

A professional property inspector, a mortgage lender and A REAL ESTATE attorney.
The names I offer are people with vast experience who do this day in and day out, do little else, and charge a flat fee.

In addition to simply asking
"what will you be doing for me, and what should I be thinking about and what will it cost",
I suggest the prospective buyer call a couple of R.E. attorneys and ask.


"Ancient Roads"
Title Insurance
Stormwater permits

These three give a sense of the possible pitfalls and give the buyer a chance to see if the attorney and the buyer can communicate comfortably.