jackson- that may be true about land that isnt already owned by somebody. the greenbelt is probably owned by the city- and parks

No, JACKSON needs to re-check his facts. The Supreme Court Case ruled against this, and pointed out this is an old law that should only be applied to rare cases. There are key factors that determine whether or not both parties actions warrant a taking of property.

The City is playing dirty pool, with a not educated person. They have done this before. She needs to call the bluff, and clain what is hers.

If this lady has controlled this area of land for 7 years or more she now owns that land. There was this case in Madison last year with land control, and lot line. The state supreme court rules that one you controls land for more than 7 years owns it. This is a state law. So this lady real owns that land now not the City of Janesville, and she should call them on it. Check my facts, this is true. Strange but true.

Sorry - That should be "ordinance".

In the large picture you can clearly see that what looks like a road with street signs is actually the paved bike trail running right through the middle of the greenbelt. This makes me think that the city is not of aware of the ordinace that forbids structures or landscaping in the public greenbelts!

MELSTEW47, here is a bigger picture. I am talking about all of those retaining wall blocks around the edge being used for edging.
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2008/apr/2...

your rite it should be done only on your own propery, and the small picture im looking at i cant see the block edgeing,
.

MELSTEW47 thinks this is a "Pretty garden." Great example that some people will like it, some people won't. If you like it, then replicate this on your personal property. Most of us do not have a problem with someone creating something like this on their own property. I think it would look great at the entrance of a cemetery, but you would have to clean up the shoddy work this lady did on the block edging.

If I am walking through the green belt and I trip on somebody's stupid pile of rocks, I am suing!!

thats a pretty rock garden, to bad it has to be moved.

Maybe greenbelt residents should do as the west side, and put a sign up in their back yard detailing how they feel about the city and its administration. It sure has done wonders for those on the west side...

Hannah ~ I WAS NOT talking to you specifically. Sounds like you have some sort of agreement, and if you don't live on the greenbelt, then you are not the accused here. I would though if I were you get your land conditions in written order so you are not the next one to be in trouble.

NVgrf......I understand your analogy, but in some other's defense, you are continuing to "stereotype" the 4th ward by bringing attention to "the 4th ward" being an inbetween for the rich of the west and the rich of the east. What I get sick of is people always talking about "the rich" this and that, and the fact is, "the rich" have worked for their money, and are entitled to live within their means. And if that happens to be more than what other's have, either be happy for them, or work harder so you may have nice things as well. People who have money, work for their money.

hannah - as some others have posted on this subject, the land is not available to plant gardens on period. It is owned by the city which is the residents (not resident)of this city. Our city management has said it is not legal to plant gardens on the greenbelt, then live with it. Rules are for everybody, not just some, or for some who don't think it is fair to them.

optisium.the reason i think your talking about me is the term "eyesore" of gravel and dead weedy grass that i was reffering too. i would be glad to show you before and after if you like and you be the judge. I would rather not give up my identy though as a poster on these blogs. you can email me and i might tell you more in detail about it

optism- if youre talking to me. as i mentioned i had permission from city to landscape here and plans of what i was doing was okayed. my neighbor IS the alley. but i think the 20 ft your talking about is the greenbelt and if youre talking about that i agree

Ok...I am assuming that squater's rights don't apply here, so if it isn't yours, leave it alone. Simple as that. If you want to plant 20 ft. from your property etc...then look into rural living where the ditches are fair game and the back tree line is probably prettier than this "eyesore" you all are referring to. I don't understand why anyone who doesn't own something thinks they are entitled. I bet if your neighbor tried planting a tree on your side of the plot line you, the same person who thinks you can plant whereever you'd like, would be the first on the phone to report the theif.

approx weird area is between my side yard of house with grass/ then city grass and an gravel alley.left to right looking at it. all gardens now cause i graded it and nothing to mow out there anyway. i would say city annex part cut in L shape 20 feet long and 16 feet wide and only 8 feet wide in another area- and another 5' wide because the L shape tapers as it went towards back of yard. i believe when i said Ild refuse to mow it(because it isnt mine) if i cant build on it they mentioned it is sorta like terrace and you have too. just all weird all the way around. but resolved sorta verbally and you know who that would stand up in court

why would i lease it if i do all the work??? maybe they should pay me for taking care of it. lookin 1000% better than it used to. was an eyesore before

it is an alley way the city doesnt do anything with- no snow- no mowing etc. i tried for months to just get the permission to use the city annexed land that was cut weird into my property. finally they said okay. they said it wasnt worth doing the paperwork for me to PURCHASE (and willing to) the section and the guy was always to busy for me to have this in writting that i could lanscape their. gave them plans and everything and it was verbally okayed.it makes me angry because if they ever come in their which i am guessing they wont (if you saw it it would make since to you also that they wouldnt)and make me remove any EXPENSIVE landscaping I will be real upset. we did retaining wall trees shrubs, lighting, perinials,grading of the land for retaining wall, homemade fence etc. looks professional but all our labor and cost. if you know who can help me get this in writing finally please email me. i will have to pull out all my notes to see who this main guy was that i talked to over 6 years ago

Hannah-I am surprised to hear that someone at the City of Janesville told you it 'was too much paperwork'. That generally is not the attitude nor approach of city staff. In fact, I've found several of them to go out of their way to help find a solution. I know, it can be rare. Did you ask about leasing the property? You use the land, mow it, snow removal, etc and the City benefits by not having to mow/remove snow? The paperwork involved is a standard form lease agreement, about 4-5 pages, a memo to City Council, and formal City Council action. So, really it's not 'too much paperwork.'

Kilgor720- i have heard about not planting on terraces too- but i see trees all over and gardens. i believe they dont want anything there in case they need to tear up for power lines or water and dont want anything in there way. So i figure if things are planted on terrace and they have to tear up then weve been warned it wont be their fault if is wreaked.
also the home owner sorta owns their terrace unlike the greenbelt

beachsexton- i wrote my comment before i read yours on how it look- we agree again!!!

the garden doesnt look that good anyway,less than amature rating from me sorry

i would like to have a 20ft back yard- these greenbelt backyard are prob 40 ft atleast

mssassy- good point. i have seen a greenbelt backyard yet that is SMALL.

turtlecreekguy- i agree. and they wont sell cause they dont have time for the paperwork and yes uneven land borders.
also a guy mentioned to owner you have about 20 ft leaway- he was talking about mowing not planting as your own.

i tried to buy a section next to my alley. they said to much paper work for you to buy. I received permission to plant on it as if it were my own- and agian they were to busy to put it in writtitng so hope it doesnt come back to bit me in the but cause they didnt have time to sign paperwork giving me permissin to landscape

She should be fined for destruction of public property. On top of that, restitution for the damage that will have to be repaired. It is not her land. Squatting on it in the hopes of gaining that land 10-15 yrs down the road (claiming you took care of it) is based on old laws that are not enforced by the courts but in rare cases today. What is labeled a garden to her looks like crap to me. The greenbelt should not be for sale, nor should it be used by individuals at their whim. Maybe the city’s code enforcement person that was just hired can take on a special assignment over the summer? Why is planting on city property (public property owned by the tax payers) any different than this lady randomly choosing my yard to plant a garden? I do not have my own yard enforcement either, but I can say I would take care of the problem long before it ever cost me any time and/or money to remove it! Next, this lady will be conducting a show on JATV back to back with Briarmoon.

Sounds to me like this is the perfect setting for Steve Schieffer's water park. Can you imagine the length of that slip n' slide?
Can't find a much greener use than that.

saywhat.........You missed my point entirely. My point was that if someone from the 4th Ward decided to do the same thing (plant on public property) that SOME of these same people who feel they have a right to plant in the greenbelt would complain like crazy. My comments were in support of the folks who live in the 4th Ward, not against them. Having lived in Janesville for 30 years, I got sick and tired of listening to the self righteous among the Janesville population stereotype the folks in the 4th Ward.

NVgrf - "These "gardeners" would scream like crazy if they found out someone in the 4th Ward were using a corner of the park there to plant crops." I get tired of reading the various slams, dig, prejudice, against working people who live in the 4th Ward. Walk a mile in my shoes, live paycheck to paycheck, and then look at my awesome garden.

Kilgor- No, terraces aren't used as a drainage area or ground water filter. The greenbelt serves a particular function just like other infrastructure.

Zoom, the owners will get charged if the city has to remove it.

OK, I can agree that this is city property the gardens are on. But what I don't understand is why it's OK for people to have flower or rock gardens on city Terraces, but NOT allowed in the boundries of the greenbelt? Isn't it the same thing?

If the city has all this extra time they should trim around there trees in there parks on borders of parks. ie Briarcrest Park (west side of park)!!

The owner should pay to remove the garden, just like people have to pay for sidewalks.

I wonder if fertilizer or pesticides are used to maintain the rock and flower gardens. This is not good for the ecology of the greenbelt. Plus the bottom line is it is not your property.

I recal buying perennials from a resident on Shannon Dr a few years back. Their perennial garden is right on the greenbelt. The city should recoup some of those profits made in the sale or increase their property taxes for using the "extra" space for additional income.

It's just like all the issues with kids. It comes dowm to what's right and wrong, not what you can get away with and then whine when you are called on it. The greenbelt belongs to the city and people should not plant or dump their waste in it. I get sick and tired of watching my neighbor dump his grass trimmings and other waste in the empty lot on our street or the greenbelt.

justsome1here - I'll vote for that!

stopandthink - I believe the city cut down all the trees in the area, so the city should pay to replant them.

I feel, the main reason the city is removing them is because they are on public property, which happens to be part of the stormwater-runoff control needed to offset the development in the area. These people were most likely told what their property boundaries were before they made the purchase. Their neighbors aren't the experts on the subject. Maybe the city should have given them a chance to remove them, and when they then did not, they could have charged them for the removal.

Good points jtmek, maresyann, and turtlecreekguy. I also agree the city should not pay for it, the person who damaged the function of the greenbelt should. What if everyone decided that your street needed a few trees in it, or a nice rock garden just because it didn't suit their visual tastes? The vegetation in the green belt helps absorb drainage pollutants and increases our ground water supply, besides helping control erosion. I've seen this area and as a gardener, I think Mother Nature's landscaping besides being functional and essentially maintenance free, looks better as well. Who's going to pay for or replace all the trees that were cut down in that same area?

seems to me that the yards near the greenbelt are large enough that the owners can plant their gardens well within the boundaries of their property lines without "needing" to plant on the greenbelt area.

and you are right, NVgrf, if someone were to plant a crop garden in the middle of 4th Ward, it would be an eyesore for the folks traveling from the rich West side to the rich East side.

*sigh*

I wonder if I can put a garden 20 feet onto my neighbor's property? He's not using it, so what's the harm?

DON'T USE TAXPAYER MONEY FOR SOMETHING SO STUPID! These city employees are being paid well to dig up something that is not causing harm. Spend it on fixing our streets or maybe this skatepark I have been hearing about for years. Give kids of Janesville something to do!

Maybe the city should have thought of this before they stuck a paved bike trail right through this very same area. Rather see a garden than black top with yellow lines painted on it and street signs!

These "gardeners" would scream like crazy if they found out someone in the 4th Ward were using a corner of the park there to plant crops.

I'm surprised that there isn't a 10-15k study to see the effects on gardening on the greenbelt

While the city is at it I hope the crack down on the people that throw their yard waste into the greenbelt also. Especially into the Springbrook stream on the south side of Ruger Ave. Talk about a mess and garbage collecting area.

I believe the point here is that it is to be used for drainage and allow water to seep into the ground or flow below into the greenbelt. Irregular landscaping will interupt the natural plan of the greenbelt. Now..I am sure this one pretty feature will mean nothing in terms of controling the drainage but what if everyone now decides that they should utilize their "20 feet". Depending on the area, it may mean a great deal. During this time of extreme rain and flooding, we should all keep that in mind.

Maybe the city could rent the space out to the homeowners. This would generate extra income for the city. Just add it to the property tax bill.

I'm sorry, but you don't have any right to use land that doesn't belong to you for any purpose if you don't have permission to do so. I don't care how long you've been getting away with it. This is a pretty basic legal issue that cannot be disputed. Try parking your car in your neighbor's driveway without permission, it's the same thing.

Make sure all these greenbelt scofflaws have sidewalks on the street side of their properties!