Subject: Larimer County GIS Organizational Conflict of Interest. Acts |
Date: 9/2/2024 |
Larimer County Manager Volker,
This letter requests that you urgently address a significant issue with the County's GIS road data. The data incorrectly reports Monroe Avenue's (below) road's owner as PUBLIC, GENERAL, which is inaccurate, illegal, and a significant conflict-of-interest. This misreporting by the county operations department, responsible for the GIS database, is tantamount to theft of private property and unlawful use of general funds. Any County works that illegally use general funds is a conflict of interest and a public trust crime.In the United States, all possessed property is private property except when the government has the recorded title and deed for public property. The correct data value for all private residential or commercial subdivision planned development roads is "PRIVATE, COMMON INTEREST" The current value of PUBLIC, GENERAL is a misrepresentation and essentially a form of property theft by voice of authority. The GIS road color, which is the same for general street systems, perpetuates this misrepresentation. To avoid such misrepresentations, the database must give every PRIVATE, COMMON INTEREST road segment a distinctive color.
Roads have always had three designations: navigation, private, and public. With the advances in digital aerial maps, private and public designations are no longer navigation constraints. GIS data is the government's official route and property map. Instead of using the term public property for land, the current recommendation is the term public domain, and with any official use, pubic domain means the government is the record tile and deed. Government real property means pubic domain plus attachments. In use.public property is overloaded. In a planned community with common interest property, the property is the community's public property.
As taxpayers, we pay extra for the County's paid professional staff to manage and protect property ownership. In any county documents, especially with land, the word public has significance, implying the County has the recorded title and deed ownership for public property.
When the County accepts a developer's subdivision contractor proposal to divide the developer's land to divide their land into multiple units of private servient estates and one common interest private property servient estate; the common interest property is the community's public land use, such as roads and parks. By law, subdivision private roads must have private by-way access to the general street system. Each unit owner has public access to the subdivision's common interest private road. The developer plat drawing's name for the road is "private property public access."
(Your County Planning Department refuses to protect private property. I recently could not believe what I witnessed at a public land use meeting; one of your paid professional planners held up a plat with the words 'private property public access' written on the road and claimed public access permitted public street drivers to use the private road freely. When Planning approved Cottonwood Elementary, the access roads are private property, forcing parents to trespass when transporting their kids to school. The school buses are trespassing. The PID Act establishes each district as a homeowners' association with one unit and one vote, but Planning denied property rights, including conspiring with the City Attorney. )
As a taxpayer and joint tenant owner of the Mangrove CT private property road, I formally request under open documents that you provide specifications from the County's GIS documenting the owner's metadata values. When looking in the database at other PUDs, the "general public value" appears system-wide. In the database, a details request should list the subdivision name.
WManager Volker, you have an immediate stewardship duty to protect private property and to audit and initiate procedures for the County GIS database.
The County has another major private property conflict. When the County accepted a developer subdivision agreement, it became the trustee for the common interest property. At the signing, the County is run-with-the-land responsible for protecting future unit owners' private property. To protect the property from trespassers, at the contract signing, the County has the immediate duty to post private road signs at general street system entrances immediately. The private road signs may not stop trespassers, but they remove any liability risks for the county and future owners. Intentionally exposing the County to unnecessary liability risks is a significant conflict of interest. Logic suggests that the GIS data would be correct if the County had performed its trust duty at the development agreement signing.
The County Planner claims the HOA is responsible for common
interest property title and deed. That is legally impossible
because an HOA can never be a joint tenant owner. A developer
agreement is a two-party contract between the developer and the
County. Future owners do not exist. The County has
run-with-the-land stewardship authority, duty, and responsibility
for the contract's CC&R.
Government organizational conflict of interest works speak for themselves, eroding public confidence while criminally misappropriating funds from the public trust.
Joseph Flanigan
