ErnieAdams
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 134
Good question for which no straight answer probably exists.
Ran my errand today and swung by Assessing. The microfilm provides no new info.
Louisburg Square is City-Owned. How/Why "Private?"
- Thread starter Arlington
- Start date
Good question for which no straight answer probably exists.
Ran my errand today and swung by Assessing. The microfilm provides no new info.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 447
If you read my post carefully, you'd see that I said the "no adverse possession against the sovereign" rule does not apply where the sovereign takes subject to an adverse possession claim that ripened pre-acquisition. The type of acquisition to which you refer is known alternatively as a "tax title" or a "tax taking", and is an example of the type of acquisition to which the exception might apply.
You are correct that registered land is not subject to adverse possession, but the point is inapposite.
Sorry. You get a C-minus.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,690
- Reaction score
- 1,506
Arlington,
My experience in trying to research 19th Century records is that they are often unreliable, replete with errors in transcription, phonetic spellings, guesses made by the transcriber/recorder, and entries simply made for convenience; particularly for the latter when there seems to be no harm or consequence.
The previous owner to the houses on Louisburg Square that became part of the convent was a Mrs. Joseph Barrows, a widow from rural Maine who arrived in Boston with little financial resources, four young children, and what was clearly a great sense of business acumen
Mrs Barrows first owned and operated a boarding house across the street from the state house. One might reasonably expect that state legislators were among her boarders. She soon moved her boarding house business to Louisburg Square, and subsequently into a series of newly constructed buildings in the Back Bay. By the mid 1880s, she also owned and operated a mansion-like summer hotel and surrounding cottages on the shore.
Its a fair presumption that Mrs. Barrows, in the early days of her business enterprise, was probably financed by powerful politicians. Said politicians may have helped finance her move to Louisburg Square. To avoid questions about potential tax liability, said politicians may have instructed the assessor to record ownership of the square as the city of Boston. A harmless change from the city's standpoint, if taxes were not actually owed on the square, or the surrounding road.
__________
In any event, Mr and Mrs Heinz and the other property owners on Louisburg Square can afford property lawyers whose hours and billing rates are such that if there were defects in the title with respect to ownership of the square, such would have been identified, discussed, and chortled over long ago.
My experience in trying to research 19th Century records is that they are often unreliable, replete with errors in transcription, phonetic spellings, guesses made by the transcriber/recorder, and entries simply made for convenience; particularly for the latter when there seems to be no harm or consequence.
The previous owner to the houses on Louisburg Square that became part of the convent was a Mrs. Joseph Barrows, a widow from rural Maine who arrived in Boston with little financial resources, four young children, and what was clearly a great sense of business acumen
Mrs Barrows first owned and operated a boarding house across the street from the state house. One might reasonably expect that state legislators were among her boarders. She soon moved her boarding house business to Louisburg Square, and subsequently into a series of newly constructed buildings in the Back Bay. By the mid 1880s, she also owned and operated a mansion-like summer hotel and surrounding cottages on the shore.
Its a fair presumption that Mrs. Barrows, in the early days of her business enterprise, was probably financed by powerful politicians. Said politicians may have helped finance her move to Louisburg Square. To avoid questions about potential tax liability, said politicians may have instructed the assessor to record ownership of the square as the city of Boston. A harmless change from the city's standpoint, if taxes were not actually owed on the square, or the surrounding road.
__________
In any event, Mr and Mrs Heinz and the other property owners on Louisburg Square can afford property lawyers whose hours and billing rates are such that if there were defects in the title with respect to ownership of the square, such would have been identified, discussed, and chortled over long ago.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
True, but they are also of a class that might buy a political/contractual deal to control something they don't own. Politicians may have been cheaper than land or lawyers.
We also know that the Louisburg Square proprietors of the 1800s were tightwads despite their wealth: they tore out their fountain when the city wouldn't give them free water.
So the solution of which they could buy (or buy back) at the lowest cost-- land, politicians, or lawyers--is still an open question.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,690
- Reaction score
- 1,506
Arlington,
I spent half a day once going through business records from the 1870s of a Boston establishment, one of the co-owners being a direct descendant of one of Massachusetts most prominent governors. What a shambled, inchoate mess, reading more like a patchwork of occasional notes written on scraps of paper than a ledger
Without hijacking this thread too much, the failure in 1893 of the National Cordage Trust is illustrative of the lack of even rudimentary financial controls and government's laissez faire approach to business that prevailed in the 19th Century. They weren't called robber barons for nothing.
The National Cordage trust was a monopoly, controlling the production and sale of rope and twine in the U.S. It is the first American monopoly to go bankrupt, which is a not-easily-achieved accomplishment. How did the owners and managers of National Cordage manage to do that? They paid a dividend of 110 percent, emptying their coffers. Such a dividend also meant stockholders, in essence, owned the stock for free. Small wonder it was the most heavily traded stock on the exchange.
Unable to secure loans from banks to replenish the empty coffers, the trust quickly declared bankruptcy. The treasurer of the Cordage Trust, G. Weaver Loper, is appointed receiver in bankruptcy (the proverbial fox in the chicken coop). Some stockholders cry fraud, but the district attorney for New York refuses even to convene a grand jury. His explanation: the officers of the Trust had been buying stock before the bankruptcy, and would not have done so if they believed the trust was not financially sound. (Any prosecution would be by state or local government, as the Federal government, at that time, lacked jurisdiction.)
The bankruptcy of National Cordage was a major cause of the Panic of 1893, which led to what still is the second worst economic downturn in American history. The downturn lasted until the Spanish-American War.
Your issue re: ownership of Louisburg Square may simply be a legacy of the way things were done back then.
I spent half a day once going through business records from the 1870s of a Boston establishment, one of the co-owners being a direct descendant of one of Massachusetts most prominent governors. What a shambled, inchoate mess, reading more like a patchwork of occasional notes written on scraps of paper than a ledger
Without hijacking this thread too much, the failure in 1893 of the National Cordage Trust is illustrative of the lack of even rudimentary financial controls and government's laissez faire approach to business that prevailed in the 19th Century. They weren't called robber barons for nothing.
The National Cordage trust was a monopoly, controlling the production and sale of rope and twine in the U.S. It is the first American monopoly to go bankrupt, which is a not-easily-achieved accomplishment. How did the owners and managers of National Cordage manage to do that? They paid a dividend of 110 percent, emptying their coffers. Such a dividend also meant stockholders, in essence, owned the stock for free. Small wonder it was the most heavily traded stock on the exchange.
Unable to secure loans from banks to replenish the empty coffers, the trust quickly declared bankruptcy. The treasurer of the Cordage Trust, G. Weaver Loper, is appointed receiver in bankruptcy (the proverbial fox in the chicken coop). Some stockholders cry fraud, but the district attorney for New York refuses even to convene a grand jury. His explanation: the officers of the Trust had been buying stock before the bankruptcy, and would not have done so if they believed the trust was not financially sound. (Any prosecution would be by state or local government, as the Federal government, at that time, lacked jurisdiction.)
The bankruptcy of National Cordage was a major cause of the Panic of 1893, which led to what still is the second worst economic downturn in American history. The downturn lasted until the Spanish-American War.
Your issue re: ownership of Louisburg Square may simply be a legacy of the way things were done back then.
The square first shows up on maps in the mid-1830s - post-1832. Regarding property lines - there is no need for the property lines to run in to the square for it to be private. I live on a private way. My property line does not extend to the middle of the road, but I have to pay to have work done in the street. My neighbors share responsibility for paving, etc. I assume Louisburg square park would be the same as the roadbed. If/when the city took possession is another matter.
J
JoeBoston1
Guest
Rich people have political sway and get special treatment. News at 11.