Geographic oddities

[mr1138]

City/County boundaries that appear to defy property ownership -

I have identified two places where this occurs and I'm wondering if anybody here can explain how this happens. I'm sure that each place has its own story, but the two examples I have found are the southern boundary of San Francisco and part of the northern boundary of Baltimore.

In each of these places, it appears that the political boundary defies not only the street pattern of neighborhoods like Crocker-Amazon (SF) and Woodhome Heights (Baltimore), but in many cases runs right through individual lots and homes. The little bit of research I have done on this topic reveals that in both cases, the political boundary was likely set before the homes and streets were constructed. In the case of SF, is sounds as though the boundary was set in the mid 1800s with development coming along in the 1930s, and in the case of Baltimore the political boundary was set in 1948 with development appearing to be of a post-war pattern.

This raises the question - how could this happen? Were these parcels already subdivided prior to the political boundary being set? And if not, why on earth would a developer subdivide their neighborhoods in this way? And are the individual parcels that fall along these lines legally in two separate counties, or do they pay property taxes to both counties?

This is something that has puzzled me for a few years and, given the topic of this thread, perhaps somebody reading this can provide some insight!

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by mr1138

City/County boundaries that appear to defy property ownership -

I have identified two places where this occurs and I'm wondering if anybody here can explain how this happens. I'm sure that each place has its own story, but the two examples I have found are the southern boundary of San Francisco and part of the northern boundary of Baltimore.

In each of these places, it appears that the political boundary defies not only the street pattern of neighborhoods like Crocker-Amazon (SF) and Woodhome Heights (Baltimore), but in many cases runs right through individual lots and homes. The little bit of research I have done on this topic reveals that in both cases, the political boundary was likely set before the homes and streets were constructed. In the case of SF, is sounds as though the boundary was set in the mid 1800s with development coming along in the 1930s, and in the case of Baltimore the political boundary was set in 1948 with development appearing to be of a post-war pattern.

This raises the question - how could this happen? Were these parcels already subdivided prior to the political boundary being set? And if not, why on earth would a developer subdivide their neighborhoods in this way? And are the individual parcels that fall along these lines legally in two separate counties, or do they pay property taxes to both counties?

This is something that has puzzled me for a few years and, given the topic of this thread, perhaps somebody reading this can provide some insight!

I've wondered about this too, in places closer to home. There are even cases of buildings being bisected by state boundaries. My guess is that a lot of places like this were developed after boundaries were set, but before there was strict / conscientious enforcement of them. Nowadays, you can't do anything without a site survey and multiple permits. In the 1930's, even though there were local codes and ordinances, I doubt there was as much oversight and care as there is today. That, and the surveying tools / equipment just weren't as accurate back then, so they might well have thought they were in the clear. In most (if not all) of these cases, I would have to imagine that the property owners have an understanding (in writing) with the city, county, state, etc. where they pay taxes to just one or the other and not both.

Invisible boundaries are fascinating, especially when a building or neighborhood is split into 2 states or 2 countries.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by mr1138

City/County boundaries that appear to defy property ownership -

I have identified two places where this occurs and I'm wondering if anybody here can explain how this happens. I'm sure that each place has its own story, but the two examples I have found are the southern boundary of San Francisco and part of the northern boundary of Baltimore.

In each of these places, it appears that the political boundary defies not only the street pattern of neighborhoods like Crocker-Amazon (SF) and Woodhome Heights (Baltimore), but in many cases runs right through individual lots and homes. The little bit of research I have done on this topic reveals that in both cases, the political boundary was likely set before the homes and streets were constructed. In the case of SF, is sounds as though the boundary was set in the mid 1800s with development coming along in the 1930s, and in the case of Baltimore the political boundary was set in 1948 with development appearing to be of a post-war pattern.

This raises the question - how could this happen? Were these parcels already subdivided prior to the political boundary being set? And if not, why on earth would a developer subdivide their neighborhoods in this way? And are the individual parcels that fall along these lines legally in two separate counties, or do they pay property taxes to both counties?

This is something that has puzzled me for a few years and, given the topic of this thread, perhaps somebody reading this can provide some insight!

California carved San Mateo County out of San Francisco County in 1856, and the legislature arbitrarily drew a straight line from one side of the peninsula to the other as the border. Today, all of the populated areas along that line on the San Mateo County side are within the municipal boundaries of Daly City.

That line doesn't really correlate with anything historical or physical on the ground. The streets were laid out either in parallel with the old El Camino Real (the main north-south Spanish road, which today is Mission Street in that area) or as extensions of street grids on the San Francisco side. You really cannot tell the difference on the ground between one side of the county line and the other--except that the street signs are a different color (Daly City's are blue, SF's are white).

My guess is that residents pay taxes to whichever city/county in which their official street address is listed, but I don't know. I've lived in SF for many years and cannot remember any issue coming up in the media regarding the county border, whether for taxes or anything else.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mr1138

City/County boundaries that appear to defy property ownership -

I have identified two places where this occurs and I'm wondering if anybody here can explain how this happens. I'm sure that each place has its own story, but the two examples I have found are the southern boundary of San Francisco and part of the northern boundary of Baltimore.

In each of these places, it appears that the political boundary defies not only the street pattern of neighborhoods like Crocker-Amazon (SF) and Woodhome Heights (Baltimore), but in many cases runs right through individual lots and homes. The little bit of research I have done on this topic reveals that in both cases, the political boundary was likely set before the homes and streets were constructed. In the case of SF, is sounds as though the boundary was set in the mid 1800s with development coming along in the 1930s, and in the case of Baltimore the political boundary was set in 1948 with development appearing to be of a post-war pattern.

This raises the question - how could this happen? Were these parcels already subdivided prior to the political boundary being set? And if not, why on earth would a developer subdivide their neighborhoods in this way? And are the individual parcels that fall along these lines legally in two separate counties, or do they pay property taxes to both counties?

This is something that has puzzled me for a few years and, given the topic of this thread, perhaps somebody reading this can provide some insight!

This mall just east of Ottawa, Canada's capital, was built straddling the boundaries of two municipalities in the late 1980s IIRC. The two municipalities were the City of Gloucester and the Township of Cumberland (to the right). The initial mall structure was only in Cumberland, but the owners decided to expand to the west across a street (called Champlain), a part of which still exists to the north of the view. Champlain St. was the boundary, so they built the mall extension over it and some distance beyond.

It was weird because there were different police and fire responders depending on which side of the mall you were in.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4774.../data=!3m1!1e3

All of this is now moot as the City of Ottawa expanded to swallow up most of it's suburbs in 2001 (including these two), and so this is all just Ottawa now.

[BillM]

Mexico City, Mexico to Natal, Brazil > Natal, Brazil to Munich, Germany

[mr1138]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these boundaries interesting! As Craigs points out, the SF line jumps off the map as something that clearly has nothing to do with on-the-ground geography (given how notoriously HILLY the peninsula is).

Originally Posted by deja vu

My guess is that a lot of places like this were developed after boundaries were set, but before there was strict / conscientious enforcement of them. Nowadays, you can't do anything without a site survey and multiple permits. In the 1930's, even though there were local codes and ordinances, I doubt there was as much oversight and care as there is today. That, and the surveying tools / equipment just weren't as accurate back then, so they might well have thought they were in the clear.

What I find interesting is that it would seem to make more sense if the boundary was set AFTER development as opposed to before. I have heard stories of other places - like a bar on the border between Georgia and Tennessee - or other examples from Europe or Colonial America where small surveying errors led to boundaries being re-adjusted after buildings and properties were already there. I can easily see how something like SF's boundary could have cut right through existing tracts of landownership or defied existing street patterns.

But it still seems quite odd to me that it would be the other way around - that anyone would subdivide and develop new parcels straddling these lines after they had already been set. I would guess you are probably right that this has something to do with loose oversight/surveying at the time. But in both of the cases I pointed out, it doesn't seem to be a case of "thinking they were in the clear," because the neighborhoods continue on for many blocks in both directions of the boundaries so they must have known what they were doing. In any case, it definitely qualifies as a "geographic oddity."

[craigs]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds these boundaries interesting! As Craigs points out, the SF line jumps off the map as something that clearly has nothing to do with on-the-ground geography (given how notoriously HILLY the peninsula is).

What I find interesting is that it would seem to make more sense if the boundary was set AFTER development as opposed to before. I have heard stories of other places - like a bar on the border between Georgia and Tennessee - or other examples from Europe or Colonial America where small surveying errors led to boundaries being re-adjusted after buildings and properties were already there. I can easily see how something like SF's boundary could have cut right through existing tracts of landownership or defied existing street patterns.

But it still seems quite odd to me that it would be the other way around - that anyone would subdivide and develop new parcels straddling these lines after they had already been set. I would guess you are probably right that this has something to do with loose oversight/surveying at the time. But in both of the cases I pointed out, it doesn't seem to be a case of "thinking they were in the clear," because the neighborhoods continue on for many blocks in both directions of the boundaries so they must have known what they were doing. In any case, it definitely qualifies as a "geographic oddity."

If you think SF's borders are wack, check out the municipality of Somerville, MA. With the exception of the Mystic River, its borders make zero sense in all directions.

[Acajack]

This Belgian town enclaved within the Netherlands might be the freakiest border situation in the world. It's an enclave, but it has enclaves within the enclave.

Zoom in and you'll see just how tiny some of the "other country" zones are.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This Belgian town enclaved within the Netherlands might be the freakiest border situation in the world. It's an enclave, but it has enclaves within the enclave.

Zoom in and you'll see just how tiny some of the "other country" zones are.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

I've been there. It's really cool. Have to look for little X's on the ground with NL/ BE to see which country you're because if you wander around enough, you do lose track. There are Dutch enclaves within the Belgian enclaves which are in the Netherlands.

[TWAK]

SF touches Alameda island, and there are other CA cities that have a far flung piece of land that is separate from the rest of the city. It usually is occupied by water treatment plants, at least out here.

[craigs]

And then there's the Farallon Islands, fully 30 miles offshore--and yet part of the City and County of San Francisco.


wikipedia

Big city living!

wikipedia

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This Belgian town enclaved within the Netherlands might be the freakiest border situation in the world. It's an enclave, but it has enclaves within the enclave.

Zoom in and you'll see just how tiny some of the "other country" zones are.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

That one is weird, never seen it before. If you zoom in and turn on the satellite photo, you can see some properties are partly in Belgium and partly in the Netherlands:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

[JManc]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

That one is weird, never seen it before. If you zoom in and turn on the satellite photo, you can see some properties are partly in Belgium and partly in the Netherlands:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

That's common. Here was a beer store that I was in that straddled the border:

BN_11 by jmancuso, on Flickr

Belgium on the left, the NL on the right. And in the middle, cases of delicious Delirium beer.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by deja vu

I've wondered about this too, in places closer to home. There are even cases of buildings being bisected by state boundaries. My guess is that a lot of places like this were developed after boundaries were set, but before there was strict / conscientious enforcement of them. Nowadays, you can't do anything without a site survey and multiple permits. In the 1930's, even though there were local codes and ordinances, I doubt there was as much oversight and care as there is today. That, and the surveying tools / equipment just weren't as accurate back then, so they might well have thought they were in the clear. In most (if not all) of these cases, I would have to imagine that the property owners have an understanding (in writing) with the city, county, state, etc. where they pay taxes to just one or the other and not both.

Invisible boundaries are fascinating, especially when a building or neighborhood is split into 2 states or 2 countries.

I actually know a few people that live on the border of Pennsylvania and Delaware.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

That one is weird, never seen it before. If you zoom in and turn on the satellite photo, you can see some properties are partly in Belgium and partly in the Netherlands:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...832!4d4.931736

very interesting but WTF??

[Acajack]

Halifax, the capital and largest city (about 400,000 people) of the province of Nova Scotia, on Canada's east coast, officially includes within its limits an island called Sable Island which is located almost 300 km east of it in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

The uninhabited island is about 35 sq km of dunes, grasslands and beaches.

It is home to a population of about 250 wild horses, known as Sable Island horses. The horses are short, stunted (likely due to in-breeding) and are among the shortest races of horse in the world.

According to legend the horses ended up there after swimming from shipwrecks that took place around the island.

But apparently they are the result of a deliberate implantation, that took place a couple of hundred years ago.

I believe it has the warmest winters of anywhere in Canada east of SW BC. Summers are cool though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sable_Island#Climate

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Halifax, the capital and largest city (about 400,000 people) of the province of Nova Scotia, on Canada's east coast, officially includes within its limits an island called Sable Island which is located almost 300 km east of it in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

The uninhabited island is about 35 sq km of dunes, grasslands and beaches.

It is home to a population of about 250 wild horses, known as Sable Island horses. The horses are short, stunted (likely due to in-breeding) and are among the shortest races of horse in the world.

According to legend the horses ended up there after swimming from shipwrecks that took place around the island.

But apparently they are the result of a deliberate implantation, that took place a couple of hundred years ago.

I believe it has the warmest winters of anywhere in Canada east of SW BC. Summers are cool though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sable_Island#Climate

Is this the island that Canada and the U.S. dispute?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Is this the island that Canada and the U.S. dispute?

Nope. Trying to think of the other one now.

[Acajack]

This is the disputed island. Right off the mainland, and not in the same area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is the disputed island. Right off the mainland, and not in the same area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island

So there's been no US presence on the island in 100+ years? I'd say let Canada have it.