Deed - Root Park, Arroyo Avenue - File 58, 1917 pt1

Home

Alameda County Title Insurance Co. -2- March 16, 1935 the particular purpose of a memorial building was consistent with park purposes. In the course of opinion, however, the Court re- ferred to the fact that the original grantors or their successors had executed an instrument purporting to give, grant, etc. to the City the specific right to erect a veterans memorial building. The Court said about this release: "But if the dedication of the property for park purposes was complete in the first instance, the property thereby became public property and the owners lost all control over it. If the dedication was complete by their acts, whether express or implied, it was thereafter irrevocable by them and the effect of such dedication cannot be qualified by any act or declsrs- tion thereafter made on their part. The property dedicated has become public property impressed with the use for which it was dedicated." In the light of this language, it appears to be unques- tionable that the rights of the public to enjoin the use of the public park property for any other purpose than that of a park would not be affected in any way by any release or quitclaim on the part of the original grantors or their successors. You have called to our attention the provisions of Act No. 6375a, General Laws (Statutes, 1927, page 718, as amended by Statutes, 1929, page 753). This statute purports to give municipalities the rights to relinquish dedication of parks. We think that at least as to dedications occurring prior to the effective date of the statute it is unconstitutional. In the case of Hall vs. Fairchild -Gilmore - Wilton Company (1924 ) 66 Cal. App. 6159 the Court stated tha even the legislature has not the right to withdraw a dedication once made; and the Court refers to a case in Iowa which held a statute very similar to the California statute above mentioned to be unconstitutional. The conclusion seems inevitable that any erection of a city hall on the San Leandro Public Park property would be subject to injunction on the part of any abutting property owner and probably on the part of any member of the general public. Yours very truly, MaKc EE, TASHEIRA & WAHRHAFTIG by: Ridley D. Stone, Jr.