Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders West Linn family to pay fine for pool (Government out of control)
Portland Tribune ^ | October 1, 2012 | Lori Hall

Posted on 10/03/2012 6:57:07 AM PDT by hiho hiho

One West Linn family may be soaking up the last warm days of the year in their backyard pool for the last time.

A municipal judge has ruled Sept. 24 that Troy and Gina Bundy must pay $72,000 in fines or remove their pool and restore their property within 90 days for the fine to be reduced to $18,000.

If the Bundys do not agree to removal the pool and restore the property, the city still has a couple of options it could pursue, such as nuisance abatement.

The Bundys first appeared in municipal court Sept. 4 and 5. The couple has been battling over the pool with the city of West Linn for several years. The pool — along with a patio, tiki torches, footbridges and a brick wall — was installed without a permit in a sensitive water resources area.

The city wants the pool removed and the backyard restored.

In a Sept. 10 decision, West Linn Municipal Court Judge Heather Karabeika found the Bundys in violation of the city’s community development code, leaving the Bundys facing a fine of up to $360,000.

In court Sept. 20, the city attorney Rhett Bernstein recommended two options.

The first option was a reduction of the fine to $180,000. The second option was if the Bundys agreed to remove the pool and restore their property within 90 days, to further reduce the fine to $90,000.

Although the Bundys have been in violation of city code since the pool was installed in 2009, the statute of limitations restricts the fines to six months prior to the issuance of the citations. The citations were issued May 25.

Troy Bundy, an attorney represented his wife and himself, filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging fraud on the court.

“This fraud had been perpetrated for nearly three years. Defendants have been labeled as liars and cheats in the press, they have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees and have had their lives turned upside down for a backyard improvement,” he wrote in a memo received Sept. 17.

Bundy contested that a document admitted in court as an exhibit was a permit application marked approved and dated Oct. 20, 2009. He said they have never been in violation because they had a permit the whole time.

Bernstein argued, however, that the document approved just the schematics of the pool, not the location of the pool.

Since the document was not new evidence, the judge determined it was not cause enough for a retrial. “I’m somewhat stymied by my options,” Karabeika said.

“This is such an irregular situation,” Bernstein said. “He’s had that document in all its glory since Aug. 6, 2012.”

Since May, the city has fined the couple $1,000 each per day, citing an ongoing code violation, which is retroactive to the time the pool was built in 2009, adding up to $2 million. However, due to statue of limitations, only six months worth of violations count.

The couple have been battling over the pool with the city of West Linn for several years. The pool and a patio were installed without a permit in a sensitive water resource area. Their house, located at 1215 Ninth St., is sandwiched between two wetland areas. Since 2001 — two years before the Bundys moved in — the city has had a conservation easement on the property that also limits its use.

The Bundys admitted in court that they installed the pool and the patio on their property before receiving the proper permits. After an application was submitted, city staff members denied the permit. The Bundys then took the appeal to the city council and then to Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals. The denial was upheld each time.

Since June 2011, the city and the Bundys have been negotiating a timeline for the pool’s removal and remediation without any resolution. Because there was no progress in the negotiations, city attorney Tim Ramis recommended pursuing a different route — thus, the hefty daily citations and court date.

During more than 11 hours of court testimony, the Bundys contended the city made the pool installation process confusing, tricky and cumbersome. They also argued that the area behind their home, which is owned by Portland General Electric, is not a wetland by the city’s definition and that it is a manmade wetland. They also laid blame on city staff as well as a former mayor for misinformation and discrimination.

The judge found all of those claims to be without warrant.

The court found that the Bundy’s home falls within a water resource area and that a special permit is needed to build a pool. The judge also found the Bundys were aware of the need for the permit before construction started.

Bundy brought up several concerns about the trial and how it was conducted during the disposition Sept. 20. Some of those the judge called “outrageous allegations.”

He fought against what he saw as excessive fines, comparing the proposed $360,000 fine to that of the $250,000 fine for kidnapping and the $10,000 fine for a three-time drunken driver.

“City’s belief that a permit violation should be fined at an amount that originally exceeded by four times the value of defendants’ home and a capital murder offense is absurd,” he wrote in his memo.

“It is a sad acknowledgement of this city’s connection with residents and families in West Linn when they believe a family of five’s backyard is more problematic than an individual who takes lives in his own hands by getting behind the wheel drunk and getting caught doing so not once, but three times. That the city attorneys and the city manager believe this permit violation is worth something between the fine for capital murder and human trafficking is incredibly disappointing. If this court honestly believes that such an amount is not unconstitutionally excessive, then may God help us all.”

Bundy also questioned why the case has become national news. He said it wasn’t because the pool was built, but the way the city has reacted to it with the hefty initial $2 million fine.

However, Bernstein accused Bundy for “orchestrating” behind the scenes, having received a phone call from a radio station reporter just hours before the disposition asking about the Oct. 20, 2009, document.

He also questioned the double citations, one against him and one against his wife, when there was only one violation. Bundy also said due process was not followed and that they were denied a jury trial.

The Bundys have poured a large sum of money into the pool installation and its aftermath. Bundy listed past and future expenses at $100,000 for pool installation for which he took out a loan, a planting plan and permits for revision at about $3,500, a DSL fine of $3,000, the purchase of $2,500 in mitigation credits from the wetland bank, a projected cost of $15,000-$20,000 to remove the pool and restore the property, an estimated $65,000 in attorney fees.

“How am I supposed to restore the land if you take all my money?” Bundy asked.

“The impact of the Bundys’ endeavors certainly has given the appearance that the process has been unnecessarily perpetuated and time-consuming and it would appear that a substantial amount of resources were expended on both sides attempting to resolve this situation,” wrote Karabeika in her ruling.

At this time, it is unknown what the Bundys will decide to do.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS:
“How am I supposed to restore the land if you take all my money?”
1 posted on 10/03/2012 6:57:13 AM PDT by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
However, due to statue of limitations, only six months worth of violations count.

Journalism majors are *so* smart.

2 posted on 10/03/2012 7:03:18 AM PDT by Sloth (If a tax break counts as "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should be a "deposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
a sensitive water resources area...

I thought it rained every other day in Portland?

3 posted on 10/03/2012 7:04:10 AM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

Bad values result in bad laws.
Bad laws result in bad judgements.

This is why Christian values have been such an historical advantage for the US.

And why the ‘progress’ we have made away from those principles over the past 50 years has caused so much distress in our nation.


4 posted on 10/03/2012 7:05:09 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

If the city has such an easement on “his” property, it’s not really his property. Legally it is, unfortunately.


5 posted on 10/03/2012 7:06:59 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Congrats to Ted Kennedy! He's been sober for two years now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
The pool — along with a patio, tiki torches, footbridges and a brick wall — was installed without a permit in a sensitive water resources area.

Your private property is not yours. The king only lets you live on it for as long as it pleases him. Now you must pay for damaging the king's property......

6 posted on 10/03/2012 7:08:36 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is it just me, or is Hillary! starting to look like Benjamin Franklin?.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Unfortunately, this is not the statue.........

7 posted on 10/03/2012 7:10:27 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is it just me, or is Hillary! starting to look like Benjamin Franklin?.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

“Wetlands” one of the major reasons the EPA is looking to hire only people with Pistol permits.

My former facilities engineer (who handled all the EPA and DEC crappola) was looking to the EPA for a job and they had over 200 positions available but she needed a pistol permit to qualify.


8 posted on 10/03/2012 7:13:19 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
Troy Bundy, an attorney represented his wife and himself, filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging fraud on the court.

So Troy, $65,000 in attorney's fees... your charging yourself a pretty hefty fee there.

9 posted on 10/03/2012 7:14:06 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

“If the Bundys do not agree to removal the pool...”

Someone in Portland needs to stop smoking pot and proofread her article.


10 posted on 10/03/2012 7:14:10 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusty old prospector

Usually it does rain incessantly. Having enough water isn’t a problem here.

However, we’ve had a great summer this year!


11 posted on 10/03/2012 7:14:27 AM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
'Since 2001 — two years before the Bundys moved in — the city has had a conservation easement on the property that also limits its use.'

I would fault him in purchasing a property with a easement on it. Never do that. It will only lead to a headache. Let this be a lesson for all.

12 posted on 10/03/2012 7:15:57 AM PDT by Theoria (Romney is a Pyrrhic victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
Just implementing Plank #1 of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

The Ten Planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
(and How Statists Implement Them)

  1. Abolition of private property rights (via high property taxes, restrictive zoning laws, "fair housing" edicts, environmental and "wetlands" regulations, UN Agenda 21, etc.)

  2. Institution of a heavily graduated income tax (by calling it "taxing the rich")

  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance (through a confiscatory estate tax on "the rich")

  4. Confiscation of the property of enemies of the state (through lawless application of asset forfeiture and eminent domain)

  5. Centralization of credit into the hands of the state (Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, federal takeover of student loans, etc.)

  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation into the hands of the state (FCC, DOT, FEMA, NTSB, FAA, etc.).

  7. Consolidation and subjugation of all major industries to central government control (FDA, EPA, OSHA, ICC, HUD, NLRB, EEOC, DOE, TSA etc.)

  8. Mandatory labor union membership (teachers and other public-sector unions, planned unionization of 21-million Obamacare health care workers, automatic withholding of forced union dues, "card check," etc.)

  9. Equitable redistribution of all wealth (TANF, SSI, EITC, SNAP, etc.)

  10. Free public education (and food and health care and cell phones and Internet access, etc.)

13 posted on 10/03/2012 7:20:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

$65,000 in fees to an attorney who doesn’t understand the significance of an easement does seem a little excessive.


14 posted on 10/03/2012 7:26:06 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
"was installed without a permit in a sensitive water resources area."

Rule #1 - get approval in writing from local government before building pools or structures on your land. I.e., get appropriate permits and authorizations. This is not a new concept in how local governments govern.

15 posted on 10/03/2012 7:28:50 AM PDT by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

The kids will need jobs to pay dad back, lol.


16 posted on 10/03/2012 7:32:36 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“Your private property is not yours. The king only lets you live on it for as long as it pleases him. Now you must pay for damaging the king’s property......”

From the perspective of the elites of academia, the media world, and government we are all serfs in bondage.


17 posted on 10/03/2012 7:37:47 AM PDT by Soul of the South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JesusIsLord

Construction permits and inspections are something everybody has to deal with. The process can be a major pain.

But I’m more than a little dubious when an attorney claims the law is too confusing for him to have understood what he needed to do before building.

I assume he didn’t do all the work personally. Most contractors will require a copy of the approved permit before starting work.


18 posted on 10/03/2012 7:42:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles. Reality wins all the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
The couple have been battling over the pool with the city of West Linn for several years. The pool and a patio were installed without a permit in a sensitive water resource area. Their house, located at 1215 Ninth St., is sandwiched between two wetland areas. Since 2001 — two years before the Bundys moved in — the city has had a conservation easement on the property that also limits its use.

I have no sympathy for these people whatsoever. Regardless of what I think of "wet-land" laws, the restrictions and permit requirements are a matter of public record and therefore, they knew or should have known about the restrictions and limitations upon the real property and the requirements for installing a pool before they brought the place. A standard title search should have disclosed the information and if they didn't understand the title report, then I'm willing to bet that they closed on the propery without an attorney.

The Bundys admitted in court that they installed the pool and the patio on their property before receiving the proper permits. After an application was submitted, city staff members denied the permit. The Bundys then took the appeal to the city council and then to Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals. The denial was upheld each time.

They took a chance and lost and now they are whining about the consequences. I have been practicing land use litigation for almost thirty years and municipalities often hire me to prosecute code violations. I deal with these type of people all the time: They think the law doesn't apply to them; they do what they want when they want without concern for the law, their neighbors, public safety, or anyone but themselves; and they refuse to negotiate in good faith; and when the municipality finally decidesd to enfoce the law, they cry and whine and complain about how they are being unfairly targeted. Cry me a river.

19 posted on 10/03/2012 7:45:27 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

You didn’t build that.


20 posted on 10/03/2012 7:45:27 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

When I was a kid this was a free country.......


21 posted on 10/03/2012 7:45:31 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is it just me, or is Hillary! starting to look like Benjamin Franklin?.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

this is like DC bureacracy.

One department approves designs—pay the fee

One department approves the permit —pay the fee

One department issues the fines — pay the fee

One department approves the inspections — pay the fee

AND then you have to repeat the process again because the inspector found out the others recieved a higher bribe so the whole process starts again.

oh and these are not taxes, they are user fees.


22 posted on 10/03/2012 7:51:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

The following is from— http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/OR-Wetland-Swimming-Pool/1YI4u9v-uUm4IxFd-yoRWQ.cspx

In a story first reported by KOIN, the Bundys built their backyard pool in 2009. The couple says the city and mayor gave them every indication the pool was OK to build, even though their backyard was next to wetlands. Three years later, the couple told KOIN they were getting retroactive fines from the city to the tune of $2 million, potentially making this the most-expensive pool in the Pacific Northwest. That’s when the Bundys took this issue to West Linn municipal court.

According to West Linn Assistant City Manager Kirsten Wyatt, “we generally say that you cannot build a pool within a water resource area.”

However, Wyatt clarified that the Bundys’ site is not in but rather near an area designated as wetlands. That being said, she contends that the Bundys “took the fill from the pool and dumped it into the wetland.”

“Generally, citizens need a ‘water resource area permit’ if building [near] a wetland or setback area,” Wyatt said. “They applied, after the pool was installed, for the permits; they did go through a series of steps related to permitting and process.”

In the end, she tells KOIN, “the pool did not meet the kind of criteria required for a pool to be in that area.”


23 posted on 10/03/2012 7:56:41 AM PDT by hiho hiho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

24 posted on 10/03/2012 7:57:39 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Over half of the state of Louisiana is classified as ‘wetlands’ severely restricting its use. I would imagine that most of the Portland, OR area is also classified as a ‘wetlands’. It’s hard to find a piece of property to build on when all of the property is restricted, thus making everyone a potential lawbreaker just for using his land. When everybody is a lawbreaker then the state can pick and choose which Romney supporter to prosecute.


25 posted on 10/03/2012 8:02:44 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

I suppose it’s unreasonable for the city to be asked to demonstrate actual damaged actually caused by this pool and patio.


26 posted on 10/03/2012 8:19:01 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Hopey changey Low emission unicorns and a crap sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

27 posted on 10/03/2012 8:34:06 AM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Then the king needs deposed.

Private property rights are inviolable under natural law.

To Hades with local statutes and environmentalism.


28 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:03 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

The EPA needs to go.

Thank you, you lying paranoid gold standard-killing RINO crook, Richard Nixon.

And the same to Ford for pardoning that SOB. Nixon should have spent the rest of his life in prison.


29 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:11 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JesusIsLord

Local governments can go pound salt. What’s mine is mine to do with as I see fit.

Get rid of property taxes, too. Let the schools close. Free education isn’t a right, anyway


30 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:16 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

You’re a part of the problem, then.

Remove all restrictions on private land use.


31 posted on 10/03/2012 8:40:32 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("On the ascent of Olympus, what's a botched bar or two?" -Artur Schnabel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Yes, how foolish to think if they bought property they could improve it to suit their needs. They simply bought the right to pay the taxes.

BTW, I didn't see any mention of the harm to the “wet land” or the public interest mentioned. Just “da rooz”.

Maybe they can file bankruptcy and leave the county a house that can't be sold or taxed.

32 posted on 10/03/2012 8:41:08 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

There’s no such thing as private property rights, as this couple have found out the hard way. Once you move on to a parcel of land, you are at the mercy of the local governing body, and you have little or no recourse under the law (as specified by the governing body of course). You, and you alone are responsible for complying with the local ordinances, paying your tax bill, and following what the local governing body suggests is best for the municipality. This concludes your lesson in socialism 101. Have a nice day.


33 posted on 10/03/2012 9:02:20 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho
when they believe a family of five’s backyard is more problematic than an individual
who takes lives in his own hands by getting behind the wheel drunk and getting caught doing so not once, but three times.

Laws are meant to entrap law abiding citizens. Real criminals don't have money silly.


So they went to trial but did they decide on a jury or is a judge only trial the only way to fight this?
Some courts will not allow jury trials because of the absurdity of many charges and laws,
and courts know this but make other excuses. And no sane taxpayer would allow this kind
of system. Accept maybe on the left coast.

Anybody have a map of how much they deem to be wetlands in Oregon? Mud puddle heaven.

34 posted on 10/03/2012 9:05:53 AM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Yea by god, if the gov says it must be, then it must be.
What a load..


There are laws and rules that are unjust and simply totalitarian over
people and private property. "Just because" isn't good enough.

35 posted on 10/03/2012 9:14:49 AM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

from the article, permits aside.

This is an improper taking without compensation. It is not that the pool is on a wetland but that it is toooooo close to a wetland. so the goverment can set aside an area and then take via policy rather than law without compensation.


36 posted on 10/03/2012 9:19:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

37 posted on 10/03/2012 9:28:55 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

ping


38 posted on 10/03/2012 9:35:50 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

If it has a conservation easment than somebody has already been compensated.


39 posted on 10/03/2012 9:46:38 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Your private property is not yours. The king only lets you live on it for as long as it pleases him. Now you must pay for damaging the king's property.....

...and here I thought the Magna Carta was part of our common law...

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
    Speech on the Excise Bill, House of Commons (March 1763).

40 posted on 10/03/2012 9:49:12 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

true.

many cities just “declare” easements and figure everything is legal until a judge says otherwise. The thought is the peons never have enough money for real law suits and if there is one pro se suit, it never goes into class action status.

It is the ford pinto analysis the suits used to calculate the deaths were cheeper than the repairs.


41 posted on 10/03/2012 9:49:59 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This is an improper taking without compensation.

Sure it is. They made his hose worthless. Maybe they can make up for it by assessing it higher for next years taxes.

42 posted on 10/03/2012 9:51:37 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

hose = house


43 posted on 10/03/2012 9:56:10 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Here in California they had a law ( the brown act i think) thay rural property owners could enter into to save on property taxes. It had reasonable restrictions on future development and a clear path to withdraw. Over the years they have made changes that are quit different from what people originally signed on to. The county has spent big bucks trying to enforce their onesided changes to an entirely different agreement.


44 posted on 10/03/2012 10:06:41 AM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

I believe the proper constitutional interpretation of all “conservation easements” should be that they are a “taking”, and as a taking it requires the government to purchase ALL the property along the “easement”.

If “the people” actually want an area of land “protected” they are in effect declaring they want the land for “public use” and to deny the full and unobstructed private use of the land.

That constitutes a “taking” for “public use” and if that’s what the people demand of government then government is obligated to buy the land, and to buy it at fair market value, not fire sale value.

I think that if voters realized that it should be their tax dollars that pay for the full cost of “conservation easements”, they would authorize fewer of them and would restrict them to undeveloped lots not in demand by developers; reducing the costs they would incur in any “eminent domain” proceeding.


45 posted on 10/03/2012 10:06:41 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Who in the world sold them a pool without installation?

The installers know enough to check on permits.

Looks like they get to sue the pool company for proceeding with an illegal installation ...

Actually, most “water conservation “ districts never conserve a drop, nor do they actually protect anything except the district supervisors’ paycheck.

46 posted on 10/03/2012 10:18:57 AM PDT by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hiho hiho

Zoning regulations are one of the most successful examples of the communist agenda to take down America.


47 posted on 10/03/2012 11:13:27 AM PDT by Missouri gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Yes, how foolish to think if they bought property they could improve it to suit their needs.

They knew about the restrictions when they brought the property and if the property was unsuitable for their needs, thne they should (a) brought another property someplace else that did nothave the restrictions: (b) work to legally change the law; or (c) comply with the code to obtain the required permit before installing the pool in violation of the code.

From reading your posts, I have the impression that you are against any property use restrictions of any kind even if one person's use of their property impair's the use of value of neighboring properties. Many suburban municipalities, for example, have a code provision that prohibits a landowner form installing a pool or deck within a certain distance of a common boundry with another residential property. The obvious reason is so that one neighbors' use of their pool and deck does not disturb another neighbor's good night sleep. Based upon your comments, however, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your neighbor put a 24' above ground pool and deck with bright lights for all night parties, a 12 speaker sound system, kegalator, and a smokey fire pit six inches from the boundry line, right under your bedroom window.

48 posted on 10/03/2012 12:57:43 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Yes, how foolish to think if they bought property they could improve it to suit their needs.

They knew about the restrictions when they brought the property and if the property was unsuitable for their needs, thne they should (a) brought another property someplace else that did nothave the restrictions: (b) work to legally change the law; or (c) comply with the code to obtain the required permit before installing the pool in violation of the code.

From reading your posts, I have the impression that you are against any property use restrictions of any kind even if one person's use of their property impair's the use of value of neighboring properties. Many suburban municipalities, for example, have a code provision that prohibits a landowner form installing a pool or deck within a certain distance of a common boundry with another residential property. The obvious reason is so that one neighbors' use of their pool and deck does not disturb another neighbor's good night sleep. Based upon your comments, however, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your neighbor put a 24' above ground pool and deck with bright lights for all night parties, a 12 speaker sound system, kegalator, and a smokey fire pit six inches from the boundry line, right under your bedroom window.

49 posted on 10/03/2012 12:58:24 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Based upon your comments, however, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your neighbor put a 24' above ground pool and deck with bright lights for all night parties, a 12 speaker sound system, kegalator, and a smokey fire pit six inches from the boundry line, right under your bedroom window.

Absurd. That would be a real detriment to the neighbor. So would running a commercial enterprise in a residential area. As I stated before, what was the harm to the neighbors or community in this case? Half million dollar fines? For a so-called wet land? This is government run amok. That you support it says more about you than my objection does about me. I can distinguish between the reasonable and the absurd.

50 posted on 10/03/2012 1:12:51 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson