Posted on 10/03/2012 6:57:07 AM PDT by hiho hiho
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.
Sure it is. They made his hose worthless. Maybe they can make up for it by assessing it higher for next years taxes.
hose = house
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.
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.
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.
Zoning regulations are one of the most successful examples of the communist agenda to take down America.
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.
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.
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.
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.