Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Property dispute pits couple against the Army
Kansas City Star ^ | 3/14/2010 | Donald Bradley

Posted on 03/14/2010 8:35:30 AM PDT by Saije

The dream house — for that’s what it was — has commanded a bit of high ground in rural Cass County for eight years.

Four levels, not counting the basement, 10,000 square feet, a deck reaching toward the 25-acre lake, much of it built by the hands of Dick and Joyce Robinson.

But the size of the Robinson place is not what awes.

It’s that no one has ever slept in it, and, quite possibly, no one ever will.

Look out a window to the west. Just over a ridge you see what appears to be a typical Missouri timber patch of scruffy trees and brush.

But take a view from 200 miles up. Satellite imagery reveals the wooded area to be a 184-acre octagon. From the vantage point of space it looks like a huge, green stop sign.

Apropos. Because the owner of those woods, the U.S. Army, stopped the Robinsons cold from ever laying their heads on pillows inside their mansion on a hill.

The two sides have been warring for years.

The struggle has been so bitter that at least twice, law enforcement intervened to quell confrontations between family members and soldiers.

At the root of the conflict is a security easement that surrounds the Army’s octagon-shaped training area that dates to the Cold War. The Robinsons built their dream home smack dab in the middle of the easement.

While the Robinsons own the easement land, the military has made the rules there for a half century, decades before the Robinsons bought the land. One of those rules: No human habitation.

(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: army; easement; house; kansas
Unless I'm missing something, these people went forward with this construction knowing it would be a problem and now whine because the Army didn't cave in as they apparently counted on. They don't have my sympathy.
1 posted on 03/14/2010 8:35:31 AM PDT by Saije
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Saije

Because of your post, I went ahead and read the article. These people are nuts! On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land, or maybe the purchase price reflected compensation.
On the other hand, they knew they couldn’t live in the home, and yet blame the Army for keeping them out. Let me guess ....they’re Dimocrats??


2 posted on 03/14/2010 8:41:58 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (Froggie sez water nice and warm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saije

These people are idiots. Easements are well-spelled out and defined.


3 posted on 03/14/2010 8:42:50 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saije
Yeah, by reading the story they knew darn well what they were doing was illegal. It says when they started bulldozing in 2002, the army sent them a cease and desist order which they ignored a built the house anyway. It always says the army offered them a deal in which they could live in their house, but they refused. This plus the confrontations with soldiers in which police were called, it looks like they might be lefties who are dragging this out to try and build anti-military sentiment.
4 posted on 03/14/2010 8:42:54 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saije
Quite a few local jurisdictions have a semi-squatters provision that says if someone lives on a property contrary to an easement for a specified period of time, then the holder or administrator of the easement loses their right to complain.

The article implies that this couple bought this land really cheaply because of the easement and then tried to beat the clock - by craftily building the house during a period when ownership of the nearby facility shifted from the Air Force to the Army. The guy is even quoted in the article as saying: "I gambled."

5 posted on 03/14/2010 8:49:35 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saije
Unless I'm missing something, these people went forward with this construction knowing it would be a problem and now whine because the Army didn't cave in as they apparently counted on. They don't have my sympathy.

I work at a hospital that has been in the same location for over 100 years. Some people bough an old house right next door and then they bitterly complained about the noise from medical evacuation helicopters.

What part of, "We and our easement rights were here first" do they not understand?

6 posted on 03/14/2010 8:50:06 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1
On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land, or maybe the purchase price reflected compensation.

The easement existed at the time they purchased the land. The former owners of record in 1955 had been "compensated" for the value of the easement at that time.

7 posted on 03/14/2010 8:52:32 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1
On the one hand, they should be compensated for not being able to use their land

They were "compensated" by the reduced sale price of the land that resulted from such a easement.

When you buy property with an easement, you buy it "as is". The purchase price reflects that.

If, on the other hand, the realtor did not disclose the easement or did a sloppy title search, then they can sue the realtor for fraud or negligence.

The Army has no liability in this. They have had their easement rights for decades, maybe since before these people were even born.

8 posted on 03/14/2010 8:56:09 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Saije

Just speculation on my part:

The Army doesn’t have any nearby units that might require this “training area”. I suspect that the Army is just the caretaker. So why the sensitivity? Kansas City has long been the location for the design and manufacture of triggers for nuclear weapons. They probably need a place where they can test certain procedures, such a place needs to be out of public view, but fairly close to the plant.

This bozo can kiss his house goodbye.


9 posted on 03/14/2010 8:56:50 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
I work at a hospital that has been in the same location for over 100 years. Some people bough an old house right next door and then they bitterly complained about the noise from medical evacuation helicopters. What part of, "We and our easement rights were here first" do they not understand?

Yeah, what right have they to complain, what with those helicopters taking off and landing for more than a century!

Regards,

10 posted on 03/14/2010 9:04:27 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

People do it all the time to individuals. This time they just picked on someone bigger that they can’t beat.

Here in Texas, people from all-over but Californians are the worst, will move next to a farm that has been there before they came. Then they complain to the city about the barn looking like a barn or the small of the animals over & over until they win.


11 posted on 03/14/2010 9:34:00 AM PDT by TXDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

The land is next to the old Richards Gabauer Air Force which is being redeveloped for Allied Siginal’s Dep of Energy Nuke Trigger development factory.

The took a risk when the built their house. They knew what the easement was about as the guy was a home builder. He made a dumb mistake in thinking the Gov would vacat the easement. He should get nothing for being a fool.


12 posted on 03/14/2010 11:40:00 AM PDT by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialst States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Saije
Tough luck for the Robinsons.That's what happens when you buy a piece of land either without legal advice or when you ignore that advice.No sympathy for them here (meaning from me,at least),that's for sure.
13 posted on 03/14/2010 12:57:59 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Quite a few local jurisdictions have a semi-squatters provision that says if someone lives on a property contrary to an easement for a specified period of time, then the holder or administrator of the easement loses their right to complain.

Maybe so,but when the holder of the easement is the United States Department of Defense one would reasonably expect less "latitude"...a *lot* less.

14 posted on 03/14/2010 1:00:30 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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