Posted on 05/17/2007 11:19:28 PM PDT by anymouse
Much about Friendswood has changed since Billy Wynn bought his 12-acre farm almost three decades ago.
When his neighbors on Lundy Lane wanted to pave the city’s last gravel street, he voluntarily gave up a piece of his land so the city could build a drainage ditch.
That deal was sealed with a handshake with then-Mayor Ralph Lowe.
But the next time he tried to give a piece of his property away, the city wasn’t quite as cooperative.
Last August, Wynn gave an acre to his son as a birthday present so his son could build a house on the same land he grew up on.
But months later, he learned he could face more than $600,000 in fines.
City Manager Bo McDaniel sent Wynn a letter last month that told him he was in violation of the city’s subdivision regulations.
If he didn’t schedule a meeting with the city within 10 days and start platting the land, he’d face a $600,000 fine.
City spokesman Nick Haby said the fees haven’t been assessed yet, even though the 10-day mark passed two weeks ago.
The thought of the fees is still hanging over Wynn, but he said he hopes he can get the situation worked out before the city changes its mind.
The problem is that state law doesn’t make a distinction between a landowner giving a corner of property to a family member and a developer building a subdivision.
Texas local government law prohibits landowners from dividing land without approval from the city — a law that makes sure that cities know plans for new neighborhoods before they’re up.
In Wynn’s case, it took a while before he realized he had dome something wrong.
After he gave his son the land, his son began talking to architects and planning to build the home.
When he went to get a building permit, he was told the land would have to be platted.
His son did that, but then Wynn got an unwelcome surprise.
His son couldn’t get his building permits until Wynn’s land was platted and because that wasn’t done, the city told his son he could sue his father.
Wynn said he doesn’t understand why he now has to pay to have his land platted when he hasn’t changed anything about his property.
“I thought I lived in America — I could give land to him if I wanted to,” Wynn said. “This floored me to death.”
Wynn said he’s going to get his land platted, but hopes not to face the fines. He said there’s no way he could pay them.
“Friendswood drew all these ordinances, worried about big land developers from out of state and grabbing land and putting whatever they want onto it,” he said. “I understand them trying to protect city, but I moved to Friendswood in 1965. I just want to give my son an acre. They shouldn’t treat me like I’m a criminal.”
Wynn said he thinks the rules protect the city in case he sold the land to a developer. But that’s not something in his plans, he said.
“They are worried I’m going to come in and sell it off,” he said. “I’m going to live here until they take me off in a pine box. Then it’ll all be the kids’ anyway.”
Zoning is another element for control and manipulation of private property by the various fascists and speculators infiltrating government.
In my county, politicians, engineering companies, and construction firms bought up property near the villages over the years, hoping to make a killing by restricting building to those areas controlled by them with zoning. The citizens shot down the zoning laws. Now the speculators and bureaucrats who hoped to make big bucks off real estate deals are stuck with crappy property nobody wants to build on and businesses don’t want to move into.
The fascists and speculators tried the usual scare tactics to pass zoning, including the old bluster about a pig farm moving next door. Zoning is nothing more than the American version of soviet socialism.
You said: Fascism in America - Property rights mean nothing if you can’t bequeath YOUR own land to your own children.
***
Overreaction here. The man can sell, give or bequeath the entire property to anyone he likes. The issue is subdividing the property. If the land is not developed it creates few problems, but when it is built upon, and most property eventually is, there are issues of septic/sewer connections, access to roads, setbacks, subesequent conveyances of the property, etc. Subdivision requirements are an aid to transfer of property, not a hindrance.
I suspect the bigger problem is subdivision and zoning. Most municipalities don't want to allow postage-stamp sized plots of land.
Everyone seems to hate zoning— until the porn shop,junk yard or convenience store opens up next door, then people want protection. I represent a few small towns, and I cannot tell you how many times crowds of people have come out to squawk about zoning regulations that help them preserve the value and quiet enjoyment of their own property. People say that everyone should be able to use their land for whatever they want, but when a landowner wants to sell to a hog farmer, somehow the neighboring residents don’t feel as charitable. For of us fortunate enough to live on multi-acre parcels, or in residential developments with restrictive covenants the problems don’t seem to exist. For those of lesser means (most people), the possibility that a totally inappropriate and unwanted use may open up next door is a frightening threat to what is their greatest single lifetime investment.
Zoning creates a certain level of predictability and order, but yes, at the cost of some freedom of use of the land. Done right, I believe it is a fair tradeoff.
You said: I don’t do property law, but my memory says that transfers don’t **have** to be recorded (though that’s a bad idea for the reason you named, specifically, it’s tough to enforce without such a record), but they must be done in writing (statute of frauds).
***
You are correct, at least under North Carolina law. The true risk of failing to record in this state is that the seller can convey the land again to another person, and if that second buyer records before you do, you own nothing.
Recind the sale and give the Son a perpetual lease for one dollar per year. Problem solved.
Just a reminder that here in New Aztlan, you don’t own your land - you rent it from the government.
Well, there you go injecting reality into the discussion. What a way to ruin a Friday!
I believe that all 50 states require real property transfers to be recorded. Chief reasons nowadays would be taxes and liability. The tax bill is the responsibility of the last owner of record, as the county can’t mail it to someone they don’t know about or put a lien on a property if they don’t know whose it is. If somebody gets injured on a property, or there’s a toxic waste spill, the last recorded owner of the property is the owner — neither an individual or government agency can bring suit against someone they can’t identify. If people were allowed to have private written instruments serve as valid land transfers, loss of a piece of paper (say in a house fire or tornado) could eliminate the only proof of the transfer, and all hell would break loose in cases of ownership disputes. And just imagine the chaos back in the days when the federal government was giving away land under homesteading laws, and many farmers were illiterate (and look how the Indians made out, with their lack of recorded land titles).
People can do an unrecorded land contract and own the land. As long as the contract is notarized, it is legal and binding. That is why there is title insurance, to protect against prior claims to land. I have done mortgages in KY and TN, and I have seen land contracts not recorded for a decade. It is perfectly legal.
>> Everyone seems to hate zoning yadda yadda
You darn right I hate zoning, the way it is practiced by the “vertical growth maximum taxbase minimum municipal footprint” bureaucrats.
I’m not talking about the zoning that keeps bars and pornshops and hog farms out of residential areas. That kind of zoning is necessary.
I’m talking about the nannystate teenytinylot overlandscaped overcurbed overregulated development-restrictions that are designed SOLELY to yield maximum tax base and minimum municipal footprint. (They worship Algore, doncha know.)
It’s not zoning for the benefit of the residents — it’s to ensure maximum revenue for the municipal bureaucrats to spend, and make the job of the (unionized) police and fire dept. as easy as it can be.
I live in the Washington DC area. A co-worker bought a parcel of land in a suburban area—it was a refuse strewn wooded lot. He wanted to subdivide it into three lots for houses—which he was basically assured was doable.
He bought the property for a few hundred thousand. Thus far he has spent $60,000 for lawyers and engineers to help him get approval from Alexandria to divide the land. This has been in the works for years now.
Finally in desperation (not saying it was the right thing) he bribed the city engineer to the tune of $5000 who assured him he would see it through. Almost two years later, it is still winding its way through the system.
To be a good neighbor (there are 8 houses in an adjoining lot) he went to the neighbors to tell them what he is doing and see if there were any objections and to work with them. A number of them (rich folks)have demanded various accomodations which will cost him thousands.
Unfortunately this whole system has been taken over by the rich, corrupt, and well connected so that the average person does not stand much of a chance.
“Most don’t”
That’s because pin headed city officials think they know better how an owner should spend his money than the person that owns the money.
If I am going to build my home next to a factory, why should a city official tell me that I can’t?
Life is better without zoning laws.
When the father passes on, the son has the land.
One word of warning. Appoint a manager to see that the taxes and any liens are always taken care of otherwise the city will get their grabbers onto the land for sure.
you don’t really believe that do you?
city would come up with a “single residence property” rule violation and assess just as much in fines.
I used to have to do title searches as part of my job at a surveying firm, and some titles read just like that...
Let’s think about that. A neighbor puts five head of hogs in his yard next to yours. Your life hasn’t gotten any better, only worse.
I’ll assume you live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. Do you think your life gets better if someone buys a couple of lots across the street from you and puts in two mobile home. Not a chance of your property values doing anything but going down.
That factory you mentioned. Imagine it’s put up in your neighborhood. How does the added traffic, noise and reduced property values make you life better?
I worked on a surveying crew for a title company and did location services for residential property to hundredths of a foot (about 1/8 inch). Generally in my area, a piece of rebar pounded into the ground or in an iron monument box, a drill hole in a stone inside a monument box or in concrete, or a surveyors nail pounded into paving or a firm immovable surface are OK. We had one pounded into a tree root. Easily moved objects such as rocks, etc. would not hack it. Titles need to be filed with the county auditor.
We had some strange days. On one street, the builder was an immigrant with a poor grasp of english (and measuring). He built all the houses three feet onto the neighbor's land on one whole side of a street. No one noticed until he had put in foundations. A whole bunch of narrow parcel transfers.
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.
