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.”
This is an example of dual ownership. Both you and the state own the land. Unfortunately, the state can permit things over your objection while you can only deny things until somebody gets a permit from the state.
If I don't want those parcels of land used for that purpose, I should either buy them myself or mind my own business. Anyone who wants to control land without paying for it is a Commie.
Zoning sounds good on paper, but leads to more problems than non-zoning. It’s kind of like Marxism and Capitalism. One sounds good on paper, but when applied, it is ugly.
In Texas, many cities do not have zoning and they flourish. You have to live without zoning to appreciate it.
Don’t be a name calling dope. A neighbor doesn’t have the right to devalue another neighbor’s property.
Following your simple minded reasoning only the wealthy should be afforded the right to a reasonable expectation of increasing values from improvements made to a home.
Sure, as long as population density is low. When you get a residence on every acre then problems move into your neighborhood.
If he lopped off an acre of his property so that his son could build a house, he HAS changed his property. Surely he didn't expect his son to be able to get a building permit in his own name, and construct a home on the property in his own name, unless he owned it free and clear, or at least had a legal deed to the property.
Not In Houston.
Land use planning is socialism.
Yeah, and the wealthy bourgeoisie have no right to withhold control of the means of production from the proletariat, social justice, blah blah blah. I've heard it before, comrade. I'm not buying. What's the point of even *having* property lines if you want to control what's beyond them?
... the right to a reasonable expectation of increasing values from improvements made to a home.
Gosh, where's THAT one in the Bill of Rights? I guess I need to read more closely...
Our county has no zoning laws. Each development makes up their own. No doubt this will change some day.
“Property rights mean nothing if you can’t bequeath YOUR own land to your own children.”
Well now that explains where he went wrong. You CAN bequeth it to your children (a gift AFTER you die). He just got the cart before the horse.LOL.
More bureaucratic BS. My county has no zoning laws, but property transfers have to be registered.
There is no property ownership in America.
“Recind the sale .....perpetual lease for one dollar....”
There ya go! Excellent suggestion. (except it was a gift and not sure perpetual leases are allowed in Amerika-depends on what the socialist republic-I mean state laws are)
But I think you may have just solved it. Be an indian giver and take back the gift. Lease it for 30 or 40 years for $1 dollar, and renew the lease if you live longer than that.
Good solution with only one drawback. Kid is co-owner and gets sued, then Dad is dragged into the lawsuit and could loose his property too.
I like post #26 with modifications a good suggestion. Rescind the gift and lease the property for $1 dollar for an extended period say 40 years. Better check the zoning laws first though.
Houston is pretty populated
In the incorporated area of our county, I beleieve there is a 4-5 acre minimum parcel size. That is for health reasons because of the need to seperate wells and septic systems. If this fellow was not on a sewer system, he could have created an unbuildable lot. We also have rules on building in proximity to ditches, lakes and water bodies because of pollution and flooding issues. There are also rules about building on certain grades. These are all established for health and safety and to protect other lot owners. I don’t see that this is in any way a mis-use of public authority.
We are considered a “frontier” county in California with very few local regulations.
I do, however take issue with the extremes of Agenda 21 and “sustainable development” which socially plans development in tight areas for transportation and other efficiencies. (Portland is famous for this.) That goes beyond the legitimate use of the police powers of regulation to prevent substantial injury to public health and safety. It goes well into allegedly “promoting the public benefit” at the expense of the property owner. That is where I draw the line.
marsh2 wrote: “...We are condsidered a “frontier” county...”
I am not sure what our county is considered other than economically depressed. Our state requires slightly less than 4 acres for septic systems. Which I agree it is ok to have such rules given the type of soil and rock we have here.
I am from the “Show Me State.” Show me was my Mom’s favorite expression. LOL
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.