[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Why not join the two parcels and have it valuated (with improvements) as a single lot?

[chaosagent]

Because the idea was to sell the undeveloped lot to fix up the other lot, not sell both of them.

[Sopater]

Why not join the two parcels and have it valuated (with improvements) as a single lot?

Because that isn't what they wanted to do. They wanted to sell one property and use the proceeds to improve the other property.

Why not just do what I will with mine own?

[VietVet876]

Because the value of the two lots combined with existing improvements would be less than the value of two separate lots, one of which is improved.

[Svartalfiar]

Why not join the two parcels and have it valuated (with improvements) as a single lot?

Because that's not what they want to do. They wanted to sell the vacant lot, purchased for investment value, in order to pay to upgrade the improved lot. But the county messed up the value of that second lot, and they simply want to be compensated for the county making the property lose 90% of its value.

Murr's parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment. The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots.