Posted on 05/14/2002 5:05:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
EAST LAKE -- Many residents thought they owned the lake behind their $300,000 homes. They mowed up to the water line and chipped in yearly to treat the lake for algae blooms.
So it came as quite a shock Thursday when workers began erecting a 6-foot-high fence around the lake, obliterating their view.
For good measure, the workers painted a portion of the fence behind Alice Beehner's home bright pink and decorated it with sparkles.
"Isn't that atrocious?" Mrs. Beehner said Monday, pointing to the fence a few feet from her screened-in pool. "It's sickening!"
For 10 years the developer of their Tarpon Woods subdivision had let the taxes lapse on the 4-acre lake and a thin band of land around it.
A real estate speculator swooped in to purchase it for $1,000 at a delinquent tax sale in February. The speculator, 44-year-old Don Connolly of Valrico, now is offering to sell the land behind each of the homes for $30,000 per homeowner.
Residents ignored a letter from Connolly, trustee of the Lake Alice Land Trust that purchased the lake, offering to sell. Instead, someone took a couple of survey posts marking the property boundaries and threw them into the lake.
Connolly said that's when he decided to build the fence.
He started behind Beehner's meticulously landscaped property. The new fence separated her from two mature laurel oaks she planted shortly after moving into her home 17 years ago.
[Times photo: Jim Damaske] The fence behind the house of Alice Beehner, with dogs Beethoven and Bridgette, is pink with sparkles. Don Connolly says the color is to warn workers to stay away "because that person is very volatile and confronted us in the past."
"It's total extortion," Mrs. Beehner, 61, said Monday.
Connolly said he offered to sell the property to the homeowners as a courtesy.
"Is selling a piece of land extortion?" he said. "That doesn't make any sense to me."
He said he specializes in buying properties at tax sales. Records show he owns 50 properties in Pinellas County. Connolly said he owns 150 to 200 statewide.
"When people don't pay their taxes, this is what happens," he said. "I was willing to pay more than anyone else for this property. . . . The business we're in is unpleasant sometimes."
Connolly knows the consequences of failing to pay taxes.
Records show that in 1997 he was charged with failing to remit more than $100,000 worth of sales tax for an auto sales business he owned in Hillsborough County. Connolly blamed it on the company's accounting firm and said he reached a settlement with the state.
Because homeowners have rebuffed his offer, Connolly said, he now plans to develop two or three "executive" homes overlooking the lake. It might entail a dredge and fill project to move the lake a bit to the south, he said.
County officials said that would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish.
"He can't build on it unless he replaces the stormwater drainage," said Al Navaroli, a manager for the county's Development Review Services Department. "And pretty much all of it is stormwater drainage. . . . He's limited in what he can do."
But there's nothing to prevent Connolly from erecting the fence, Navaroli said, or painting it any color he chooses.
"I certainly see the man is trying to be obnoxious to his neighbors," Navaroli said. "But I don't see that he's violating any codes."
On Monday, the fence stretched across three of the 15 waterfront lots. He plans to extend it all the way around the lake.
"My intention is not to annoy anyone," he said.
As for painting the fence pink behind Mrs. Beehner's property, Connolly said, it was done to warn workers to stay away from that site "because that person is very volatile and confronted us in the past."
Connolly said he was shocked by the vitriol from some of the residents. The offer to sell small pieces of land to individual homeowners is off the table. Connolly said he is now negotiating with one homeowner interested in buying the entire 4.7-acre property.
He would not say how much he is asking. "I'm a reasonable man," Connolly said.
Mrs. Beehner warns the pink fence behind her property could be erected behind any number of homes in Pinellas.
"People need to be warned," she said. "This could happen in your back yard."
Connolly said he owns one other lake in Pinellas County.
But Navaroli said his office believes Connolly may own several properties that neighborhoods consider common areas. Navaroli said he warned the county property appraiser's office more than a year ago about the danger of taxing undevelopable lands, such as retention ponds, or selling those lands at tax sale.
"It's a pretty disgusting mess," said County Commissioner Susan Latvala. "We have to prevent this from happening again. That kind of property should not be for sale."
As for the Tarpon Woods lake, however, county officials said there may be nothing they can do to help the homeowners.
Some homeowners blame the developer, Lloyd Ferrentino for allowing the taxes to lapse. At the very least, some said, he should have notified the property owners so they could have tried to buy it. Ferrentino could not be reached Monday.
On Monday, Connolly's workers continued their fence-building, extending it behind the home of Peter Cieslinski. Cieslinski, 44, who was just released from active duty in the Navy a week ago, said he can't believe the county would allow someone to come in and take away his view of the alligators, turtles and wading birds.
"I look at it this way: There's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law," Cieslinski said. "The county is looking at this as the letter of the law. There's got to be a legal Latin term for "the law says this, but wait a minute, look at the extenuating circumstances.' "
Mrs. Beehner said neighbors plan to hire an attorney.
Now, if it were me living there, I'd probably try to rope together a counteroffer more in my price range, and set down to some bargaining. The idea of trying to run someone else off their private property would NOT occur to me.
Aw, man!
Although there are several accepted methods for determining the value of real property in condemnation cases, none of the methods seem to apply here. For example, you can't use "reproduction cost new, less depreciation" or "replacement cost" because you can't reproduce, replace, or depreciate a natural resourse. "Capitalization of income" also doesn't work for obvious reasons. And while "market value based upon comparative sales" might provide a some sort of a benchmark, how many arms length, bono fide sales of ponds are there where the surrounding real estate is not part of the transaction?
Personally, I would value the pond at cost, less 10% (because the ugly pink fence detracts from the value). "Fees" have nothing to do with the value of the property, so by law they can't be included within the condemnation value except to the extend specifically authorized by statute.
Anti-social behavior may lead to the development of corrective legislation. Pretty simple.
You wrote you would condemn the homeowners property instead of his, based on your impression that the homeowners were bad people. I have a different impression, but neither of our impressions matter. Condemnation under Eminent Domain is done -- sparingly, for reasons of practicality -- for the greatest public good, and it is certain that the number of people who would benefit from the condemnation of the lake exceeds one person -- the lake owner.
Furthermore, condemnation of the homeowners many plots of land would be impractical because the cost of acquiring many dozens of $300,000+ homes and the property on which they sit. It is much cheaper and more practical to condemn the lake.
It also simply makes more sense on a variety of levels.
Although there are several accepted methods for determining the value of real property in condemnation cases, none of the methods seem to apply here. For example, you can't use "reproduction cost new, less depreciation" or "replacement cost" because you can't reproduce, replace, or depreciate a natural resourse. "Capitalization of income" also doesn't work for obvious reasons. And while "market value based upon comparative sales" might provide a some sort of a benchmark, how many arms length, bono fide sales of ponds are there where the surrounding real estate is not part of the transaction?
Personally, I would value the pond at cost, less 10% (because the ugly pink fence detracts from the value). "Fees" have nothing to do with the value of the property, so by law they can't be included within the condemnation value except to the extend specifically authorized by statute.
Yep. The homeowners would be better off forming a coalition and letting him decide between 1) a fair price for all the land and 2) not one damn cent from any of them. I suspect, faced with the prospect of not recouping anything, he's sell them the property at a more reasonable price.
The problem is not the county's. It stems from the relationship established, either expressly or impliedly, between the developer. Was there a duty, in contract, or as a matter of law, for the developer to maintain and pay taxes on the lake for the benefit of the homeowners? If that duty exists AND is one that attached to the lake, as a covenant (promise) or easement (permission to use by others) then the present owner will be obligated to observe that duty because it was not extinguished by the tax sale.
If the duty existed and did NOT attach to the property, then it is likely a matter between the homeowner's and the developer.
The county does not have a responsibility to review all of the homeowner/developer relationships underlying residential properties before issuing tax certificates that may eventually be redeemed for tax deeds.
Strictly illegal. The punishment used to be burying the miscreant neckdeep where the monument used to be and plowing off his head.
I *never* complain about all the money I pay my lawyers. It is SO much cheaper to pay $x at the start of a process, than face a $10x unforeseen problem down the road.
I respectfully disagree that this thread is 100% about legality. Many, many posters have addressed the character and actions of the people involved. It is on topic. I agree that there is a legal aspect to it but morality is always an issue. It's what you do about it that is the question. I'm with you that we shouldn't be prosecuting people for moral failings, but they are certainly relevant to society.
Then if you care about this issue, I would suggest you get involved in every Eminent Domain condemnation hearing you can. Full lists of these hearings, dates and times, are available at your county seat. Testify in an "Friend of" brief, and work to change the local use of Eminent Domain proceedings.
Since I am satisfied with the use of this law, I will not be assisting you.
You would be a harsher judge than I would. :o) I'd cut the guy fees and a small profit and tell him to haul his ass outta my court. :o)
There are two worlds. The visible world and the real world.
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.