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.
And the attack is made yet again.
You have provided a series of links showing abuses of a morally-neutral legal tool, and you have expressed a strong desire to ban this morally-neutral legal tool.
Anti-gun people do much the same thing. They provid a series of links showing abuses of a morally-neutral physical tool, and they express a strong desire to ban this morally-neutral physical tool.
I prefer, instead, to stay with the intent and the writings of the Founding Fathers, and I have backed up my position with legal analysis, as opposed to the anecdotes you have provided.
Crow is a dish that is best served cold. Please, enjoy it with a dash of Tabasco sauce.
but by depriving them of what they thought they had
You say they thought they had, which is a problem in and of itself, but even if they did think that, it wasn't the case, they were mistaken and need to take responsibility for their carelessness. Some people who like the libertarian philosophy and claim it for themselves forget the second part of the definition. The two parts are indivisable if it is to mean anything.
Individual liberty and personal responsibilty
PS..You still haven't shown the fraud you said he used. Careful, words mean things. Fraud is a serious violation of individual rights.
What the owners *thought* was that they could have the benefits of waterfront living without the taxes and perhaps over time acquire it by adverse posession. (Is that what you lawyers call it?) Actually they sound pretty stupid. Waterfront houses increase in value more than by 10%. They let a good deal slip through their fingers and now it's going to cost them 500k by the time they pay the lawyers.Hope none of them have to sell in the next few years. Property involved in litigation is impossible to sell at market value. Sounds like a bunch of angry old rich retirees.
I haven't read the entire the thread so this might have been discussed. How did this guy gain access to his strip of land surrounding the lake in order to build the fence? Did he tresspass on the other owners property? I am in complete agreement with this guys right to do what he wishes with his property but it would be funny if they simply denied him access to his property by going through theirs. I don't even know if that is legal.
"Some property rights routinely receive constitutional protection, such as water rights. For example, if land is changed from waterfront to inland property by the construction of a highway on the shoreline, the owners of the affected property are to be compensated for their loss of use of the waterfront."
Although this individual is not a government, the precendent set by the 'routinely granted' water rights easements means that the construction of this fence may be in abrogation of the landowners rights. I don't know this for sure, so I merely mention it in passing and will not argue this point strenously.
I will argue strenuously, however, that the pond may be condemned under Eminent Domain, and that the government would be just and legally permitted in so doing, provided they satisfied the 'takings' clause in the Fifth Amendment with an equitable compensation. I will also argue strenuously that condemnation under Eminent Domain is a morally-neutral tool that has a long history, and that its use was sanctioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
In logic, a frivolous and unsupported assertion may be dismissed by an equally frivolous and unsupported assertion.
That is what I did.
Excellent. Thank you, kind sir.
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.