|
Building violations roil neighborhood
While paging through their site to find the first story (since it involves me) I also found the second one, which I found amusing.
Stun gun use inflames town (discussed lower down)
So across the street from us some people moved in and started work on a monster house. They've sunk a few million into it so far (this is Wyoming, that goes a lot farther than it would in California). Problem being, they thought their lot extended to the curb when in fact the city has a 25' right of way.
The error means their house is a couple feet over the setback line (another 15' or something from the edge of the property line) and this rather ugly carport (we are assured it will look better when done) they are building in front actually extends into city land.
The proposed solution was for the city to sell them the entire 25' strip of right of way fronting their property: some 6000 square feet, for a total of $27,000 - basically chump change.
This annoyed us and a bunch of neighbors who felt that violating codes and ordinances and building on someone else's property didn't deserve the reward of being given a larger lot, on which they could build a fence right by the road. Why are they getting a free pass, when several of us have had our feet held to the fire over relatively much more minor infractions with building height and setback lines?
We showed up at the city council meeting, and the council seemed inclined to go ahead and vacate the city land. We raised our objections (fiddly stuff like the notice of proposed vacation not being clear) and called for fair to be fair. I was rather put out that after they found out about the violation, they kept building. I thought how convenient for them that the city generally doesn't require pre-existing structures to come down in the event of a violation (as testified by the town planner). It's almost as though they thought they could squat on the land and it would be given to them.
There was a string of people saying how great they are and the how the landscaping would be nice. I don't give a shit how nice they'll make the land, it isn't theirs, not to mention it won't always be them living on that lot and who knows what the next guy would do.
In the end, having no real legal arguments, their side revolved mostly around how the city had effed up by not catching the error for a good year, and "why is everyone being mean to us, why didn't you just come and talk". I guess 3 phonecalls and a big meeting with all the objecting neighbors didn't count. The council finally voted to grant an easement, barely large enough to hold the carport and tied to the carport (so if it ever goes away, so does the easement). We're put out because they keep their violating structure, they are put out because they can't put up their large deer fence right at the road, but would be required to have it rather close to their front door. No one is happy.
Later that night, the council tabled a motion dealing with some old lady who had a shed in the wrong place, and who was threatened with a fine and jail time by the same city planner's office. What, is she not rich enough to be accommodated? Do people think she won't do as good a job at landscaping? Do you only have to follow the law if you don't have enough friends who think you're wonderful? Or is she just not as good at backroom deals (which is the perception a lot of people have)? I'll sure as hell show up when they deal with her to remind them how they were quick to jump and accommodate our neighbors.
During the meeting one of the councilmen brought up a few emails he'd received in support of the violators, but now that it's over, they've been getting negative mail (per a council member we know). Some people are not very happy that either the city screwed up or they ignored property lines (dude should know better, he's in real estate FFS) and got off with a slap on the wrist.
In the local paper (not linked) the neighbor says (paraphrased) "I'm surprised the city didn't prefer to have me pay them $27,000". A: that's a drop in the bucket for the city's budget. B: that looks a bit like an admission that you were trying to get your way by throwing money around. C: You wouldn't be "giving" the city anything. You would be trading that money for land of equal value. D: It would cost less to move your carport.
I had this fantasy that they only put the carport in front of their beautiful house instead of to the side so it would extend onto city land so they would have an excuse to have it vacated and hey, bigger lot! but now that's failed so they are stuck with an ugly carport ruining the front side of the house (picture fourth panel of rage comic). I of course don't think it was that malicious, it seems more like a monumental cock-up, so that was just a funny image.
Anyway, I spoke in the meeting and offended them a little, and it's paraphrased in the article (which is in a newspaper with a massive circulation of 50,000) hahaha my career in politics is launched
********************************
Tractor + taser
Not as much to say here, I wasn't there. But check the story. 76 year old redneck farmer on his tractor at the tractor parade deviates from the route, ignores cop's order to stop, hits a cruiser and gets tased (5 times) before driving off again. Cops don't arrest him because of the mob that formed :D
Police brutality? Or another moron ignoring police orders (and hitting police vehicles wtf)? The crowd's response: heroes for protecting the fellow redneck or idiots for preventing the cops from doing their job and arresting someone who was resisting arrest and damaging police property?
*******************************
also in our local paper: a picture of Chris Rock eating at a local steakhouse lolol Dude rolled through with an RV. Not quite as epic as the camper fighting off a mountain lion with a chainsaw from my last entry. Maybe we can get Chris Rock to fight off a bear with a butcher knife
|
Reading, just posting to say this is a great fucking blag title.
|
(referring to the first story)
It's this kind of thing that really pisses me off. Callous disregard for equality under the law by the lawmakers should be punished severely. Thank god you people are standing up for it.
|
Yeah, it really pisses me off. The old lady with the shed isn't the only example. Some family friends have a garage on their property. It's been there for 50 years. They've spent a bunch of money renovating it into an apartment for their recently divorced daughter. City inspector shows up and oops, it's a foot over the setback line, so they aren't allowed to continue with the work (stuff like hooking up electricity and sewage etc). You'd think if they're not going to grandfather this thing in after 50 years they'd come down a little harder on our neighbors; but no they are friends with the mayor and some of the councilors and a judge and they might donate to the museum! We'd better accommodate them! I'm really not happy with how the city handled all this.
The house is hilarious by the way. They'll never sell that monster, at least not for anything close to what they paid for it (and it's still going). It's a 3+ million dollar house with one bedroom LOL. Not to mention a lot of the cost is due to stupid shit like ordering the builders to hand drive all the nails. No nail guns allowed, they aren't quality I guess. That won't add to the price when they go to sell it. Maybe they are going to will it to the museum. Will serve the museum right to be saddled with that albatross.
There's so much worse stuff going on in the world right now, but what looks like favoritism on the part of the people we elected, and right in your own backyard.. well it got me pretty mad and I don't like being mad. All these foreigners moving in (by foreigners I mean in this case people from Washington DC) :D We also had Bill Gates buying a ranch right outside of town in June. fffffuuuuuuuuu
|
For the people bitching about "unfair" other examples.
I bet they could be fixed with 27,000 dollars, like the people in the topic did.
Infact I bet any example you could come up with could be fixed with 27,000 dollars.
You say 27,000 dollars is chump changefor them but the fact is 27,000 is a significant amount of money. More than enough to get your way...especially in freaking Wyoming. Money talks.
To be honest..who really gives a fuck if their fence is 25 feet closer to the road. Does it honestly have any affect on your life?
|
On September 04 2009 20:41 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
For the people bitching about "unfair" other examples.
I bet they could be fixed with 27,000 dollars, like the people in the topic did.
Infact I bet any example you could come up with could be fixed with 27,000 dollars.
You say 27,000 dollars is chump changefor them but the fact is 27,000 is a significant amount of money. More than enough to get your way...especially in freaking Wyoming. Money talks.
To be honest..who really gives a fuck if their fence is 25 feet closer to the road. Does it honestly have any affect on your life?
I think he's more angry at the fact that they weren't held to the same standards other people were because they were able to throw money around. Money shouldn't equal exemption from the law.
|
On September 04 2009 21:35 Pioneer wrote:
I think he's more angry at the fact that they weren't held to the same standards other people were because they were able to throw money around. Money shouldn't equal exemption from the law.
bingo. also im sure if they checked with the city first about the legality of the carport location before starting construction and then bought the land for it it wouldn't be a problem. Stupid arrogant people (not to mention the city which gave them a free ride)
|
At first I thought you were the homeowner from the first article and I was going to call you a douchebag. Now I have nothing to contribute to this thread so I will leave it at that.
|
what a shallow bunch of folks haha
i hope fence gets built right on the road with dead deer hanging down everywhere
|
On September 04 2009 20:41 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:
For the people bitching about "unfair" other examples.
I bet they could be fixed with 27,000 dollars, like the people in the topic did. Infact I bet any example you could come up with could be fixed with 27,000 dollars.
When it comes to the law, that should not be the case, because as you mention, that is too much for most people. The rule of law must be fair. In this case, their money didn't solve the problem for them and that is how it should be.
To be honest..who really gives a fuck if their fence is 25 feet closer to the road. Does it honestly have any affect on your life?
You'd have been a perfect speaker for their side at the meeting. "who really cares it doesn't affect your life, let them do what they want. They're great people (which probably is true)!" A bunch of people are happy the fence isn't going to be there because the road by where they live is right on the edge of the hill where a lot of people hang out, especially on the fourth. That remains city land, and why the hell shouldn't it? It's not like we need a reason to object to the city treating people differently. They might have had a better reception if they'd asked before building on it, though that would have required someone not to screw up so they knew where the boundaries where. When someone trespasses you don't say "oh here have the land so you aren't trespassing anymore". No fence is nice, but we sort of wanted the carport gone. It sticks out like a sore thumb and is visible all down the street. The first thing you see when turning on to it is a nasty carport, which they say will look better when done. I hope so  Of course, we'd have had no right to object if they had built it on their land. It didn't go away, but you aim high in negotiations and this one came to a compromise no one likes, but it didn't end up with the city compounding their error by rewarding them with property, and whoever owns that lot now and in the future is prevented from encroaching any more.
You say 27,000 dollars is chump changefor them but the fact is 27,000 is a significant amount of money. More than enough to get your way.
$27,000 would be a drop in the bucket of the city budget, and that's who they were offering it to (in exchange for land with that value; so not exactly a gift). They weren't offering it to someone who could use it. They could offer the money to the lady with the shed, or the people who spent $20,000 on their garage before getting shut down, but they didn't. All they wanted to do with it was buy land they were (inadvertently) squatting on.
So what are you saying really? $27,000 should be enough for someone to get his or her way? People can ignore the law for that sum, which is a lot of money, but not for them, ie: the rich can get their way? Are you advocating oligarchy? We shouldn't give a shit if they get to expand their lot as a reward for trespassing (even if accidental)? Like I said, it would be a lot easier to accept that if other people hadn't been shot down left and right for doing anything slightly out of code.
I don't know why you're white knighting for well to do out-of-towners who move in, and have everyone ready to roll over for them. The part I like is that the Council, which was initially predisposed to sell the land, ended up agreeing with me. So who are you to say different? Maybe you can be the next Jack Abramoff.
It was never about them, not liking them or thinking their landscaping sucked or whatever. They are pretty nice people, and seem to have decent aesthetic taste (if the house minus carport is anything to go by). It's about the rule of law being applied equally without regard for economic status. Things aren't always that way but they sure as hell should be. The city has a black eye right now, and unfortunately in the popular imagination the neighbors do too. I hope it can all blow over.
especially in freaking Wyoming.
Lowest percentage of foreclosures last year? Check. Lowest unemplyment rate? Check. We're fine here. We don't need a bunch of people (Bill Gates, whoever) to swoop in from out of town to "save" us by paying us money so they can do whatever they want. They can keep their money and follow the rules like everyone else, or they can go back to the coasts and try that crap there. And maybe they can take some wolves with them (I'm fine with them, but they aren't too popular with the ranchers haha) 
|
|
|
On September 04 2009 22:14 Flakes wrote:+ Show Spoiler +also, blah at blog title, tase story somehow less interesting than real estate disputes
I figured that would be the only part people would be interested in :-/ Near riot during Deer Creek Days as Hayseed Bob gets zapped? We talk about police brutality here once in a while with "shocking taser video" du jour, and I imagined a story of it happening in Brokeback, Wyoming would cause some discussion about how widespread taser use really is. Discussion does seem to have gravitated towards the real estate stuff though so I could have left the tasing out. I seem to have underestimated my fellow TLers. My apologies
|
|
|
Good for you standing up for equality .
|
On September 04 2009 23:19 gumbum8 wrote:Interesting blog, I agree that money should not put people above the law, but a lot of things in our society have degenerated http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-17-05/discussion.cgi.60.htmlOn a lighter note, Chris Rock could NEVER beat a bear without a gun. He's the smallest black guy i know :\.
You know Chris Rock?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
