Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything I've seen said that the lot had water issues BEFORE the road widening. The blog I linked earlier even said that the town engineers observed his property during times of heavy rain and there was no unusual amount of water in his yard (paraphrased).
They admit they caused a problem when they offered to come on to his property and address the problem.
Of course it does! When a city violates someone's first amendment rights, the potential liability damages are limitless.
I'm researching a case right now, where a law firm has been filling suits despite an earlier court decision finding the grounds for their suits unconstitutional. They continue to file the suits in what many perceive as an "extortionist" manor. The "many" are preparing a counter, that will be unprecedented and based on many unethical and even perhaps illegal measures. The counter ties directly into the US constitution and first amendment rights.
The case with this home owner is a little different, but the concept is the same. The city issued fines, despite many warnings that they were violating his rights. They pressed forward to save face. This is extortion at the highest level! Extortion to silence and extortion to implement a government fine against a citizen exercising his rights to free speech!
1.) Cary is fining this guy for an improper sign. This is what the ACLU is involved with. This is against free speech. (He is not selling things, just protesting against the government). I support him in this.
2.) He has drainage problems with his house that may or may not be caused by the widening of the road. (probably is, but not making judgments). The city is offering to fix the problem. I am sorry the guy may lose money on his house, but that's the breaks. My inlaws house lost value because a big shopping center was built a few 100 yards from their house. It used to be a forest. It stinks, but roads / stores / etc have to go somewhere. You can fight it, but they still have to go some where.
I would also like to add, this happens every time the city/county redistricts schools. If your house goes from a good school to a bad school, you can lose thousands of dollars. It "not fair", but that's life.
Stone_Sculpture_Artist, why don't you just go ahead and tell us what your personal issue with TOC is. It's clear you have a personal axe to grind, so let's hear all about it.
My 2 cents: I think it's crappy that a town is allowed to forcibly take someone's property, but the courts have repeatedly upheld that right. And if the town adequately compensates for the property loss or damage, it's okay. In this case it looks like they tried to compensate for property loss and tried to fix the damage. If that wasn't satisfactory, the homeowner could've tried various ways to get satisfaction. My grandmother had a very similar situation with Charlotte. They tried to screw her over, but she held their feet to the fire and took them to court eventually. She won and they had to provide reasonable compensation. She didn't need to behave like a spoiled child to get what was fair.
In this case, I understand the homeowner's anger -- I'd be ticked off too. But it sounds to me like he's being a bit of a jerk about it. I also think the TOC is being pretty ham-handed about the sign ordinance thing too. Looks to me like everyone involved is being stupid. NO winners here.
1.) Cary is fining this guy for an improper sign. This is what the ACLU is involved with. This is against free speech. (He is not selling things, just protesting against the government). I support him in this.
2.) He has drainage problems with his house that may or may not be caused by the widening of the road. (probably is, but not making judgments). The city is offering to fix the problem. I am sorry the guy may lose money on his house, but that's the breaks. My inlaws house lost value because a big shopping center was built a few 100 yards from their house. It used to be a forest. It stinks, but roads / stores / etc have to go somewhere. You can fight it, but they still have to go some where.
I would also like to add, this happens every time the city/county redistricts schools. If your house goes from a good school to a bad school, you can lose thousands of dollars. It "not fair", but that's life.
We have to review all the facts. This guy lived in house for over two decades without incident or complaint. The city comes in and takes half his front yard and makes a gradual slop into a "ski slope" right towards his front living room. This probably created water runoff in excess to what was there before and in a great enough volume that his home's foundation can no longer handle the excess.
The other issue I have is the small amount he was given. $5000? I believe the amount should offset any devaluation to his home. I have no idea of the values of the homes in that are, but for argument's sake lets say his home was worth $200,000 the day before the city broke ground. After the road is done and his front yard and slope is changed, his home could only be sold for $150,000. The city should pay $50,000. Not $5,000.
The argument about school redistricting is not the same and perhaps a strawman's stance. There is no land taken in redistricting. Plus the land left is greatly affected by the slope to his home's front. When your home goes from $200,000 to $150,000 in value overnight because the yard is taken and the land left is deeply impacted, you should be allowed proper compensation.
Drive by his home and seriously ask yourself, would you want to live there? Look at the before and after photos. Which home would you buy? that pretty much speaks for itself.
Stone_Sculpture_Artist, why don't you just go ahead and tell us what your personal issue with TOC is. It's clear you have a personal axe to grind, so let's hear all about it.
My 2 cents: I think it's crappy that a town is allowed to forcibly take someone's property, but the courts have repeatedly upheld that right. And if the town adequately compensates for the property loss or damage, it's okay. In this case it looks like they tried to compensate for property loss and tried to fix the damage. If that wasn't satisfactory, the homeowner could've tried various ways to get satisfaction. My grandmother had a very similar situation with Charlotte. They tried to screw her over, but she held their feet to the fire and took them to court eventually. She won and they had to provide reasonable compensation. She didn't need to behave like a spoiled child to get what was fair.
In this case, I understand the homeowner's anger -- I'd be ticked off too. But it sounds to me like he's being a bit of a jerk about it. I also think the TOC is being pretty ham-handed about the sign ordinance thing too. Looks to me like everyone involved is being stupid. NO winners here.
None! How do you draw this conclusion? I don't know the town of Cary from Adam. I do know when a citizen's rights are being stepped on and when his fellow citizens are too blind to see it. I don't care if this case had taken place in Kansas, or North Carolina. It's all the same to me. Perhaps you should read my posts again. What an assumption on your part. Wow!
From what little I do know about the town of Cary, it's a fine place to live. But in this case, I believe your officials might have just stepped in some doo doo.
I'm only an amateur, but I think it would sell better if he would paint over the 'screwed by the town of Cary' and plant a nice bush or two in the front yard.
The other issue I have is the small amount he was given. $5000? I believe the amount should offset any devaluation to his home. I have no idea of the values of the homes in that are, but for argument's sake lets say his home was worth $200,000 the day before the city broke ground. After the road is done and his front yard and slope is changed, his home could only be sold for $150,000. The city should pay $50,000. Not $5,000.
That argument is a dangerously slippery slope (no pun intended!) If you use that reasoning, two things happen.
House A is devalued and the city loses $50000. The house next door devalues, they sue, the city loses $50,000 more. The people on the other side jump on the gravy train.
Also: the city does a minor improvement like: puts in a stop sign where a yield sign used to be. The house on that corner goes on the market and sells for $50,000 less than the owner thinks it is worth. He sues the city for ruining the property....
Pretty soon you have bankrupted the city, AND municipalities no longer do any road improvements for fear of negative lawsuits and then we are all back to living on dirt roads!
It isn't called a real estate MARKET for nothing. There are no guarantees. No one can control all the factors that go into the valuation of your home. I think the sooner Americans start thinking of profiting from real estate investments as a right instead of a pleasant bonus, the better off we all will be.
That argument is a dangerously slippery slope (no pun intended!) If you use that reasoning, two things happen.
House A is devalued and the city loses $50000. The house next door devalues, they sue, the city loses $50,000 more. The people on the other side jump on the gravy train.
Also: the city does a minor improvement like: puts in a stop sign where a yield sign used to be. The house on that corner goes on the market and sells for $50,000 less than the owner thinks it is worth. He sues the city for ruining the property....
Pretty soon you have bankrupted the city, AND municipalities no longer do any road improvements for fear of negative lawsuits and then we are all back to living on dirt roads!
It isn't called a real estate MARKET for nothing. There are no guarantees. No one can control all the factors that go into the valuation of your home. I think the sooner Americans start thinking of profiting from real estate investments as a right instead of a pleasant bonus, the better off we all will be.
I think you are incorrect.
According to most laws, the using of eminent domain requires the city to compensate for loss of value. I'm not sure what NC's law states, I don't really know where to look for it.
Quote:
Fair Value
Fair value is usually considered to be the fair market value - that is, the highest price somebody would pay for the property, were it in the hands of a willing seller. The date upon which the value is assessed will vary, depending upon the governing law. If the parties do not agree on the value, they will typically utilize appraisers to assist in the negotiation process. If the case is litigated, both sides will ordinarily present expert testimony from appraisers as to the fair market value of the property.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, yah...
