[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Tower lawsuit

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Tower lawsuit
From: K8RI <>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:31:29 -0500
List-post: <">>
On 2/4/2012 1:50 PM, Roger Parsons wrote:
> Dave, AB7E wrote:
> "Actually, it's your comment that's kind of unbelievable. .....
> What's so hard to understand about that?"
> in reply to Eddy, VE3CUI's mail on this subject.
> I cannot begin to grasp your motivation for such a needlessly vitriolic 
> attack,
> particularly when you have so clearly failed to understand Eddy's post.

There are at least two reasons for "runs with the land" type of 
contracts neglecting zoning.
If a farmer sells off a lot, he visualize a up scale subdivision 
eventually.  You can only sell off so many lots in most areas before 
having to subdivide and there may be zoning for a minimum size lot.  
Here I think it is now 2 or 3 acres.
When you subdivide you have to have it surveyed, put in the roads, 
water, often sewer, drainage if needed, and get the power and phone 
companies to run electricity, gas, and power . It's to his financial  
advantage to write in the sales contract restrictions so future 
purchasers will also build up scale, particularly when it gets to the 
point where he has to invest a *LOT* of money to subdivide. Many 
townships require subdivisions to have paved roads with curbs. The 
reverse side is an individual writing in "runs with the land" when their 
neighbors so not have the same restrictions.  That would reduce the 
saleability of that parcel.

Then there are HOA's that have all kinds of reasons with the main one 
being conformity, but many are paranoid about the view and anything 
"they think" might hurt both the price and saleability of their homes. 
Some even dictate how often you must mow your yard, how long it can get, 
no washing cars in driveways, ... some have pages and pages of 
restrictions for conformity.  I couldn't stand living in a community or 
subdivision where all the homes looked the same.

I often fear they will sell off the land behind us and to the North. 
There's 64 acres but a good portion of it would be defined as wetlands. 
In Michigan developers live in fear of the dreaded "wet lands" 
definition.  Thing is, that most of the prime farm land was once wet 
lands which is why it's such good land.  If you let the land lie fallow 
for 3 years it'd probably revert to wet lands and once defined you'd be 
out of luck.

"Used to be they only had control over navigable water ways. Now the 
definition is any thing that drains into a navigable waterway which is 
100% of the land because no mater where you are the drainage will 
eventually go into a navigable water way.

   I've tried to purchase an acre behind me, but he's reached the limit 
and would have to subdivide again. I even offered to hire the surveyor 
and have that acre made part of this lot which should negate the need 
for subdividing.  The old plans call for a road on the north side of my 
lot, but my deed is for 200 X 200 and nothing on it about the road.   
Being told the road had been abandoned (nothing has been done with it 
for over 40 years) and nothing on my deed my shop and second tower are 
on that side of the lot.  However if they want I'd gladly sell the whole 
lot for a reasonable price and build a larger house and shop. I even 
have a spot picked out.


Roger (K8RI)

> Restrictive Covenants are fundamentally different from laws or regulations 
> passed
> by any level of government. Government is presumed to be acting on behalf of 
> the
> people. Covenants may be enacted by an individual or group of individuals in 
> their
> self-interest only, and may indefinitely control the freedom of action of 
> others.


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>