If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Monterey Herald)   City: "Hey you know that guest cottage that we told you was a legal rental back in 1976? Yeah...about that"   (montereyherald.com) divider line 112
    More: Asinine, Congress Ave, building permits, housing units  
•       •       •

29363 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2012 at 6:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-03 12:10:50 PM
Welcome to the land of the free.
 
2012-09-03 12:20:47 PM
If her neighbours really don't have a problem with it, she can get a land use redesignation and they should be supportive.
 
2012-09-03 04:17:25 PM

unyon: If her neighbours really don't have a problem with it, she can get a land use redesignation and they should be supportive.


This. I hcodes friend that's a code enforcement officers, and he says this kind of thing happens all the time. Person requests permit, permit is granted with the explicit agreement that no kitchen is allowed. Property owner agrees, and then 10 years later a kitchen is put in and either the homeowner claims ignorance or the new owner says they never knew the details of the original agreement.
 
Then the property owner complains to the media in hopes that the municipality will overrule their own planning to avoid bad publicity. About half the ttime they do, which is pretty screwed up for the other 99% of the people who followed the rules in the first place.
 
2012-09-03 04:38:36 PM
A CMU accessory dwelling from 1975? Sounds delightful.
 
2012-09-03 05:05:58 PM
Err, have a friend who is a code enforcement officer. Damn, I must have had a stroke when I was typing that.
 
2012-09-03 05:32:54 PM
How is this not a clear cut case of adverse possession? I don't remember property class that well, but does it not count against the government?
 
2012-09-03 05:59:26 PM
OBAMA!!!!
 
2012-09-03 06:10:09 PM
Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?
 
2012-09-03 06:14:32 PM

fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?


Maybe because the other kitchen items are easily removable, so you can take those out and call it a living room but a fixture means it is a kitchen? I think that's how it works where I am, but not sure.
 
2012-09-03 06:14:39 PM
Apparently this retired teacher did not teach Economics, bought the house in 1976 and now faces foreclosure without the rent? Should have been paid off years ago, especially since she has been collecting rent on the cottage
 
2012-09-03 06:14:45 PM

fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?


someone might drown
 
2012-09-03 06:15:20 PM
Before I even clicked, I knew this was California. Just grease the palms and get on with your life. All they want is a piece of your action.
 
2012-09-03 06:16:39 PM

fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?


I think its the oven they have a problem with. Makes it a separate dwelling, and they haven't been getting the taxes from two separate properties that would be in the system if they didn't have a second residence on the lot.
 
2012-09-03 06:16:57 PM
What??!! A local bureaucracy makes an unpopular decision? The hell you say! Zzzzzz...
 
2012-09-03 06:18:35 PM
National bldg codes update every 3 years.

If it was legal for her in 76.... then they changed the code in 2007, she should be grandfathered in.

I don't see bldg officials going around and citing all the buildings designed under IBC06 for failure to comply when we just switched to IBC09.
 
2012-09-03 06:23:10 PM
fusillade762:
Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?

For an Irish family, that's an extra half-bath.
 
2012-09-03 06:29:11 PM

letrole: fusillade762:
Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?

For an Irish family, that's an extra half-bath.


Ok, Mr. Trôle... that one wasn't bad.
 
2012-09-03 06:29:40 PM

fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?


If you take the dirty dishes out of the sink you can pee in it.
 
2012-09-03 06:30:06 PM

DamnYankees: How is this not a clear cut case of adverse possession? I don't remember property class that well, but does it not count against the government?


I don't think "Adverse Possession" means what you think it means.
 
2012-09-03 06:34:15 PM
She should count her blessings. If she was dealing with an HOA, they would have had her executed.
 
2012-09-03 06:34:46 PM

DamnYankees: How is this not a clear cut case of adverse possession? I don't remember property class that well, but does it not count against the government?


First, adverse possession generally does not run against the government. Underlying an owner's property rights is the notion that those rights have their source in the sovereign- only the state has the authority to enforce property rights. Property rights are granted because we consider individuals as being most capable of maximizing the use of the land. When a person fails to exercise their right of exclusion for long enough, i.e. fails to live up to the expectation that they will "use" the land, the right to exclude others from that land passes to the party that is using the land. The state is not an individual and there is no expectation of use thereby.

Second, in this case even if the government were not involved AP would not be implicated. I think you are thinking of an easement, either that or some form of equitable estoppel. In any case, she might have a claim under those theories if she were being enjoined by a private party. Here, it is a land use issue. Local governments have a great deal of authority to regulate land use and, generally speaking, so long as the government isn't acting arbitrarily the ordinance will stand and the non-conforming use will be enjoined.
 
2012-09-03 06:39:27 PM

bighairyguy: She should count her blessings. If she was dealing with an HOA, they would have had her executed.


and then shot
 
2012-09-03 06:45:33 PM

johndalek: bighairyguy: She should count her blessings. If she was dealing with an HOA, they would have had her executed.

and then shot


until she died from it
 
2012-09-03 06:48:08 PM

Pribar: johndalek: bighairyguy: She should count her blessings. If she was dealing with an HOA, they would have had her executed.

and then shot

until she died from it


And then hung for awhile just to be sure.
 
2012-09-03 06:51:56 PM

Radioactive Ass: Pribar: johndalek: bighairyguy: She should count her blessings. If she was dealing with an HOA, they would have had her executed.

and then shot

until she died from it

And then hung for awhile just to be sure.


And then fined because gallows don't conform to the HOA rules for lawn ornamentation.
 
2012-09-03 06:52:17 PM

El Supe: Apparently this retired teacher did not teach Economics, bought the house in 1976 and now faces foreclosure without the rent? Should have been paid off years ago, especially since she has been collecting rent on the cottage


I assumed she was exaggerating to garner sympathy.
 
2012-09-03 06:59:27 PM

z_gringo: Welcome to the land of the free.


Bigger government would keep injustices like this from happening.
 
2012-09-03 06:59:42 PM

El Supe: Apparently this retired teacher did not teach Economics, bought the house in 1976 and now faces foreclosure without the rent? Should have been paid off years ago, especially since she has been collecting rent on the cottage


Yeah I know, It's not possible anything out of her control could have happened right?
 
2012-09-03 07:05:34 PM

El Supe: Apparently this retired teacher did not teach Economics, bought the house in 1976 and now faces foreclosure without the rent? Should have been paid off years ago, especially since she has been collecting rent on the cottage


I suspect the rental income covered the taxes. And I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there is a HELOC or mortgage for repairs or upgrades.
 
2012-09-03 07:08:14 PM
Wait something bigger is going on here she has been told since 1991 this was not okay because of the added kitchen and she is now saying that the city will cause he to be foreclosed on a home she bought in 1976 as here $1,300.00 a month teachers pension is not enough??? How much could her payments possibly be and why is she still paying on the home? Why did she not get the cottage rezoned to have a kitchen when offered?? I bet she is all for regulations when they don't effect her.....bet she has helped stop someone from cutting down a tree so they could add an extra bathroom because the tree has rights....suck on it lady!
 
2012-09-03 07:12:35 PM
If one needs a farking demolition permit to remove a sink - then that towns regulations are pretty farked up. The simple solution is for the town and her to meet and come up with something reasonable that allows her to comply with whatever farked up regulations are now in effect. I bet you that they won't and they will screw over someone trying to do the right thing.
 
2012-09-03 07:12:49 PM

letrole: fusillade762:
Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?

For an Irish family, that's an extra half-bath.


It's funny because it's true......
 
2012-09-03 07:13:37 PM

Civil Discourse: DamnYankees: How is this not a clear cut case of adverse possession? I don't remember property class that well, but does it not count against the government?

First, adverse possession generally does not run against the government. Underlying an owner's property rights is the notion that those rights have their source in the sovereign- only the state has the authority to enforce property rights. Property rights are granted because we consider individuals as being most capable of maximizing the use of the land. When a person fails to exercise their right of exclusion for long enough, i.e. fails to live up to the expectation that they will "use" the land, the right to exclude others from that land passes to the party that is using the land. The state is not an individual and there is no expectation of use thereby.

Second, in this case even if the government were not involved AP would not be implicated. I think you are thinking of an easement, either that or some form of equitable estoppel. In any case, she might have a claim under those theories if she were being enjoined by a private party. Here, it is a land use issue. Local governments have a great deal of authority to regulate land use and, generally speaking, so long as the government isn't acting arbitrarily the ordinance will stand and the non-conforming use will be enjoined.


Interesting how the notion of zoning, which restricts how land may be used, has been taken to mean in some states that land may be seized if a city feels it has a bettet use by eminent domain, and further extended to the idea that if you fail to use it you somehow lose your right of ownership.

I'm just not on board with those ideas unless the govt needs to build a freeway overpass. This case is more conventiinal, but in cases where citied engage in vile seizures of property I'd contribute to a legal fund for the owner.
 
2012-09-03 07:18:55 PM

Lone Stranger: fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?

If you take the dirty dishes out of the sink you can pee in it.


You're supposed to take the dishes out first??
 
2012-09-03 07:20:39 PM
All they have to do is say 'alright fine' and leave her alone, since everything happened in 1974, 1975, and 1976. That is, a lot of residential zoning farkery. This is like saying, "Sorry sir, your car is illegal because it pollutes too much, but your neighbor's car of the same make/model was grandfathered in an hour before the law was passed and yours is not. We're taking the car and sending you a bill for our trouble."
 
2012-09-03 07:20:48 PM
I think the town should bulldoze the appartment AND her house just to get rid of the rif-raf. BTW, what is "rif-raf"?
 
2012-09-03 07:22:08 PM

Langston: Err, have a friend who is a code enforcement officer. Damn, I must have had a stroke when I was typing that.


I have some friends that grew up in Santa Cruz and Monterrey counties and worked construction. If you or the contractor you're working under is a childhood friend of the code enforcement people and they don't mind bribing them in small amounts of cash, drugs, and occasional free work on their properties anything is possible, If you are not, prepare to fight tooth and nail for everything.

Likely the complaint is because some people in code enforcement thinks they can make a penny by forcing the lady out of the home via the enforcement process. Once she sell they'll get a straw buyer to purchase the place, and the code violations will just magically disappear.

So for her going to the press is good, because it spoils the deal if people are looking closely.
 
2012-09-03 07:22:23 PM
Too much government.
 
2012-09-03 07:22:52 PM
Sounds like she kicked out someone's snowflake for not paying rent and their mother is retaliating.
 
2012-09-03 07:24:07 PM

Pockafrusta: Too much government.


Too much local government is the worse type of "too much government"
 
2012-09-03 07:27:27 PM

elkraf: I think the town should bulldoze the appartment AND her house just to get rid of the rif-raf. BTW, what is "rif-raf"?


This:
 
2012-09-03 07:29:01 PM
there are few things this country does intentionally that are more harmful than the push by politicians to make housing a scarce resource.
 
2012-09-03 07:30:45 PM
i486.photobucket.com
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-09-03 07:33:36 PM

DamnYankees: How is this not a clear cut case of adverse possession? I don't remember property class that well, but does it not count against the government?


it's the adverse possession of an easement, she owns the land her illegal addition is on. it's a code violation. and adverse possession doesn't run against the government.
 
2012-09-03 07:34:34 PM
it's not the adverse possession of an easement,
 
2012-09-03 07:39:45 PM
She needs to incorporate her property and she'll be left alone.
 
2012-09-03 07:42:37 PM

Lone Stranger: fusillade762: Why does having a sink make such a huge difference?

If you take the dirty dishes out of the sink you can pee in it.


Why do you have to take them out? Two birds with one stone and whatnot.
 
2012-09-03 07:46:44 PM
I smell a rat.
 
2012-09-03 07:49:04 PM

Animatronik:

Interesting how the notion of zoning, which restricts how land may be used, has been taken to mean in some states that land may be seized if a city feels it has a better use by eminent domain, and further extended to the idea that if you fail to use it you somehow lose your right of ownership.

I'm just not on board with those ideas unless the govt needs to build a freeway overpass. This case is more conventional, but in cases where cities engage in vile seizures of property I'd contribute to a legal fund for the owner.


Well, the setup you describe isn't how land use controls actually work. You are conflating three distinct legal regimes; while they are all ultimately based in the sovereign's power over property rights they are wildly different in their effects and application.

First, the loss of property rights for failure to exclude is adverse possession and has little to nothing to do with the other two, and it in no way flows from them; it is a far more ancient idea.

Second, eminent domain is the taking of property so that it can be put to public use, but the owner of that land is compensated for that loss. It is reasonable to disagree about what is considered appropriate public use, but that isn't at issue here at all.

Third, zoning is a relatively new form of land use control. It does restrict how land is used, but not being allowed to build a factory in a residential zone is generally not considered a "taking" as that term is generally understood. A zoning regulation that reduces the value of the land to zero would be a taking, but other than that the courts tend to consider zoning to be a valid use of the state's police power. Ordinances can be challenged on a variety of bases, but if there is a rational basis for the regulation, people are generally stuck with it.
 
2012-09-03 07:51:39 PM
"adverse possession doesn't run against the government"

Uhhh, sorry, might just be too dumb, but cannot make sense of that. What means "adverse possession" and "running against the government"??

// fully confused
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report