Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NBC 10 New England)   Yes, Mr. Jones, about the potential sale of your $2 million oceanfront home - it was built on public park land. Surprise   (turnto10.com) divider line 45
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

9390 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2014 at 12:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-18 09:30:27 AM  
Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.
 
2014-06-18 10:35:08 AM  

BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.


I'm going with "Somehow the case landed in the court of the one honest judge in the entire state, and the bribe was rebuffed."
 
2014-06-18 10:51:11 AM  

BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.


According to the article, is was #1. Gotta feel a little sorry for the guy, but at least he's got a rock solid lawsuit against the surveyor
 
2014-06-18 11:19:41 AM  
That guy's an idiot but I have an idea. Donate it to the public. It would make a nice snack stand/bathroom depot.
 
2014-06-18 12:48:14 PM  
See, this is why you spring for the extra couple hundred bucks for title insurance. And you go after the engineering firm. The title insurance company is certainly going to.
 
2014-06-18 12:48:38 PM  

BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.


4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.
 
2014-06-18 12:52:03 PM  
I think we need to hear more from Leon Runner - a non-Rhode Island resident who has no stake in this case, and no real reason for being in this article, but apparently has such massive power in Pennsylvania that his thoughts are deemed quote worthy,
 
GBB
2014-06-18 12:52:35 PM  

stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.


38.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-18 12:53:27 PM  
Did he pay private property tax on the land each year, and did the government entity accept the check?  Both parties set precedent, and he will get renumeration for the value of his home.  Because I bet they took his property tax check each year.
 
2014-06-18 12:58:17 PM  
heard about this case...wasn't the developer's name "four 20 developments?"
 
2014-06-18 12:58:44 PM  
According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!
 
2014-06-18 01:02:01 PM  
Ryan said he's worked plenty of cases where errors mean houses are built over property lines.
His organization is trying to block the possibility of moving the house, saying it would only move the house closer to an already-eroding coastline.
Still, he said, he understands the dilemma.
"It's not a $150,000 ranch house we're talking about here," Ryan said.



I must have been sick the day they decided property issues over a certain value are no longer infractions.

Fark it, then. I'm putting in a zoo.
 
2014-06-18 01:03:28 PM  

2xcited: Did he pay private property tax on the land each year, and did the government entity accept the check?  Both parties set precedent, and he will get renumeration for the value of his home.  Because I bet they took his property tax check each year.


You do not understand that the property is not public property. It is private property that the previous owners deemed was to be used as a public park. I got from the article that the land was not yet being so used.
 
2014-06-18 01:04:31 PM  
It could be a zoo for Invertebrates.
 
2014-06-18 01:04:37 PM  

Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!


THIS
 
2014-06-18 01:05:40 PM  
I vote #3.
Seen too many incidences of developers calling the city's bluff and getting zoning variances AFTER the work is all done.

there is a better story HERE
that explains the problem in a bit more detail. Apparently this is not a new issue, it has been known for some time now and the real issue is whether the house can be MOVED, or if it has to be TORN DOWN.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the unoccupied home in Narragansett was built entirely on land owned by the Rose Nulman Park Foundation, and therefore must be removed.
The developer, Four Twenty Corp., began building the home in 2009, but it didn't discover the error until 2011 when it tried to sell the house and the prospective buyers got a survey. Robert Lamoureux, who owns the company, then contacted one of the park's trustees to try to work something out, but she told him the land was not for sale, according to Friday's opinion.
The foundation was set up to preserve the property as a park in perpetuity. A 2008 agreement among the family members says that if the trustees allow the land to be used as anything other than a public park, they must pay $1.5 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital.
The developer argued it should not be penalized for an innocent surveying mistake. The court said it was sympathetic, but it said the park's property rights outweighed that. It also said it was in the public's interest to keep the land as a park.
"Any attempt to build on even a portion of the property would constitute an irreparable injury, not only to plaintiff but to the public," it wrote.
Messages left with the developer's lawyer were not immediately returned.
A judge will decide how much time the developer has to remove the house.
A lawyer for the foundation, Mark Freel, says the developer has secured most of the permits he needs to move it to the neighboring land, but that the fate of one critical permit is still up in the air. The timing of that could affect whether the house has to be torn down.
"My client has wanted for a long time for the house to be removed," he said. "My client's very clear and firm position is that it's time for the house to go."
 
2014-06-18 01:11:15 PM  
What a terribly written article.  It starts by quoting some guy who's "visiting from Pennsylvania but has heard about the mess" and gets worse from there.  Is the Nulman family property designated as park land?  The article seems to say so.  Or is it built on the property line?
 
2014-06-18 01:14:12 PM  

Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!


Um, whom should you hire, then?  Surveying was one of the core courses in the Civil Engineering department of the engineering school that I attended.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-06-18 01:18:27 PM  
It's not "public park" land in the sense that it belongs to the government. It is privately owned land meant to remain undeveloped. As privately owned land it is subject to adverse possession, but the structure is only a few years old and you normally need decades to take by adverse possession.

The court notes in a footnote that the owner should have asked for a better survey; there are apparently different categories of land surveys with different accuracies. He picked a cheap one and may be out of luck.
 
2014-06-18 01:19:20 PM  
I bet Mr. Jones wishes he was someone a little more funky.

/She's looking at you, oh I don't think so, she's looking at me.
 
2014-06-18 01:23:19 PM  

BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.


4) The survey was correct, but done in an alternate universe where everything is nearly identical to this universe, but just offset by a few feet.  The firing of the LHC opened a workhole just large enough for the survey results to be swapped.
 
2014-06-18 01:24:44 PM  

flondrix: Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!

Um, whom should you hire, then?  Surveying was one of the core courses in the Civil Engineering department of the engineering school that I attended.


At least here in PA/Del/NJ  Surveying and Civil Engineering are two separate licenses with different apprenticeship and test requirements. Ultimately you need a professional/registered Land Surveyor to sign and seal and plans that depict boundary lines, etc.
 
2014-06-18 01:27:58 PM  
"It's not a $150,000 ranch house we're talking about here," Ryan said.

I hate when hyperbole used to show the dopey end of the spectrum is my reality.

/It is a lovely little rancher though...
 
2014-06-18 01:32:48 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: That guy's an idiot but I have an idea. Donate it to the public. It would make a nice snack stand/bathroom depot.


It could also be a nice White Castle without much renovation:

wjar.images.worldnow.com

gravybread.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-18 01:35:41 PM  
Please be Alex Jones
 
2014-06-18 01:40:13 PM  

2xcited: Did he pay private property tax on the land each year, and did the government entity accept the check?  Both parties set precedent, and he will get renumeration for the value of his home.  Because I bet they took his property tax check each year.


Someone is paying property tax on a plot of land, which they do in fact own.  This house was built either partially on that plot of land, or adjacent to it, depending whose version you believe.  If the owner has been paying a higher tax because the assessed value of the land was increased to reflect the new house, when the house was in fact built elsewhere, they might be able to argue for a partial tax refund--but that is probably the least of the owner's problems right now.
 
2014-06-18 01:45:47 PM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: What a terribly written article.  It starts by quoting some guy who's "visiting from Pennsylvania but has heard about the mess" and gets worse from there


My favorite part was:

Those outside the situation say they're confused about how this could have happened."They should have known this house was in the process and not waited until it was fully constructed," a woman said.

The person who wrote that article got paid for it. Farking amazing.
 
2014-06-18 01:48:17 PM  

GBB: stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.

[38.media.tumblr.com image 500x707]


Oh geeze, I see where you went with that there...img.fark.net
 
2014-06-18 01:52:50 PM  
That is one ugly house, let nature take its course.
 
2014-06-18 01:52:50 PM  

GBB: stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.


Oddly enough, that's been known to happen.
 
2014-06-18 01:56:14 PM  

dwrash: flondrix: Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!

Um, whom should you hire, then?  Surveying was one of the core courses in the Civil Engineering department of the engineering school that I attended.

At least here in PA/Del/NJ  Surveying and Civil Engineering are two separate licenses with different apprenticeship and test requirements. Ultimately you need a professional/registered Land Surveyor to sign and seal and plans that depict boundary lines, etc.


Usually a civil engineering firm will have licensed surveyors on payroll.
 
2014-06-18 02:06:37 PM  
Lets cut everyone some slack here, building a multi-million dollar custom home is a complicated proposition, and everyone has a different role to play.  The client has to decide what he wants in terms of size and style and budget.  Then, the Architect has to translate "Japanese inspired Tuscan villa" into some sort of actual design.  Then the engineers have to make sure the architect's pipe dream doesn't fall down like Fallingwater.  The surveyor has to tell the contractor exactly where to build the now hopefully stable structure.  Fihnally, using under the table labor and parts that are "close enough to spec", Mr. Blandings gets his dream house.
 
2014-06-18 02:14:53 PM  
No poor people involved. Case dismissed.
 
2014-06-18 02:25:46 PM  

mschwenk: dwrash: flondrix: Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!

Um, whom should you hire, then?  Surveying was one of the core courses in the Civil Engineering department of the engineering school that I attended.

At least here in PA/Del/NJ  Surveying and Civil Engineering are two separate licenses with different apprenticeship and test requirements. Ultimately you need a professional/registered Land Surveyor to sign and seal and plans that depict boundary lines, etc.

Usually a civil engineering firm will have licensed surveyors on payroll.


That's typically the case around here as well.  I wonder if they have Errors and Omissions Insurance.....
 
2014-06-18 02:38:15 PM  
If they'd kept quiet about it a while longer they could have made an adverse possession case out of it.  If the buyer hadn't had the survey done, no one would have noticed and 20 years later they would have the land.  Ha ha.
 
2014-06-18 02:39:18 PM  
the Developer should simply have used it as a house rental and laid low for a decade.   After ten years of using the property, they can probably file for some kind of claim to the property as they have been using it.   They can probably even offer to transfer part or all of the propery they did own, so that the foundation has the same or more 'parkland'.   At that point, the foundation didnt sell the land, so they do not have to pay.
 
2014-06-18 02:41:17 PM  

stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1) Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2) Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3) Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.


In California we also have

5) The land is sliding downhill at about 2-6 inches a year. And your house is now on what is theorestically the road owned by the county.
 
2014-06-18 03:11:20 PM  

Johnson: I vote #3.
Seen too many incidences of developers calling the city's bluff and getting zoning variances AFTER the work is all done.

there is a better story HERE
that explains the problem in a bit more detail. Apparently this is not a new issue, it has been known for some time now and the real issue is whether the house can be MOVED, or if it has to be TORN DOWN.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court found that the unoccupied home in Narragansett was built entirely on land owned by the Rose Nulman Park Foundation, and therefore must be removed.
The developer, Four Twenty Corp., began building the home in 2009, but it didn't discover the error until 2011 when it tried to sell the house and the prospective buyers got a survey. Robert Lamoureux, who owns the company, then contacted one of the park's trustees to try to work something out, but she told him the land was not for sale, according to Friday's opinion.
The foundation was set up to preserve the property as a park in perpetuity. A 2008 agreement among the family members says that if the trustees allow the land to be used as anything other than a public park, they must pay $1.5 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital.
The developer argued it should not be penalized for an innocent surveying mistake. The court said it was sympathetic, but it said the park's property rights outweighed that. It also said it was in the public's interest to keep the land as a park.
"Any attempt to build on even a portion of the property would constitute an irreparable injury, not only to plaintiff but to the public," it wrote.
Messages left with the developer's lawyer were not immediately returned.
A judge will decide how much time the developer has to remove the house.
A lawyer for the foundation, Mark Freel, says the developer has secured most of the permits he needs to move it to the neighboring land, but that the fate of one critical permit is still up in the air. The timing of that could affect whether the house has to be torn down.
...


It sounds like the developer didn't survey at all. The house is entirely on property the developer doesn't own, and it was the prospective buyer's survey that revealed the error.

The developer gives Four Twenty a bad name.
 
2014-06-18 03:30:31 PM  

uncleacid: That is one ugly house, let nature take its course.


news.images.itv.com

Who wants to wait that long for erosion?
 
2014-06-18 03:32:47 PM  

2xcited: Did he pay private property tax on the land each year, and did the government entity accept the check?  Both parties set precedent, and he will get renumeration for the value of his home.  Because I bet they took his property tax check each year.


As they shoud have.

The question isn't if he owns property but exactly where that property ends.
 
2014-06-18 03:39:33 PM  

stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.


It wasn't the town's survey. It was the buyer of the house that commissioned the survey that showed it to be on park land. And nobody even seems to disput this, one guy just seems to think the Park Foundation's (not the government, but a trust set up by the former owner to manage the land as a park) property rights are irrelevant because his house is worth a lot of money.

The guy screwed up. Fix the mess and then make an insurance claim or sue the engineering company.
 
2014-06-19 12:18:28 AM  

Gough: mschwenk: dwrash: flondrix: Obscene_CNN: According to the article they hired an engineering firm to do the surveying.  Note: Never hire an engineering firm to do surveying work!

Um, whom should you hire, then?  Surveying was one of the core courses in the Civil Engineering department of the engineering school that I attended.

At least here in PA/Del/NJ  Surveying and Civil Engineering are two separate licenses with different apprenticeship and test requirements. Ultimately you need a professional/registered Land Surveyor to sign and seal and plans that depict boundary lines, etc.

Usually a civil engineering firm will have licensed surveyors on payroll.

That's typically the case around here as well.  I wonder if they have Errors and Omissions Insurance.....


Is that the insurance with the duck or the one with the gecko and the pig?
 
2014-06-19 09:03:58 AM  

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: What a terribly written article.  It starts by quoting some guy who's "visiting from Pennsylvania but has heard about the mess" and gets worse from there.  Is the Nulman family property designated as park land?  The article seems to say so.  Or is it built on the property line?


I was hooked the second they trotted out a bumpkin tourist as their legal expert and eyewitness. Don't tell me journalism is dead!
 
2014-06-19 09:33:24 AM  

dywed88: stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.

It wasn't the town's survey. It was the buyer of the house that commissioned the survey that showed it to be on park land. And nobody even seems to disput this, one guy just seems to think the Park Foundation's (not the government, but a trust set up by the former owner to manage the land as a park) property rights are irrelevant because his house is worth a lot of money.

The guy screwed up. Fix the mess and then make an insurance claim or sue the engineering company.


We need more info and more surveying.  What we have is one survey that says the house is fine, and one survey that says it isn't.  We don't know which one is right and which one is wrong.  Would suck if the guy pays a lot of money to move his house over, then the second surveyer comes back and says "oh no, we used an old map... your house was just fine.  Sorry about that."
 
2014-06-19 09:38:35 AM  

stonicus: dywed88: stonicus: BizarreMan: Which is it?

1)  Surveyor screwed up and didn't find and properly mark the property lines so the house was built in the wrong place.

2)  Architect misses the property line and puts the house in the wrong spot.

3)  Developer says screw it, I want the house right there, property line be damned because there is no way they will make me move it, fix the problem and the house is worth a hell of a lot more in that location.

4) The town's survey is wrong and the house is where it should be.

It wasn't the town's survey. It was the buyer of the house that commissioned the survey that showed it to be on park land. And nobody even seems to disput this, one guy just seems to think the Park Foundation's (not the government, but a trust set up by the former owner to manage the land as a park) property rights are irrelevant because his house is worth a lot of money.

The guy screwed up. Fix the mess and then make an insurance claim or sue the engineering company.

We need more info and more surveying.  What we have is one survey that says the house is fine, and one survey that says it isn't.  We don't know which one is right and which one is wrong.  Would suck if the guy pays a lot of money to move his house over, then the second surveyer comes back and says "oh no, we used an old map... your house was just fine.  Sorry about that."


Not even the owner is contesting that it is not on park land. The only thing being argued is what action to take to correct it and how much time there should be to correct it.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report