Man builds castle, government to tear it down

Ha ha ha, the peanut gallery has dragged down another thread. Whychange?
Click to expand...

You mean those of us who refuse to chime in with Hosanna every time one of the inumerable "o god the government did this" thread pops up.:cool:

In fact, in the early 1990's, a man who owned property within the city limits of Pleasanton, CA applied for a building permit to construct a home, and was denied the permit. His property was high on the ridge line that separates Pleasanton from Hayward approximately, viewable from Interstate 680 just south of the 580 intersection for those that live in the area. Even though he'd owned the property long before the current zoning ordinances were in place, prohibiting construction on the ridge top, he lost his court case against the city. Grandfathered in? Nope, we don't care when you bought the property, we like a ridge line without evidence of humans visible, so no new homes up there. His property became nearly worthless overnight, and the city refused to compensate him for what was clearly an illegal taking.
Click to expand...

Source please...and I trust it will be a real source, not one of the usual agenda driven blogs.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourMauserHSCtodayAlaska TM
 
Source please...and I trust it will be a real source, not one of the usual agenda driven blogs.
Click to expand...
Sorry, as I stated, this is a story that occurred when I lived in the area, appearing in the local newspaper. It was in the early 1990's and I have no intention of going through years of newspaper archives.

And, quite frankly, I have no interest in whether or not you think this story is true.
 
Well Pat, even if you are unwilling to support your contentions that the event occurred, what is apparent is that you don't understand issues such as grandfathering. Grandfathering in regard to zoning has nothing to do with when the property was purchased. The whole property does not get grandfathered in to a zoning date at the time of purchase for issues not present on the property. For example, since the guy didn't build a house on the property before the zoning change, the house was not grandfathered in to the law.
 
It would if the property was zoned residential use or lower at date of purchase.

Prevention of construction of a home for "greenway" use without compensation is an illegal taking.

Fortunately, here in South Carolina, local government discovered this fact a couple of years ago. Not precisely the same type of case as the one in England, though related. The city of Greenville took property for another use and paid the owners what the city wanted to pay them. The owners took the case to court with the result that the city was eventually required to pay the asking price the owners wanted AND their court costs.

I'd like to see more victories by individuals. Private property rights are supreme, a basis for all other rights.
 
The reason we have zoning laws controlling this sort of thing, in the most densely populated part of the country, is to stop people concreting over the entire countryside with endless suburbs that go on for miles. When you have to fit sixty million people inside something smaller than the state of Oregon you can't afford to let them build whatever they damn' well like just because they're preparing to defy zoning ordinances.
 
If you're truly interested in this topic, it may be useful to know what the law is regarding this topic. see Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). Of course no single case can answer all questions concerning a particular issue, but this was a landmark decision.

As a kid I remember the sand dunes being bulldozed flat and then about 20 years later homes being built. This case explained why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top