Holiday v. City of Moses Lake

Mark,

Interesting read. Another good example of how municipalities waste tax dollars. It’s like when the county/city send fifteen people to a “project”; one digs a hole and the other fourteen stand around staring into the hole. 😉

Thanks for the post.

I can see both sides. Cities need to have laws for the benefit of the community as a whole. This is one of those instances that becomes more of a gray issue, but the solution to create one parcel from two was explained as the best option despite the hardship it would create for the land owner.

The County district court commissioner who was sitting as a judge pro tem for the municipal court responded, “That is the dumbest thing I ever heard,” and dismissed the infraction.

What does this pro tem person know about property issues or solutions?

I live in a small town with a population of 2000. It has zoning regulations and setback restrictions. One landowner recently decided to build a brick building too close to the road and without a building permit. The City tried to get him to remove the building and also tried to fine him. He played their hand and eventually found out the City could not enforce their own laws beyond the threats. The building is still there and being used. What does the next guy down the street do when he wants to do the same?

I side with the City of Moses Lake on this one. The City should have looked ahead and compromised and possibly helped the landowner with the cost of the survey instead of this going to costly court. The attorneys won again.

Sure, but once a court has ruled twice it's probably time to give it up. After all, it wasn't the fact of the park vehicles that was objectionable. By the City's admission, if the Holiday's had gone through a lot consolidation procedure there would have been no problem with the parked vehicles.

I am a believer in going directly to the one you find offense with. Someone on that block was pushing this and should be exposed and required to pay all court costs.
jud

This whole issue seems like it could have been worked out without the need of the lawsuit. Our neighborhood services guys just interpret the code and issue warnings and citations based on the code. They don't often have the history of a parcel or lot.

But I've seen many times where a citizen would then show up at city council and present their case. Often they are grandfathered if they showed that the infraction was present before the city code was passed. I think this is fair.

But if they bought the lot and started using it to park on after the code then they are in violation. It sounds like they could have brought the parking area up to code, although it would have taken some funds, and then went on about life. What did the lawsuit cost them in final tally. They got some money back but probably not all.

Our zoning laws can be pretty tough but they are freely available to anyone interested before they contemplate a land use change. Sometimes it's hard to side with the land owner who either out of ignorance or with knowledge just ignored the code.

Deral