Fighting City Hall (and winning)

Fighting City Hall (and winning)>clearcut

This situation that Mr. Cash described, as I understand it, is a local ordnance that is imposing unwarranted restrictions from Planning & Zoning, not breaking State Subdivision laws. That being said, the efforts to backdoor the ordnance, IMHO, would be better served to get the ordnance changed through the City's Engineering Department and City Council.

My $0.02

:-O

Is the condo plat a function of the State of Alaska or the Mat-Su borough? I have heard of this but only in your area.

That issue got fixed though, and it's one of the easier places to work now. Even the county seat adopted the same rules so it's seamless between the county and city now. Granted, someone was sitting on the board that knew something about it and helped the transition.

To be fair, the only one ever arrested was one developer. That surveyor got out of it with help from another surveyor, although the surveyor who got out of the pickle, trashed the surveyor who helped said surveyor in emails all over the state.

At least so I'm told. 🙂

😉

The State I believe. Bypasses Mat-Su borough platting authority. There a couple attorneys in Anchorage that specialize in this. I've actually been advised by the borough to consider going this route with some sticky subdivisions that would never fly due to borough Title 27.0 access requirements.

I believe this to be the authority:
AS 34.08.170

I'm certain that it is not without it's own set of pit falls.

Where I'm at you can record about anything, the recorder is not the gate keeper for compliance with P&Z. So creating an out of compliance parcel is easy to do. Getting a building permit for the out of compliance parcel is another matter. If the new parcel was created outside the subdivision laws they just make you go through the process. If a parcel is created that can't comply, say not enough acreage for the zoning, an owner might be out of luck for a building permit.

I'm one that went for changing the system by getting a seat at the table, I'm on the planning commission and we have changed a lot of things but there is so much more to be done. Instead of creating more regulations we need to start taking them down to a more practical level.

Just an observation, at the present time in my area (rural poor county), the public doesn't care. We rarely get any public involvement at meetings. You could change about anything and nobody really would care, at least until they were affected well after the fact.

In our quaint little neck of the woods, our s/d rules are pretty easy. They weren't at first, but several exceptions were added to the adoption of Chapter 232, as provided by state law. Among those, one exception, regardless of size, is family conveyance. Another is cutting out 1 acre around an existing house site and another is for mortgages. If a road bisected your property, you don't have to plat selling one side. We have very few "1 lot subdivisions" now in the county, but every now and then, we get one and typically it's because they're not "kin enough."

My city re-did the UDC for the town. We had a planner that brought basically what the City of Tyler has. Among the stupid rules in there, that had I not been around, would have gone through, was that if you split a lot, and the future use plat showed your street being 80' wide, instead of 60' wide (like it is currently) then you HAD to dedicate 10' to the city for future street use. When I called him out of "taking without paying" he said that it was totally legal and the big cities do it all the time. Well, I knew better, and went and dug the Flower Mound case out and brought it to him where it was decided that THAT EXACT ACT is truly illegal, unless the city pays fair market value for the land.

He didn't like me very much after that. Normally, I'd be right there with you, but I made ours VERY easy and for the most part, no one knows they even exist, which is the idea.

Maybe you could get with them to help re-write that portion of the UDC to better serve the community. A neighboring city has a bit more strict s/d ordinance, but it's really not that bad and EVERY place I work in has an avenue for an "admin plat" that doesn't require P&Z or council/court approval. Typically they are for 4 lots or less, and that's the majority of the gripe and complaint process. They go quickly up there.

However, if you do a "no kidding" s/d, it all has to tow the line, and I don't think any of us object to that, it's the stupid rule for no reason that we have issues with.

FWIW, the county "could" prosecute the owners and surveyor and title company and anyone else involved in what you described, under the "sham transaction" thingy they have. Now, because it's a misdemeanor, and there are WAY more DWI's and child protective orders needed, it wouldn't be a blip on the radar, but it's still helping to facilitate a sham transaction, at least in my neck of the woods.

Not knocking on you, sometimes you have to do what's right, even if it ain't legal.

You fought the law and the law didn't win ha ha.

Dang Mr. Cash....Fighting City Hall (and winning)

You sure put a stick in the hornet's nest on this one didn't you?

> > I surveyed his property and prepared a description and drawing of his son's 10 acres-to-be. I then prepared a description for him to convey the N/2 of his 80 acres to his son (40 acres, thus recorded by the County).
> >
> > A month later I prepared a document for the son to Quit Claim back to his father 70 acres. (Also larger than 40 acres, thus recorded by the County). This left the son with a net holding of the 10 acres.
> >
>
> So the quitclaim was a blatant circumvention of the agency's subdivision ordinances. And you're culpable for advising them as to this lawless tact in addition to the preparation of the documents used therein.
>
> Pardon me if I don't give any atta-boys, as I am completely opposed to those who purposefully break the law, and am amazed at those stupid enough to then brag about it. I don't know about your state, but in mine, this would be grounds for losing one's license and is something I would have no problem reporting to the board.

That was my first thought also... but I am also from California.
Have you heard of any prosecutions or board actions?
I have not but I have heard the threats... Serious stuff.

Fighting City Hall (and winning)>clearcut

In a perfect world everyone would abide by the law and all things would be handled with equitable and fair treatment. Unfortunately we all know that is not the case. I have no experience or knowledge of how things generally go in the area of paden cash but in my area if you are poor or rich or the government (or their friends) the laws don’t apply to you. If you are middle class and just a regular guy you are going to follow the law to the letter or be raked over the coals. There are too many victimless crimes on the books being regulated for the sake of creating government jobs. I have extended great effort in trying to get regulations changed to make more common sense and it has only gained me alienation from the people that regulate my products and cost me money and opportunities. At the same time watching the government agencies blatantly violate their own regulations. The whole system promotes a “getting away with whatever you can attitude”.

My apologies for leaving some doubt. I generally intend my statements to be clear and concise.

And I reckon my daddy would have been old enough to also be yours, god rest his sole. However I doubt it as he wasn't one predisposed to getting riled over someone else's perceptions as to his shortcomings.

Interesting, I think the key here is “common interest community”. It seems a stretch that the law was written for condos and developers can stretch that to subdivisions of 1 acre lots, but I have heard that it is common practice in the Willow area.

I'm not sure, I would guess, roughly speaking, it could be considered Regulatory Arbitrage or a loophole. I don't have enough formal education or knowledge of the issues.

I'm thinking back on the story you posted about that old dude who was selling lots in his subdivision. Taking prospective buyers out to a nicely wooded lot and telling them it was lot..7(?), then executing a deed for that lot, only to find later, much to the buyers remorse, they had unknowingly purchased a swamp lot further back in the subdivision. It was kind of underhanded, but made for a good yarn.

🙂

I'm with you Clearcut. This is questionable from a number of points:
-Liability
-Professionalism
-Business practices (he left a lot of money on the table by short cutting the process instead of getting paid to help his client comply with the letter and the intent of the law).

"Illegal Parcel"

I have always encourage the client for him, his wife, children and dog to call their elected officials and City Attorney each and every time these type of issues have occurred. Funny how the ordinances cease to exist in specific cases when the Planning Director's boss tells him to cool it. A simple solution in this case would have been that the parent tract of 80 acres would be limited to two residential dwellings. However, this would just be too much common sense for the City. Mindless stupidity rules and the sheep can only follow.

Dang Mr. Cash....Fighting City Hall (and winning)

Yea, ain't it great!!!! 😉

Dang Mr. Cash....Fighting City Hall (and winning)

Si (lurker mode toggle on)

:good:

Fighting City Hall (and winning)>clearcut

exactly