This legal action does not require a physical taking, but can be based upon proof of considerable diminution in value of property due to governmental action. In my case, the value of my lot has been diminished greatly due to the expansion of the adjacent freeway, a change of zoning to one which requires a larger size lot than my lot, and also an allegation by the city that it was the result of an unlawful division. I have had my lot listed for about a year and a half now.. and also tried to get hard money loans on it for the past six months with no success in either avenue. It is clear that the lot has suffered due to the factors aforementioned. In addition to those factors, workers / employees of the city, state, and county have all trespassed persistently on my property, despite warnings issued and no trespassing signs posted. On visits to my lot, I have found the boundary marking tape torn down, the no trespassing signs ripped off, and new tire treads crossing the lot once again.
Where is the justice due me as a property owner? Where are my civil rights? Where is the fair and democratic governmental processes we all believe should be provided to all citizens? I am not seeing it anywhere.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Another example of just talk, promises given and not met
Donna Puentes, the city construction inspector, did not respond to any of my emails or phone calls made in the week following the police assistance in removing trespassers from my property. She had said that if I come to her office to meet with her, she would do something about the weed bill that the city was attempting to collect while trespassing, driving all over my property so that no weeds were there at all. I gave one last call.. the third or fourth call.. and she finally answered. I told her about this web site and the videos on it. She began to be very upset and stated that her boss Valerie Ross would probably fire her when she found out. Donna began to cry. Now, I feel sorry for Donna.. but after all, who has the greater right to tears? I think that right belongs to me.. due to the tremendous distress the city has caused me and the complete loss of any way to finance or sell my property. I am in serious need of capital and am going to lose my home because I am unable to get even a high interest "hard money" loan on the property. And unlike Donna, I have no job.. so there is no hope of income to save my home. That lot in San Bernardino has been my "rainy day" property. Now it is a heavy rain and the property capital umbrella I had counted on has been destroyed for me by the city's capricious demands after no notice of any requirements for 25 years.
Monday, June 2, 2008
A Bold Move to Protect My Property against City Trespass
For about four months I have been engaged in face to face meetings and constant emails with the Planning Dept. of San Bernardino City, California, dealing with the burdens and devaluation that their actions have brought to my property. I owned the property since 1983, paying property taxes all these past 25 years. In 1998, I sold the front parcel of the two parcels comprising the property. I kept ownership of the vacant parcel to the back. The front parcel had a small rental house on it. Now, many years later, I have been trying to sell the property for the past year or more with no luck at all. Then two months ago I began to try to get a loan on the property. I own it completely clear of debt, so I felt that a loan would be easy to get with 100% equity. Wrong ! The loan was due to close in three days, when the lender asked for an additional title search .. a chain of title search.
This search revealed a negative claim on the property. The city was claiming that the parcel was an "unlawful" division. I went to the planners office to find out what that was about, since it was the first I had ever been told of such a claim. The property had already been divided into two parcels before I became the owner. I had sold the front parcel years ago, as I told you, and the city allowed that sale with not one mention of the "unlawfulness" of the division. After more than two months of emails, with the planning dept. insisting that I would have to obtain a "certificate of compliance" at a cost of around $15,000 or more, or to file a court action for quiet title. I refused to do either, contending that after 25 years without notice of such a requirement, the city had lost its right to such a demand.
I hired a young inexperienced attorney to represent me at a meeting with the Director of Planning, Valerie Ross. He canceled out the morning of the day the meeting was to be held, so I called an attorney friend of mine, Dr. Peter Schaeffer, and he said to come by and pick him up so that he could attend with me in his place. Peter asked the city if there was some way that a resolution could be made that would make both sides go home feeling good. Valerie Ross said no, that I would still have to do the compliance demand. Peter asked about the length of time that has passed prior to this being even mentioned, 25 years, and asked "isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on this?" No response was offered by the city to this question, in my recollection. Valerie showed herself to be an indifferent and arrogant person who felt obviously she did not have to deal fairly with property owners. My attorney-friend Peter left the room to go to the men's room, and while he was gone, a statement was made by one of the city officials to which I responded, correcting them. When I corrected the statement by the city at the meeting that I had brought up the request for the certificate initially, by informing them that in fact it was the negative tag on the property records of such a compliance demand that led me to seek information from the city planning dept., telling them that " in the 25 years of my ownership no one ever sent me any damn notice of anything about such a claim ", Valerie stood up and called an end to the meeting. She ordered me to "never make any further contact with her at all". Can a city official in charge of property development and planning shut off communications by a property owner in that city, when that agency is the only one the property owner can take issues to? I would think not. Nevertheless, they have returned all emails I have sent since that date as undeliverable, and have not picked up the phone when I call or returned voice messages left.
Since they shut the doors of taxpayer / property owner recourse to me, after a couple of days I decided that a bold move had to be made. I took several spray cans of red enamel paint, printed flyers notifying of trespass / risk of prosecution, and a digital camera. I had already seen large Caterpillar state construction / earth moving equipment crossing over my lot on a daily basis during the weeks that had passed trying to get the loan. I did not know what to do about it, because the vehicles had no identification on them at all.. no license plates, no Cal Trans or any other logos on them anywhere. So it was impossible to know which government agency was behind the trespassing. The drivers were mostly Mexican and when asked who they worked for, mumbled something that was not any employers names at all.
So I decided to drive to my lot, take photos of trespassers, hand out flyers to anyone driving or walking across my land, and spray paint on the tree and the ground "No Trespassing / Private Property" in several places. If any one drove over the letters, I would see the tire patterns or if someone walked over , the shoe prints as evidence of the trespass. Sure enough, when I arrived, a Cat with a big bucket on the front was scooping up rocks from the rock pile they had dumped on my land weeks ago. I stopped the driver and gave him the flyer and told him to get off my land. A vehicle owned by the Starving Students Moving Company came driving toward me, as I stood on the side of my lot next to their property and the Alice's Restaurant. I stopped their car as they drove straight through the middle of my property. I gave the driver the flyer informing them of the trespass and risk of prosecution. They were receptive and said they would tell the other drivers of the company to avoid crossing my lot.
Then I called the police. When the police arrived, three of them in two cars, they assumed that I was a difficult crazy lady that had no right to hand out flyers or tell people to stay off my land. They were taking the city's side/ the state's side. After all, they are their hinchmen. After I explained what was being done, about the trespass and the claim devaluing my property that the city was using to steal its value, the police became helpful. They put up yellow "caution" tape all around my property boundaries, to mark it and dissuade future trespassers. They told the Cat driver to call his boss to tell them of the trespass cessation. Soon other vehicles came whipping in to join the police cars and the Cat and my truck, all parked there. A man from a company called GEI, a contracting company, arrived with two vehicles. He refused to identify himself or give me his business card. He told me not to take his picture when I aimed my camera at him. Telling him he was a coward who had been trespassing on my property for quite some time, I took his photo anyway.
Then another car arrived. This one was driven by Donna Puentes a construction inspector for the city of San Bernardino. She gave me her card, and asked me to meet with her next week. She promised to help me avoid a "weed clearance bill" from the city, since all the trespassing vehicles / heavy equipment had made the property nothing more than dirt with heavy tread marks everywhere. The nerve of the city .. to throw me out of a meeting, while they are devaluing my property, trespassing on it, and then billing me for weeds which are not there. I had had enough ! I was damn mad. The woman police officer made a call when I was going over to give the GEI man a flyer and the male officer was telling me not to.. so I said to her.. "Yeah, you better call for back-up. I'm certainly dangerous" facetiously. The entire thing was a serious deprivation of rights. The police insisted that I allow the Cat driver to trespass again to remove the rock pile. After that, Donna Puentes made one of the workers dig a hole and replace the for sale sign they had knocked flat to the ground repeatedly. I left, with the police failing to take a written complaint / report, but arrived home feeling more powerful. At least I had done something. My next move: Call the newspapers on Tuesday, after the Memorial Day holiday.
When I reviewed the photos I discovered that in fact I had mistakenly hit the movie button at times and had video clips as a result. For some time, the movie feature had been turned on while the camera was hanging from my shoulder, against my hip. I did not even know it was on and filming. This was a lucky stroke for me, however, because it captured footage of those present, including that man who refused to identify himself to me. On film, Donna the city employee who works for the same planning dept. that had been dealing so callously with me for the past months, admitted that the city had made "an error" in trespassing on my property. She offered conciliatory actions which I am sure she will reveal more fully when I meet with her in the coming week. I captured also her statement that the lot next to mine was being paid rent by the city in exchange for being able to enter and drive across it. She also mentioned water lines the city was placing through the properties, I assume meaning mine, and said that there were "40 foot utility easements along all the parcels there. Hmmm. not sure if that is altogether true. To begin with, my lot already has a 10 ft. setback for sidewalk, landscaping on all sides, and it is only a 6100 sq. ft. lot that would be no building space at all if 40 ft. were reserved for a utility easement. So this cannot be what she meant. The city finds ways to twist and say things in a way that if not an outright lie, is certainly creates a false understanding by the listener.
The city is, as I said at the meeting with Valerie Ross, nothing but a pack of thieves and liars. They have stolen the use of my land for months now without compensating me.. and they concealed the payment of rent to owners of adjacent lots for the same purpose. They have known of the illegal conveyance by deed of my lot after 1998, but never said a word about it. They knew that Cal Trans had dumped a pile of rocks on my land but said nothing of it. The city and the state have been illegally crossing my property daily for months and I intend to get reparations for it.
End of story.. my apologies if it was boring..
This search revealed a negative claim on the property. The city was claiming that the parcel was an "unlawful" division. I went to the planners office to find out what that was about, since it was the first I had ever been told of such a claim. The property had already been divided into two parcels before I became the owner. I had sold the front parcel years ago, as I told you, and the city allowed that sale with not one mention of the "unlawfulness" of the division. After more than two months of emails, with the planning dept. insisting that I would have to obtain a "certificate of compliance" at a cost of around $15,000 or more, or to file a court action for quiet title. I refused to do either, contending that after 25 years without notice of such a requirement, the city had lost its right to such a demand.
I hired a young inexperienced attorney to represent me at a meeting with the Director of Planning, Valerie Ross. He canceled out the morning of the day the meeting was to be held, so I called an attorney friend of mine, Dr. Peter Schaeffer, and he said to come by and pick him up so that he could attend with me in his place. Peter asked the city if there was some way that a resolution could be made that would make both sides go home feeling good. Valerie Ross said no, that I would still have to do the compliance demand. Peter asked about the length of time that has passed prior to this being even mentioned, 25 years, and asked "isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on this?" No response was offered by the city to this question, in my recollection. Valerie showed herself to be an indifferent and arrogant person who felt obviously she did not have to deal fairly with property owners. My attorney-friend Peter left the room to go to the men's room, and while he was gone, a statement was made by one of the city officials to which I responded, correcting them. When I corrected the statement by the city at the meeting that I had brought up the request for the certificate initially, by informing them that in fact it was the negative tag on the property records of such a compliance demand that led me to seek information from the city planning dept., telling them that " in the 25 years of my ownership no one ever sent me any damn notice of anything about such a claim ", Valerie stood up and called an end to the meeting. She ordered me to "never make any further contact with her at all". Can a city official in charge of property development and planning shut off communications by a property owner in that city, when that agency is the only one the property owner can take issues to? I would think not. Nevertheless, they have returned all emails I have sent since that date as undeliverable, and have not picked up the phone when I call or returned voice messages left.
Since they shut the doors of taxpayer / property owner recourse to me, after a couple of days I decided that a bold move had to be made. I took several spray cans of red enamel paint, printed flyers notifying of trespass / risk of prosecution, and a digital camera. I had already seen large Caterpillar state construction / earth moving equipment crossing over my lot on a daily basis during the weeks that had passed trying to get the loan. I did not know what to do about it, because the vehicles had no identification on them at all.. no license plates, no Cal Trans or any other logos on them anywhere. So it was impossible to know which government agency was behind the trespassing. The drivers were mostly Mexican and when asked who they worked for, mumbled something that was not any employers names at all.
So I decided to drive to my lot, take photos of trespassers, hand out flyers to anyone driving or walking across my land, and spray paint on the tree and the ground "No Trespassing / Private Property" in several places. If any one drove over the letters, I would see the tire patterns or if someone walked over , the shoe prints as evidence of the trespass. Sure enough, when I arrived, a Cat with a big bucket on the front was scooping up rocks from the rock pile they had dumped on my land weeks ago. I stopped the driver and gave him the flyer and told him to get off my land. A vehicle owned by the Starving Students Moving Company came driving toward me, as I stood on the side of my lot next to their property and the Alice's Restaurant. I stopped their car as they drove straight through the middle of my property. I gave the driver the flyer informing them of the trespass and risk of prosecution. They were receptive and said they would tell the other drivers of the company to avoid crossing my lot.
Then I called the police. When the police arrived, three of them in two cars, they assumed that I was a difficult crazy lady that had no right to hand out flyers or tell people to stay off my land. They were taking the city's side/ the state's side. After all, they are their hinchmen. After I explained what was being done, about the trespass and the claim devaluing my property that the city was using to steal its value, the police became helpful. They put up yellow "caution" tape all around my property boundaries, to mark it and dissuade future trespassers. They told the Cat driver to call his boss to tell them of the trespass cessation. Soon other vehicles came whipping in to join the police cars and the Cat and my truck, all parked there. A man from a company called GEI, a contracting company, arrived with two vehicles. He refused to identify himself or give me his business card. He told me not to take his picture when I aimed my camera at him. Telling him he was a coward who had been trespassing on my property for quite some time, I took his photo anyway.
Then another car arrived. This one was driven by Donna Puentes a construction inspector for the city of San Bernardino. She gave me her card, and asked me to meet with her next week. She promised to help me avoid a "weed clearance bill" from the city, since all the trespassing vehicles / heavy equipment had made the property nothing more than dirt with heavy tread marks everywhere. The nerve of the city .. to throw me out of a meeting, while they are devaluing my property, trespassing on it, and then billing me for weeds which are not there. I had had enough ! I was damn mad. The woman police officer made a call when I was going over to give the GEI man a flyer and the male officer was telling me not to.. so I said to her.. "Yeah, you better call for back-up. I'm certainly dangerous" facetiously. The entire thing was a serious deprivation of rights. The police insisted that I allow the Cat driver to trespass again to remove the rock pile. After that, Donna Puentes made one of the workers dig a hole and replace the for sale sign they had knocked flat to the ground repeatedly. I left, with the police failing to take a written complaint / report, but arrived home feeling more powerful. At least I had done something. My next move: Call the newspapers on Tuesday, after the Memorial Day holiday.
When I reviewed the photos I discovered that in fact I had mistakenly hit the movie button at times and had video clips as a result. For some time, the movie feature had been turned on while the camera was hanging from my shoulder, against my hip. I did not even know it was on and filming. This was a lucky stroke for me, however, because it captured footage of those present, including that man who refused to identify himself to me. On film, Donna the city employee who works for the same planning dept. that had been dealing so callously with me for the past months, admitted that the city had made "an error" in trespassing on my property. She offered conciliatory actions which I am sure she will reveal more fully when I meet with her in the coming week. I captured also her statement that the lot next to mine was being paid rent by the city in exchange for being able to enter and drive across it. She also mentioned water lines the city was placing through the properties, I assume meaning mine, and said that there were "40 foot utility easements along all the parcels there. Hmmm. not sure if that is altogether true. To begin with, my lot already has a 10 ft. setback for sidewalk, landscaping on all sides, and it is only a 6100 sq. ft. lot that would be no building space at all if 40 ft. were reserved for a utility easement. So this cannot be what she meant. The city finds ways to twist and say things in a way that if not an outright lie, is certainly creates a false understanding by the listener.
The city is, as I said at the meeting with Valerie Ross, nothing but a pack of thieves and liars. They have stolen the use of my land for months now without compensating me.. and they concealed the payment of rent to owners of adjacent lots for the same purpose. They have known of the illegal conveyance by deed of my lot after 1998, but never said a word about it. They knew that Cal Trans had dumped a pile of rocks on my land but said nothing of it. The city and the state have been illegally crossing my property daily for months and I intend to get reparations for it.
End of story.. my apologies if it was boring..
Facts: A Classic Case Of Inverse Condemnation
Facts re: Inverse Condemnation, Classic Situation
These are important points to make:
1. I never received any notice of any certificate of compliance requirement, nor of any alleged "unlawful division" of my property during the 25 years I owned it until about a month ago when a loan I was seeking was turned down due to this requirement.
2.I acquired the property in 1983, by deed, as two separate parcels, with respective APNs ending in 27 and 28. The front lot, parcel 27, had a small house on it. I rented that house for some years. The back lot, parcel 28, was a vacant lot. In 1998 I sold the front lot, 27, to a married couple, the McNultys. When that sale was made, the city made no mention of any unlawful division nor of any certificate of compliance demand. Had I known of that problem, I would not have sold the front lot, but would kept them both so the two could be merged and such alleged "unlawfulness" eliminated naturally with no cost or loss. The city's failure to inform me at that time has damaged me greatly now. The title search that was done by Continental Title reported nothing negative at all to me.
3. Since I acquired the property, the zone has been changed twice. Originally residential zone, the zone was changed to commercial light some years ago and this past year to industrial light. Under the industrial light zone, the minimum lot size permitted is 20,000 sq. ft. My lot is only 6100, before sidewalk setbacks. Additionally, no notice was sent to me at all of this zone change. I discovered it only during the process of attempting to get a loan in the past two to three months.
4. No notice was sent to me about the planned or ongoing freeway expansion and the elimination of the freeway onramp that was very near my property. This directly affects the value of my property, yet no notice was given to me. Again, I discovered it when I visited the property for the first time in recent years, when I was astonished to see the enormous development surrounding my property, including the improvements in the Inland Center Mall directly on the other side of the freeway from my property and a planned carwash one parcel from mine.
5. I also recently discovered ( in the past week) that the McNultys made a deed of conveyance to two other parties on two separate occasions to my vacant lot, parcel 28, and that it was recorded. This was an illegal conveyance, as the McNultys did not own that parcel; in fact that parcel had expressly been excluded from their purchase of the front parcel in the deed given to them. I am the rightful owner of parcel 28 and have been billed and have paid the property taxes all these years. The people in the front parcel believe the conveyance that McNulty gave to them made them the owner of my lot 28.. but that belief is questionable. There is no indication of any title company involved in those conveyances, the people have not been paying the taxes on my lot, and they have never used it nor put anything on the lot. It would appear to me that they are part of a scam and they know full well they have no claim to my parcel 28. McNulty could not sell what she never owned. For some reason, the city did not make any compliance demands of the McNultys when they illegally made conveyances of a parcel they did not own.
When I asked a city planner if the owner of the front parcel, 27, would be subject to the same compliance demand, he said "yes, he would be hit with it when he tries to do anything with the property." He had formerly told me the city has no way to know which properties are subject to the compliance demand until they attempt to do a conveyance or development. I asked if that owner knew of the compliance requirement, and he said "No, he has not been notified yet." So.. once again, if what he says is not a direct lie (which I suspect it is) the city is deliberately failing to notify a property owner of a requirement that directly affects the value of their property. Just as the city failed for 25 years to notify me of any such burden or demand.
6. For months I have tried to resolve this problem. The subdivision map act, that the city claims makes the compliance demand of me, provides for any equitable remedy the city wishes to make in cases where an injustice or no notice has been given to the property owner. The city has the right to waive the fees for any such compliance or to waive the demand entirely. The city has refused to do the just thing, while trespassing on my land without seeking my permission or offering compensation.
I want JUSTICE and I want it NOW !!!
These are important points to make:
1. I never received any notice of any certificate of compliance requirement, nor of any alleged "unlawful division" of my property during the 25 years I owned it until about a month ago when a loan I was seeking was turned down due to this requirement.
2.I acquired the property in 1983, by deed, as two separate parcels, with respective APNs ending in 27 and 28. The front lot, parcel 27, had a small house on it. I rented that house for some years. The back lot, parcel 28, was a vacant lot. In 1998 I sold the front lot, 27, to a married couple, the McNultys. When that sale was made, the city made no mention of any unlawful division nor of any certificate of compliance demand. Had I known of that problem, I would not have sold the front lot, but would kept them both so the two could be merged and such alleged "unlawfulness" eliminated naturally with no cost or loss. The city's failure to inform me at that time has damaged me greatly now. The title search that was done by Continental Title reported nothing negative at all to me.
3. Since I acquired the property, the zone has been changed twice. Originally residential zone, the zone was changed to commercial light some years ago and this past year to industrial light. Under the industrial light zone, the minimum lot size permitted is 20,000 sq. ft. My lot is only 6100, before sidewalk setbacks. Additionally, no notice was sent to me at all of this zone change. I discovered it only during the process of attempting to get a loan in the past two to three months.
4. No notice was sent to me about the planned or ongoing freeway expansion and the elimination of the freeway onramp that was very near my property. This directly affects the value of my property, yet no notice was given to me. Again, I discovered it when I visited the property for the first time in recent years, when I was astonished to see the enormous development surrounding my property, including the improvements in the Inland Center Mall directly on the other side of the freeway from my property and a planned carwash one parcel from mine.
5. I also recently discovered ( in the past week) that the McNultys made a deed of conveyance to two other parties on two separate occasions to my vacant lot, parcel 28, and that it was recorded. This was an illegal conveyance, as the McNultys did not own that parcel; in fact that parcel had expressly been excluded from their purchase of the front parcel in the deed given to them. I am the rightful owner of parcel 28 and have been billed and have paid the property taxes all these years. The people in the front parcel believe the conveyance that McNulty gave to them made them the owner of my lot 28.. but that belief is questionable. There is no indication of any title company involved in those conveyances, the people have not been paying the taxes on my lot, and they have never used it nor put anything on the lot. It would appear to me that they are part of a scam and they know full well they have no claim to my parcel 28. McNulty could not sell what she never owned. For some reason, the city did not make any compliance demands of the McNultys when they illegally made conveyances of a parcel they did not own.
When I asked a city planner if the owner of the front parcel, 27, would be subject to the same compliance demand, he said "yes, he would be hit with it when he tries to do anything with the property." He had formerly told me the city has no way to know which properties are subject to the compliance demand until they attempt to do a conveyance or development. I asked if that owner knew of the compliance requirement, and he said "No, he has not been notified yet." So.. once again, if what he says is not a direct lie (which I suspect it is) the city is deliberately failing to notify a property owner of a requirement that directly affects the value of their property. Just as the city failed for 25 years to notify me of any such burden or demand.
6. For months I have tried to resolve this problem. The subdivision map act, that the city claims makes the compliance demand of me, provides for any equitable remedy the city wishes to make in cases where an injustice or no notice has been given to the property owner. The city has the right to waive the fees for any such compliance or to waive the demand entirely. The city has refused to do the just thing, while trespassing on my land without seeking my permission or offering compensation.
I want JUSTICE and I want it NOW !!!
Property Manipulation and Oppression
The thing about all levels of government is that there is all the time in the world for them. They are not like us individuals.. who have a finite existence, limited time in years to achieve our goals and ends. Instead, local governments can wait, persist, delay, repeat and take whatever actions needed to keep vital the purposes at hand. Property controls and zoning controls can outlast any individuals life. This is how the local governments win. They can delay so long that the individual gives up or dies.
Case in point: I have owned a small lot in San Bernardino City for over 25 years, acquiring it by deed in 1983. The property conveyed to me was two contiguous parcels, both residential zoned. The front parcel faced on I Street, right off Inland Center Drive, where a freeway cut through and on the opposite side of the freeway was a shopping mall. The front parcel had a small house on it which my husband and I rented for years. Then I sold that house / parcel to get cash to keep our import business afloat. The lot was in my name alone. I kept the back parcel, thinking that one day it would be worth a great deal more due to its closeness to a major California freeway, the 215 freeway. For years the city / county had prevented any improvements in the neighborhood, labeling it as a "no development zone". The only hope of gain in value was going to be due to any changes by the city or state as the years passed. I kept the lot in case of a rainy day, when I would be able to sell it and get cash out of it.
Well that rainy day is now... and coincidentally, the lot is indeed smack in the middle of development now. The state has in the past months widened and improved the freeway beside the lot, and reconfigured the on and off ramps near the lot. Surrounding my parcel, other parcels are benefitting. One group of parcels one parcel away from mine (about 60 feet) has been left zoned commercial, and was sold for $2 million this past August 2007. A car wash and convenience market has been approved to be built there. Another parcel, on the other side of my parcel, was sold by the moving company that owned it, to the state under eminent domain for the freeway widening. There is a well established but older restaurant on the left side of my lot, and on both sides of my lot is also lots owned by the Edison company. My lot and others, primarily the Edison company lot, were rezoned this past year to Industrial Light zone. I received no notice of this rezoning and learned of it by surprise when I recently tried to get a loan on the lot.
In fact, I also was denied the loan when a surprise negative came up on the title search. It seems that the city has tagged my lot as an unlawful division. There was no mention of such "unlawful" status when it was conveyed to me as two separate parcels. I did not create the division, I simply was the conveyee of the lots as such. Later, when I sold the front parcel with the house, there was also no notice of any alleged illegality. Title search came up with no such negative tag. I sold the house and kept the rear parcel. So.. 25 years have passed and now that the lot is worth more, with the current appraisal at between $100k to $125k, the city has declared it not a legal parcel. They want about $20,000 total to make it "legal".. that includes about $8000 in city fees for application of review of survey map, approval of final parcel map, and surveyor fees as well. That makes the costs to comply with the city demands to 20% of the lot value.
In the meantime, I am unable to sell or finance the lot at all. No lender, not even hard money lenders, will give loans on it without the city's "certificate of compliance" completed. The entire thing is nothing more than government extortion.
So, while property owners around me are receiving a benefit from the development going on, I am losing the entire value of the lot I have paid property taxes on for a quarter of a century. All these years the lot had its own parcel number and was taxed by the assessors office as a separate parcel.
Now I am in financial devastation: I have lost my retirement funds in the stock market fall, and am in foreclosure of the home where I live. I was counting on the resource I held in the lot, but now that has been denied me. The only path left to me is the help of an attorney, which will entail considerable cost and time. By the time I get this sorted out, I will likely already be tossed out of my home. Without any job or income, it is possible I will join the homeless hoards, all the while holding title to a lot made worthless by the city. What injustices are made possible under the damned outrageous system we live under !! Should I be so fortunate to happen into any funds again, I am leaving to live in another country and will never step foot in this one again.
Case in point: I have owned a small lot in San Bernardino City for over 25 years, acquiring it by deed in 1983. The property conveyed to me was two contiguous parcels, both residential zoned. The front parcel faced on I Street, right off Inland Center Drive, where a freeway cut through and on the opposite side of the freeway was a shopping mall. The front parcel had a small house on it which my husband and I rented for years. Then I sold that house / parcel to get cash to keep our import business afloat. The lot was in my name alone. I kept the back parcel, thinking that one day it would be worth a great deal more due to its closeness to a major California freeway, the 215 freeway. For years the city / county had prevented any improvements in the neighborhood, labeling it as a "no development zone". The only hope of gain in value was going to be due to any changes by the city or state as the years passed. I kept the lot in case of a rainy day, when I would be able to sell it and get cash out of it.
Well that rainy day is now... and coincidentally, the lot is indeed smack in the middle of development now. The state has in the past months widened and improved the freeway beside the lot, and reconfigured the on and off ramps near the lot. Surrounding my parcel, other parcels are benefitting. One group of parcels one parcel away from mine (about 60 feet) has been left zoned commercial, and was sold for $2 million this past August 2007. A car wash and convenience market has been approved to be built there. Another parcel, on the other side of my parcel, was sold by the moving company that owned it, to the state under eminent domain for the freeway widening. There is a well established but older restaurant on the left side of my lot, and on both sides of my lot is also lots owned by the Edison company. My lot and others, primarily the Edison company lot, were rezoned this past year to Industrial Light zone. I received no notice of this rezoning and learned of it by surprise when I recently tried to get a loan on the lot.
In fact, I also was denied the loan when a surprise negative came up on the title search. It seems that the city has tagged my lot as an unlawful division. There was no mention of such "unlawful" status when it was conveyed to me as two separate parcels. I did not create the division, I simply was the conveyee of the lots as such. Later, when I sold the front parcel with the house, there was also no notice of any alleged illegality. Title search came up with no such negative tag. I sold the house and kept the rear parcel. So.. 25 years have passed and now that the lot is worth more, with the current appraisal at between $100k to $125k, the city has declared it not a legal parcel. They want about $20,000 total to make it "legal".. that includes about $8000 in city fees for application of review of survey map, approval of final parcel map, and surveyor fees as well. That makes the costs to comply with the city demands to 20% of the lot value.
In the meantime, I am unable to sell or finance the lot at all. No lender, not even hard money lenders, will give loans on it without the city's "certificate of compliance" completed. The entire thing is nothing more than government extortion.
So, while property owners around me are receiving a benefit from the development going on, I am losing the entire value of the lot I have paid property taxes on for a quarter of a century. All these years the lot had its own parcel number and was taxed by the assessors office as a separate parcel.
Now I am in financial devastation: I have lost my retirement funds in the stock market fall, and am in foreclosure of the home where I live. I was counting on the resource I held in the lot, but now that has been denied me. The only path left to me is the help of an attorney, which will entail considerable cost and time. By the time I get this sorted out, I will likely already be tossed out of my home. Without any job or income, it is possible I will join the homeless hoards, all the while holding title to a lot made worthless by the city. What injustices are made possible under the damned outrageous system we live under !! Should I be so fortunate to happen into any funds again, I am leaving to live in another country and will never step foot in this one again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
About Me
- JO PETERS
- Educator / Speaker / Consultant Real Estate Broker (Independent); Freelance Writer; above all, Artist www.jopeters.blogspot.com