The new park is a turnaround and the city isn’t happy with the current owner. Not sure if that has anything to do with this or not.
The park has several empty lots, of course I plan on bringing in homes and doing the rent credit thing.
The park has several older homes mostly from the 1980’s, mostly in crappy shape but I’ll be fixing that.
There are reportedly new requirements that are designed to discourage older homes from being brought into the county. Things like requiring a 3/12 roof pitch, basically meaning it has to be a shingle roof.
Since the park already has older homes in it, can the county now require this?
PS - I should add they also have a SQ FT minimum of 780 SF. Not sure how they arrive at that number. So much for personal property rights.
This is not a question regarding personal property rights it is more about maintaining the quality of the entire community to benefit all residents. You should view this as a good thing as in the long term it will increase the quality of your own community and attract better quality residents. You say this is a turn around and these regulations fit right into that plan. Moving forward the county does have the right to establish new guidelines for future homes and is generally doing so to satisfy the tax payers needs. Embrace the changes as a positive not a negative.
There is without a doubt a property rights issue here.
What about a smaller lot that will only fit a park model? The 780 sf rule makes that lot unusable when paired with the preexisting setback rules - even if the home is nice and brand new.
I could give other examples but that makes the point.
Bottom line is we live in an era where government knows best and must rule our lives.
I know a developer that bought some land with the intention of developing it into some residential lots, then building on them. The Govt. decided after he bought it that much of the land was a wetland making it unbuildable and worthless. Did he get reimbursed? Of course not.
Or the older lady that bought acreage in AZ to develop it for her retirement. The Govt. later said it was in the migration route of some threatened bird, making it worthless and unbuildable. Did she get reimbursed?
The same story is true for a developer in CA where they found some freaking mouse, and declared his land unusable making it worthless.
I could go on for pages.
Personal property rights are under attack in the USA. That is undeniable.
When I was a builder in IN I was in the permit office pulling permits to build a new spec home.
There was a lady in there that had bought 3 acres in Zionsville, IN. After she bought it, Zionsville decided you could only build on lots of 5 acres or more. They refused her permits, she was literally in tears, crying.
Her land was now worthless, her dreams crushed all because the govt. in Zionsville didn’t have any respect for personal property rights. She wasn’t trying to open up a junkyard in a neighborhood, just build her dream home on 3 acres.
I could, and maybe should, write a book. There is no denying that our personal property rights are under attack in the US.