|
| Author |
Message |
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Apr 2016 20:21 - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
Over time many folks have run into what on some level seems like unfair regulations that limit the use of land we have bought or are considering buying. The limits may be directly addressing the types of use, size of homes, the use of temporary residences such as trailers or RV's. As well rules may limit the order in which garages, sheds and other ancillary buildings we might want to erect. There is a land use dispute developing near me right now.
There's a golf course in our suburban neighborhood; built 35 - 40 years ago, before all the homes around it. 27 holes. People paid premium prices for the lots that back onto the golf course. The common reasons for buying those lots are for the view over the open space and the green of the grass and trees. Green is not common here in the dessert.
The golf course is privately owned, but is open to the public as well as offering memberships. For the last 10 years or so things have been tough. The recession hit the membership rolls hard. The water used to irrigate the golf course is treated effluent from the city sewage system and even though it is still cheaper than water pumped from the earth it has increased in price several fold in the past few years.
In 2013 the golf course owner decided to turn off the "north 9". Irrigation was stopped and some pumping equipment was re-purposed elsewhere on the course. Those 9 holes are no longer used at all. Many trees in the north 9 have died, the ground is dead grass. Not much green anymore.
The golf course owner now wants to sell the 67 acres that make up the north 9. He has a well known home developer who will pay over $2 million for the land. They would build 150 new homes. The sale would allow the golf course owner to pay off the accumulated debt and update some equipment. He has also offered the land to the home owner association; the 200 home owners who own property that rings the north 9. The HOA has been unable to come to an agreement among its members to do that. The city has said that the city can not afford to buy the land and keep it as parkland. The zoning commission has to give approval to change the zoning from recreational to R-1 residential.
If the land sells to the developer the value of those 200 homes will drop as they will no longer back onto the open space. By how much is also in disagreement. Apparently is some locations where a golf course has closed the impact on property value was minimal, in others as much as 10%, maybe more. Homes affected range in price presently from $275K to $335K. If the land does not sell the golf course owner states it is just a matter of time before he will close up shop and quit. It is not known if he could find a buyer who will keep the golf course open. Closure would put 48 full time employees out of work. Who knows what will happen to the land the golf course occupies then?
So what is the solution? Somebody is going to get hurt, at least a little...
|
|
Littlecooner
Member
|
# Posted: 12 Apr 2016 21:19
Reply
Interesting local political situation. First, it appears the value decline of those 200 homes happened in 2013 when they all of a sudden, did not back up to a green golf course. No one has control over the adjacent neighbor, ie, the golf course owner to make him continue to operate the golf course. It may sound hard, but I think it is just one of those risk of owning property and not being able to force the guy next door to do what you want him to with his property.
Now you say the owner of the golf course would sell the 67 acres to the 200 land owners around the course who have homes in the $ 300,000 range. Well if you divide the 200 homes into the 2 million price tag, that means each owner could buy the 1/3 acres behind his home for @ 20,000 (6.67 % of the value of his current property) to keep it open and not taken up by new residential property. I know this may be a simplification of the 67 acres, but you see the point and the numbers.
If the HOA does not want the property to prevent a new development and keep it open, then I say it is free enterprise and a free country if the developer pays the money and does a new subdivision. These people will, in the long run, loose a lot more that 6-7% of their home value in doing nothing and seeing a new development literally in their back yard.
Somebody going to get hurt? Yep, 200 spoiled home owners who will not band together and do what is required to keep the neighborhood with open space in the back yard. I can only laugh when the developer buys the place and puts a 67 acre RV park in the back yard because they would not act. Yep, understand the zoning commission would have to rezone, but the homes could be a lot less in square footage and the community home values could really decrease in the coming years.
MtDon, do you not just have a smile on your face that you are out in the wilds, away from what I have always called the "asphalt jungle" of these people living in subdivision? This is the best reason in the world to buy acreage way out of town and build what you want exactly in the middle of your acreage.
|
|
Julie2Oregon
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2016 01:36
Reply
A lot of this is on the municipality, too. I don't know if they employ any sort of controlled growth measures but adding a bunch of homes/people to what was open, recreational space has an impact on roads, schools, utilities, and services such as police, fire, and ambulance. Usually, making a developer pay impact fees, if they do, is a drop in the bucket to the actual cost of the upgrades and needed services over time.
Of course, if the homes are upscale, sold, and most are occupied then property tax money is generated. I don't know how that compares with the taxes paid on the golf course.
The neighbors can and should address their concerns with their elected officials and fight the development if they don't want it. Or, at the very least, negotiate in some preservation of recreational land and green space be mandated by the planning board if the land owner expects that the proposal will be approved. As Little Cooner wrote, if they don't stand up, then they can't complain.
And putting those homes in would enable him to connect the collective sinks and showers to a greywater reuse system for subsurface irrigation of the required green/recreational space. He could actually make it prettier and more vibrant than a golf course (which I personally find boring). If he wanted to take it to the next level, stage 2 treatment of that greywater would enable him to put in a pond or other water element. And, presto! Lovely space for all to enjoy and no further need to purchase treated effluent from the city.
Done well and cooperatively, there could be some win-wins, maybe.
|
|
Littlecooner
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2016 05:59 - Edited by: Littlecooner
Reply
All this group of 200 home owners needs is a strong HOA board and president who are willing to put forth the effort to preserve this 67 acres as open space.
Julie is correct on the "land usage and impact" of a new residential development on 67 acres.
A call for a HOA meeting, vote by the 200 members on purchase of the 67 acres, trip to bank to look for money, trip to Revenue Commissioners chief appraiser to discuss potential revaluing and end product of tax bill for maintaining the 67 acres as open space, trip to see the mayor and city council members on input and any help, financial or political, to keep the 67 acres as open space and then the big HOA meeting to vote on action and raising the monthly HOA dues sufficient to purchase the 67 acres. For discussion only, it appears to me that a $ 150 to $ 200 increase in the monthly HOA dues would pay for the purchase and maintenance of this property.
For people living and owning $ 300,000 + homes ( and probably have $ 80,000 - $ 100,000 in autos and toys in the garage) can easily afford a $ 200 per month increase in HOA dues, especially to maintain property values, possible pick up extra property in the back yard and have a public area for HOA usage.
To me, this is a "no brainier". And I believe a majority of those 200 owners would agree once they though about the cost of these options. I hope they have elected a top notch president for the HOA with a lot of common sense along with a lot of business sense. Then you will see the place remain a public space and not a housing development in their back yard. And to answer your question MtnDon - this way no one gets hurt and everyone in the community benefits.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2016 17:54
Reply
A great website showing how local ordinance, codes, buffer zones etc affect you is at http://www.takingliberty.us.
|
|
Kudzu
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2016 21:35
Reply
This is why I own property (enough) that I could care less what my neighbor does with his property.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2016 00:27
Reply
A friend who lives in that neighborhood, but across the street on the non golf course side, tells me there are probably less than 50 owners who have shown great interest in buying out the golf course and adding to their lot size. Frankly, if I was on one of the streets in question I don't think I would want the extra land. More land, in a desert, will have a continuous cost if one wants to keep it green. that is one of the big factors that has plagued every owner of the golf course.
We use between 3000 and 4000 gallons per month on average over the year. That costs us about $40 a month. Add to that the sewer charge of $40 and we average $80 a month on water. That 3-4K gallons includes mild irrigation of a few trees. No grass, no plants that need watering. For green we have some green artificial turf in the backyard.  If you want to irrigate much grass your monthly water bill will easily be twice ours. The thought of keeping 1/3 of an acre green through 95 - 100 degree arid summer days scares me; $5 / 1000 gallons once you hit 7000 of use. Fortunately the sewer connection fee is based on winter water usage; the idea being that most of the purchased water passed through the sewer as outdoor irrigation is minimal in winter.
Not to mention that I believe it is unconscionable to use much water to maintain a lawn or some varieties of water hogging trees and shrubs in an arid climate. Our historical average annual precipitation is 9.2". That may be decreasing. This past month of March had no measurable precipitation at all.
So, if it wasn't for the fact of being located in a desert, I would go along with the idea of adding 1/3 acre and having your own bit of parkland, a garden, or whatever.
There is a meeting on the weekend with anybody welcome, HOA member or not. The golf course is hosting it and reps from the developer will be there to show their latest plan with 145 homes instead of the original plan (year ago) of 180 homes. The city will have representation from the zoning board. It could be interesting. However, we will skip as we will be at our place in the mountains, enjoying the quiet, the solitude... probably bucking a few winter downed trees into next years firewood.
|
|
Julie2Oregon
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2016 01:44
Reply
I agree, MtnDon. I believe in going with the native landscape and plants. My feeling is that if you want green lawns, then live in a place where there's green grass/plants. If I lived in the desert, I'd have interesting rock gardens, cacti, etc.
For those on septic systems, greywater reuse for landscaping and gardens is great, though. Why send it through the septic when you can filter and direct it where you want it to go to water plants, grow food, and such.
|
|
|
Littlecooner
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2016 10:02
Reply
This is an indication of the changing times in our lives. Water is becoming a huge problem, especially in the arid west. Looks like this place will be the new site of 145 homes. It is like Kudzu position, one can never really be concerned with what your adjoining neighbor does with his property. Those in smaller, more dense area do have zoning and covenants and city regulations to help protect land values, but I prefer the cheaper land way away from the dense population so you will not be bothered when the adjoining land owner does something that you really do not prefer he does with his property. If only 1/4 of the owners in the subdivision have any desire to even discuss the purchase of the golf course that changing times closed down, then the decision has already been reached.
Dang desert land is cheap. I bought 6 acres of that desert land in Colorado about 6-8 years ago for $ 200 an acre ( $ 1200). All on a county road, in a deeded subdivision. After spending a couple of days on the property, putting steel fence post by the pins on the corners and watching the wild mustangs run back and forth, I departed. Now I wonder if I will ever get my money back from my "investment". I can even shoot a deer from my property standing on the other side of the Rio Grande river. Sound attractive until you look at that dry parched land in person. I though it was to cheap to pass up, now I am not so sure. O well, it is raining again this morning and I did not get to finish mowing the grass yesterday afternoon. Such is life when it rains 75-85 inches a year, so it really is all about the climate in the area we decide to call home and once we make that decision, we have to live with mother nature and the water that is available.
|
|
|
