Re: [at-l] Graymoor---

[Tim Hewitt <thewitt@fairchildsemi.com>]

on 8/17/00 9:52 AM, James P. Lynch, III at jplynch@crosslink.net wrote:

> When property is "taken" by eminent domain it *must* be paid for at the
> appraised market value.  This is part of the law.  You're right, it
> doesn't matter what you paid (you may have paid more and you may have
> paid less).  It also does not matter what some expected future value is;
> no one has a crystal ball.  Who knows what the future value of anything
> is?  Land in particular is very prone to big swings in value, up and
> down.

Sorry, but I believe that this is the largest single problem with the law.
When I purchased the property, the independent appraised market value was
$1600/acre. It was zoned for residential development. The market value was
set based on comparable properties surrounding mine. Development in the area
was starting with the infrastructure being put in place for services when I
purchased.

When the state came in and effecively stole my property, they first -
through the state DEP - reclassified the property as wetlands that was not
developable. Less than 10 acres of the land was pond, and the surrounding
land was not wet, with a very well defined stream running in and out of the
property. High gravel bluffs (most of Western Washington has a gravel base)
surrounded the streambed. Drainage was not an issue. There was no flood
plain. The bulk of the property was second growth douglas fir. The state
then appraised the property themselves - no indepented appraisals allowed -
at $385/acre. I had two options; sell at the price they offered or have my
property condemmed and simply taken for no compenstation. I sued. I lost. I
sold at $385/acre and lost half that in legal fees. I was not able to log
the property or in any other way disturb the property before selling. I was
screwed up one side and down the other.

This all happened inside of 12 months and in assiciation with a change in
the Governership of the state. The new administration was not in favor of
development in this part of the county - it had the potential of becoming a
bedroom community to Redmond, and the road infrastructure was not adaquate
to serve commuter traffic for 10,000 Microsoft employees...

By the way, the state has now sold part of this property themselves (25+
acres), to a private developer for $30000/acre (13 years later), and I'm
researching my legal rights for recompense. He haas built high-density
housing; condominium-like houses with no yards and some common areas. Yes
it's a bedroom community now. The DEP removed wetland protection status from
those 25+ acres.

Were my property rights violated? You decide.

I'm sorry this has drifted so far from being trail related.

-Paddler
-- 
Paddler
AT Class of 1999 GA>ME
http://paddler99.trailstories.com




* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================