Eminent domain?

[svsv]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OREGON

I have a rental property that I recently remodeled. For the remodel I obtained a building permit from my city's jurisdiction. During the permit process they were saying a 5' strip along one side of the property would have to be "dedicated" to the city for future street improvement use. I assumed this meant "dedicated" as in giving them control, not dedicated as in signing over the entire ownership of 20% of the lot to them. They issued me the permit, although mistakenly. They were supposed to make sure I signed over the land first, but they forgot and issued the permit anyway. So now, they are not finalizing the permit inspections (the very last step) until I sign over the 5' strip to them.

Never mind their mistake, Is this legal? If gov't agencies need to demand to take ownership of a portion of private party's land isn't there always compensation involvled? Can they force me to just give it to them for free?

Thanks!

 

[Badbrains]

Would you care to elaborate on what modification you did specifically under remodel as it might help to get a clearer picture of what you did to the property. Did you create a line of sight issue (ie a negative easement) by your remodel or something else that would infringe upon local property boundary compliance. Not an easy answer to your question, to many hypotheticals.

Needless to say have you spoken with inspections/permits department and asked them to provide you with local ordinance that show why land must be turned over due to your modification?

 

[DAD09]

Don't believe your story....

As eminent domain falls under police power/governmental rights which imposes on your bundle of rights (basic real estate rights).
If this situation were true you would have been paid FMV for the parcel they (Local Govt) just do not take "a portion of".

 

[svsv]

Badbrains:

It was basically an interior remodel. Nothing about the building is triggering it, nothing is encroaching on that stip they want, or anywhere near it. It's being triggered solely by the fact that a building permit was applied for. At that point they enforce whatever they can enforce on properties. There's probably some sort of wording in the code their following that says if the project is over a certain valuation, X req'ts kick in. Nothing to do with the project itself. Its' on an unpaved street surrounded by paved streets. At some point they might decide to pave it, in which case they'll need more width. IMO that will take years because at this rate, they still have another 17 lots to do this to - permit by permit. Not likely anytime soon. Anyway, I don't have an issue with the intent, and actually would be fine not being allowed to build there. It's the fact that they are trying to force me to sign over the actual OWNERSHIP of a 5'x 100' strip to them.

DAD09:
Yes, it's true. No it hasn't happened yet, I am stalling as long as I can. But I have they deed transfer paperwork from them on my desk, and they are bugging me. Plus they won't finalize my permit w/o.

So it sounds like this is "not" really legal? Even if buried deep in the code somewhere it says they just have the right to take strips of property under X conditions - is THAT even legal? I can see forcing a person to give it over in exchange for just compensation, but not for free.

 

[HomeGuru]

Badbrains:

It was basically an interior remodel. Nothing about the building is triggering it, nothing is encroaching on that stip they want, or anywhere near it. It's being triggered solely by the fact that a building permit was applied for. At that point they enforce whatever they can enforce on properties. There's probably some sort of wording in the code their following that says if the project is over a certain valuation, X req'ts kick in. Nothing to do with the project itself. Its' on an unpaved street surrounded by paved streets. At some point they might decide to pave it, in which case they'll need more width. IMO that will take years because at this rate, they still have another 17 lots to do this to - permit by permit. Not likely anytime soon. Anyway, I don't have an issue with the intent, and actually would be fine not being allowed to build there. It's the fact that they are trying to force me to sign over the actual OWNERSHIP of a 5'x 100' strip to them.

DAD09:
Yes, it's true. No it hasn't happened yet, I am stalling as long as I can. But I have they deed transfer paperwork from them on my desk, and they are bugging me. Plus they won't finalize my permit w/o.

So it sounds like this is "not" really legal? Even if buried deep in the code somewhere it says they just have the right to take strips of property under X conditions - is THAT even legal? I can see forcing a person to give it over in exchange for just compensation, but not for free.

**A: eminent domain is legal so get an appraisal of the strip of land that they want and ask for fair market value.

 

[svsv]

**A: eminent domain is legal so get an appraisal of the strip of land that they want and ask for fair market value.

I have already told them via an email that compensation needs to be part of the discussion. But so I am ready, what leverage do I have if they say no way?

Ok, Eminent Domain is legal - meaning forcing someone to sell for compensation. Which means that the term eminent domain is ONLY used when a gov't forces the owner to sell. So what's the term for forcing forfeiture of land? Of course there's "condemnation" - but that doesn't apply here. Is there another term for this? Or is this just plain never done, therefore not legal for them to expect?

 

[VictorD]

I have already told them via an email that compensation needs to be part of the discussion. But so I am ready, what leverage do I have if they say no way?

Ok, Eminent Domain is legal - meaning forcing someone to sell for compensation. Which means that the term eminent domain is ONLY used when a gov't forces the owner to sell. So what's the term for forcing forfeiture of land? Of course there's "condemnation" - but that doesn't apply here. Is there another term for this? Or is this just plain never done, therefore not legal for them to expect?

You could show them the US Constitution (Fifth Amendment), which reads in part:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

In some cases, the "just compensation" comes in the form of zoning relief, or some other non-monetary consideration. But it sounds like that is not what is happening in your situation.

 

[HomeGuru]

I have already told them via an email that compensation needs to be part of the discussion. But so I am ready, what leverage do I have if they say no way?

Ok, Eminent Domain is legal - meaning forcing someone to sell for compensation. Which means that the term eminent domain is ONLY used when a gov't forces the owner to sell. So what's the term for forcing forfeiture of land? Of course there's "condemnation" - but that doesn't apply here. Is there another term for this? Or is this just plain never done, therefore not legal for them to expect?

**A: it's the same scenario and is considered a "taking".