Some developers are swine.

[paulsharvey]

For someone estate planning with property, there could also be an option to Sell it to a conservation group, while keeping a life hold lease on the property. They sell get the cash, and stay on the house/property until they die. They dont own it anymore, cause the sold it, but they own a life hold lease. The heirs get any cash left in the estate; or the estate spends it all in their final years; doesn't matter.

 

[WinterDeere]

Can you help me out with ideas on where people are supposed to live?

Most of our cities are suffering from residential abandonment, due to mismanagement, which shows up in the forms of crime, traffic, and other frustrations. Look at most other developed countries from Europe to even Canada, and you will find much higher fractions of the population living in cities. But no one wants to live actually in Detroit, Memphis, or Baltimore, so they flood into the surrounding countryside and commute.

A developer I knew summed it up when he said "Everyone wants to be the last one in".

My father used to say exactly the same thing.

The developer is swine because he convinced and paid the daughter to get the covenants that her parents had put in place to preserve their land as farm land removed, knowing full well that they had assured the adjoining neighbors for years that they wouldn't allow the property to be developed.

If you think the parents did this as some noble sacrifice, you don't understand how this works. The combination of immediate cash and subsequent tax breaks provided by most of these preservation programs is the primary motivator.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but an uncle of mine had just put 84 acres into preservation in @kenmbz's neighborhood ca.2001, and I think he was paid something like $750k up front for giving up the development rights, and had the assessment driving his yearly property tax slashed down from a number that would make your eyes bleed to a level representing only the house and something like 2 acres around it.

He knew full-well that any developer could (and likely would) pay the back taxes to pull the property back out of preservation, after he was gone, given the high value of property in that area. But it was "preserved" while he was here, and the cash and tax release certainly made things more comfortable for him to remain there and maintain his other properties.

 

[paulsharvey]

I think some people on here have never known someone burdened with a "white elephant" property. Wife's grandma owned a large home in Flagler Beach, on intercoastal, boat slip, and all. When her husband died, Grandma could not afford to fix anything, every single year at property tax time, it was touch and go. She dropped all insurance, cause no way she could pay taxes And insurance. House slowly rots away with her; until she dies. She leaves it to 2 of her 3 children, intentional leaving 1 son out. The two adult children stay in it for a few years; plywood up this room cause the window is broken, cut water off to kitchen cause they can't afford to fix the leak, and still struggle to make that tax payment every year (like $12,000). Gets to the point wife's mom has to threaten her brother with a law suite to force him to sell. Eventually, like 3 years later, faced with either the county siezing the house for back taxes or selling it; he gives in and they sell. They got $700,000 to split two ways; and wife's mom uses the money to buy a simpler, more practical home, with running water, windows, and lower taxes. Both my MIL and her brother hated to see it go, but it was good for them both.

 

[riptides]

You have no right to control what was once your property from beyond the grave. If that idea worked all the land on earth would have been locked away centuries ago. And what do you expect the daughter to do? She clearly isn’t going to start farming the land again.

Ahhhh ------ Easements in perpetuity.

 

[Jstpssng]

Definition of an environmentalist; somebody who already has their place in the country.

 

[riptides]

If the cornfield across from your property sold and a subdivision was coming in and you posted about how your nice view is going away, I would be sympathetic and would likely offer a "Sorry to hear. That stinks" post.

But if you went on and on (and on) about what "swine" the people (who had done nothing wrong) were, and detailed your efforts to stop the development and vowed how you were going to do everything you could to be a pain in their @$$, my sympathy would dry up.

Personal property rights are a very important part of life in USA. I'm not convinced that the daughter should not have done (or been allowed to do) what she wanted with her property.

But did she do it legally is somewhat of a question.

One just cannot have a development show up across the street without following process and laws.

 

[HawkinsHollow]

One small town that is growing too
fast is seeing an uptick in crime, shootings at their HS, unmanageable
traffic and has inadequate infra structure to support the booming
population. Town mismanagement ? I think so. City fathers waited to
long and ignored the growth signs of huge housing developments. Now
trying to correct/update but really too little too late.

I see this happening in my county. It has always been pretty backwards and behind the curve. Now hundreds of houses are coming in. It does look like they are updating sanitary sewers which get pumped to the next county over. We will see if it is all worth it and whether they can stay ahead of the curve.

 

[paulsharvey]

I also feel, specifically on farming, a lot of comments are from folks that like the Idea of farming, but dont actually understand its a Business. You take a medium sized 640 acre farm, that actually does support a family income. Farmer isn't getting rich, hes getting old, he doesn't have a pension or a 401k; if he wants to retire, he has 100% (or more) of his estate tied up in dirt. His only realistic choice is to sell and use that money to retire. Maybe he sells to his kids, maybe he sells to another farmer, maybe he auctions it, maybe his kids want to keep farming, and he leases the ground to them.

In the most "family farm friendly" scenario; he leases the dirt to his kid. He gets enough to cover taxes, and enough to live his twilight years. Great. Now, he dies, the kid inherited the land, some buildings, and maybe some old, paid for equipment, but very likely not that much functional, modern, paid for equipment. The kid (he/she is probably not a spring chicken at this point) now has to pay taxes on $1.4m of the $6.4M value. He either had to take a loan to pay the tax, or he sells a couple smaller parcels to cover tax. Maybe he doesn't want to lease or take massive loans for equipment; so instead of selling 20 2 acre pieces to cover taxes; he instead sells 160 acres to a developer; he covers the taxes, he has about $800k for capital investment; and he continues his family legacy.
Yes, 100%, he did sell off a quarter if the farm, but hes starting from a strong financial position, he had a bit of a buffer for low soybean prices, weather, intrest rates. You want family farms to continue, they need to be able to access their financial assets.

 

[paulsharvey]

In the above scenario, that next gen farmer sells the 160 acres; maybe it is divided into 32 5 acre parcels. We get 32 new "homestead, tiny farm, life style" folks; they buy tractors, decorative "farm" gates, build driveways and homes; TBN gets 32 new members, I build roads, county gets more taxes, 32 people are happy with their new rural properties, the farmer is still farming, and with his capital investment, he is probably producing more on his 480 acres then pops did on his 640. Who lost?

 

[Oaktree]

But did she do it legally is somewhat of a question.

One just cannot have a development show up across the street without following process and laws.

Sounds like she (or her developer friend) DID follow process and laws. Just because you didn't like the outcome doesn't mean the deal was shady.