Too bad it's not a bit closer to the river
Printable View
Too bad it's not a bit closer to the river
There’s a certain amount of chatter in financial news about the possibility of fed rate drops next year.
https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/ma...rates-11142023
I’m guessing rates will be around 6% through next summer. Incumbent administrations always put a bunch of pressure on the Fed during election years. Pretty well established that no Prez has ever won an election if the economy is down during the summer before the November election.
^ add to that no higher gas prices for the upcoming year. Not a good look..
I see Milt Datsopolus is their attorney. When I lived in Missoula the saying was “If you are guilty, call Uncle Milty.”Quote:
Originally Posted by duffski
Sent from my island using TGR Forums
Exactly. Keep gas prices low summer 2024, much better chance of reelection.Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
Ha. I was going to say the same thing. Can't believe that guy is still kicking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
claimed they took steps to ensure they were meeting all regulatory requirements prior to purchasing the 0.05-acre, 2,309-square-foot parcel in 2019
What the fuck. Forget the stream rules, how the fuck is that a buildable lot?
that build was the main call out by the park ranger on the guided bus tour this spring aside from hiking guidance for the week. total wtf driving by, great example to make and happy for the publicity
They thought they had found a loophole by omission. Not a fan of folks who try to exploit loopholes in code that very obviously go against the spirit of the code... And then act shocked and victimized when they're shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
I am sure they will be crying into their martinis at the club in San Diego while this sad, sad story plays out.
Just about weekly I get surprised at what flies under the radar. 60 acres development that is 90% completed through the civil phase and yet somehow they don't have all their permits in place or plat approvals from the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
It's easier to say you're sorry than to get permission.
Yep, plus many small towns leaders/councils are filled with cowards that don't want to upset their neighbors.
It's funny because I had a builder posit a position on some bullshit wetland building of "of we can't do X, it's not buildable, but it's a lot therefore you must approve" and had to inform them that them ripping down things and going after misrepresentations by the person who sold them the lot were absolutely in the realm of possibility.
It's stunning how quickly some developers just abandon lot restrictions then cry when you hold them accountable.
You think railroad tie foundation is bad? I've been in a few houses in Big Timber actually that are built on stacked dry stones and dirt fill that is mostly river rock. Maybe a couple yards of concrete in the whole "foundation." Seriously.
I've been studying this one. As far as I can tell the buyers (who own a few other props in Flathead Co) purchased this directly from the sellers.......I wonder if they had a professional on board advising them how this may have turned out differently? Someone who's entire job it is to advise people on the purchase of a property that may actually have little value because you can't actually build on it.....someone to do research before a purchase......oh yeah, a buyers agent. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by duffski
Or you can "save money" by buying a piece of land without an agent and then doing all your own wrong research and then burning 250k on a structure you have to tear down now.
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
How much do you think they paid for their 2000sf lot? the article doesnt seem to say its an unbuildable lot, just that the way the built it doesnt work (earthwork into the creek bed). Are we sure its unbuildable, or just really difficult to build and was built/permitted incorrectly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom_Guardian
IMO, this is a situation that reeks of the buyers knowing the risk and rolling the dice because its MT/ID/WY where permitting is fucking cowboy compared to the bigname western metros where these folks are probably from. From a ease of permitting and karma perspective always meet the spirit of the code, not just the letter... or be OK with the risk.
I have no idea how much they paid, but MT (and I'm sure ID and WY too) is littered with super cheap lots that sit vacant forever. Occasionally I get a call about such and such lot that's been on the market for 900 days and the answer is almost always, "Well, there is no legal access and/or its a nearly unbuildable slope and/or you will have to drill 800 feet to hit water etc etc"Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Buying the cheapest weirdest lot you can find rarely pans out as a good investment.
Look at this lot from the article. Onx and cadastral lot lines are generally pretty inaccurate, but one look at this and immediately I'm like, "there is probably a pretty good reason it has sat there empty for so long."
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...a3e6a17c3f.jpg
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
I'm not familiar with any special regs that may exist for a National Park inholding but in my experience private inholdings are always still subject to local county/state development and permitting regulations. Even our huts that operate wholly on National FS land through a special use permit still have to go through a county approval and permitting process. It's hard to believe people who already own inholdings that they claim they've been using for decades didn't know this stuff. My guess is they asked the least qualified person they could find at the county, got the answer they were fishing for and then quit asking questions so they could claim later they got bad info.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Most rivers, even seasonal creeks, falll under riparian setbacks whether the jurisdiction is county, state, or federal. Probably with it being “non-navigable” it’s counted from the center of the stream bed although it could be from the high water mark which is probably close to the yellow line. Some worthless real estate professional probably didn’t tell them that not only will they have to remove what they built, but in all likelihood they’re liable for restoration and any perceived damages.
Surprising that anyone helped them get this far. Most contractors are conscientious of risking their licensing working on an unpermitted dwelling.
Datsopolus is just listed as a partner of the firm, not counsel. They may leave his name on the letterhead for recognition.
I looked up that parcel in the county GIS the other day and it just seems crazy that anyone would think it is buildable. It also seems crazy to try and pretend that it should be under federal jurisdiction and that county rules shouldn't apply. I'm no lawyer, but inholding land sits in the county and private ownership predates the park.
From the map it looks like like most of that area is stream bed--it is a triangular parcel with only the "point" being inland.
Attachment 476330
I know the GIS lines aren't 100% accurate, but I don't see how you could put a house there while still meeting any setback requirements and not causing issue with a stream in a freaking national park. The neighboring parcels are much larger and aren't developed either (though they may be government owned). They are all categorized as "Residential Property" but...where's it gonna go?
Don't you have access to an MLS or something that will tell you who handled the deal if it was listed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom_Guardian
Unless it was dirt cheap (because it was useless), I can't imagine trying to buy a parcel like that without talking to lawyers and basically having all of my plans pre-approved by all parties who might even have a slight interest. If they'd really been coming here forever and had family or friends who owned another inholding property, they really should have known better.
edit: lol, well I guess I waited too long to post this and you went and posted the same photo!
Yeah I checked both of the MLS that I am a member of and as far as I can see it was purchased off market/FSBO the summer of 2019. The closest I can find that was actually listed was a same sized (but rectangular and not halfway in the river lol) lot on the same street with a mobile home that sold in 2021 for $1.5 MILLION lol. Wow.
Flathead County GIS is off by tens of feet, way worse than most other "developed" counties in MT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom_Guardian
Look across McDonald Creek in the above image though. I believe that is Apgar Creek coming in, and check out the gravel bar. In a big water year, I bet that gets big and pushes even more flow towards the house.
And for the people wondering how this happened, Flathead County, like several others in MT, has areas that are totally unzoned and that do not require any sort of "real" building permit. That was the case here, so nobody at the County looked at or approved the building plan in any way shape or form.
I find it hard to believe, however, that the contractor or architect were totally unaware of the 310 Law, which is the MT law that requires a (free) permit before you can disturb the bed or banks of a perennial waterway. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a CYA email or text from the contractor/architect/whatever to the homeowners stating that they "may" need a 310 Permit or something like that.
Also, Milt Datsopolous did, in fact, die last year, but his firm continues onward.
This case is far from over. Expect an appeal to district court, then the MT Supreme Court. I suppose it is even possible that this ends up at the US Supreme Court because they love jurisdictional fights, and that is what this is.
WG, curious: are you aware of the details of the 310 permits sufficient to advise clients about it, or at least that they need to consult an expert? I am guessing most Realtors are not. I have been involved in 310 permitting disputes where a neighbor complained and the Conservation District came out....and red tagged work that the complainer had done. I laughed a lot at that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo
Oh you sweet summer children. Most MT counties do not have zoning/permitting outside of municipalities or other highly-developed areas (i.e. resorts).Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco
And MT also does not have statewide streamside setbacks.
Nor does it have a legitimate licensing system for contractors.
Everybody deserves what is coming to them on this thing.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3xkNUy...JZjK/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Realtors advising clients about easements and the interpretation of covenants, etc. keeps me and several associates busy. Do you really think real estate agents are qualified to opine on easements? Holy smokes, please don't do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowsparkco