Monday, July 23, 2007
More on the Moratorium
The recent moratorium in Tillicum did indeed get people talking. This morning's editorial in The News Tribune can be found here.
I've received a number of thoughtful reactions that show how much there is to consider, and how much is at stake. I thought I would include excerpts of a couple of thought-provoking emails so you can see what's on the table.
If you have not read the post below about the moratorium itself, you might want to do so, or the references to 25-foot lots will be very confusing.
The names were changed, as the saying goes, to protect the innocent.
From one correspondent:
My experience with ancient, usually turn of the century 25' lots
whether in (four different places) is they are never
grandfathered as a given to build on. (The Lakewood city staff) seem to think
otherwise. It may be that there are precedents in Lakewood that would give
an attorney a good argument. Our question to a planner elsewhere is how
many of the 25'ers does it take for a building lot. Some will tell us they
mean nothing if the plat was done on a hillside and most will say 3 or 4 25'
lots for a building permit.
I have come to the conclusion ... that there is no protection from the whims
[or good thinking]of a planner or engineer if they decide at any time that a
new standard must be met. Therefore there is no such thing as vesting.
This is confirmed by a development specialists who had argued many cases trying to
establish a vesting right, and the courts will not give it to them if a new
standard has good health and safety reasoning. And they all do. Much (of what results is not) bad, just very expensive to redo a
development after it is completed under old rules.
So that's one perspective, and it shows we have a lot to talk about in terms of property rules within Lakewood. Here is a note from someone who contacted me awhile ago about one of the underlying issues:
"I live (in Lake City) and I had the opportunity to write to you and the other council members a year or so ago. One rambler house was torn down and three huge two story homes were built. I asked you why there was no warning to the neighbors, no chances provided to speak before counsel, no yellow signs posted etc. and you and John Arbeeny and Doug Richardson took the time to explain to me that there was nothing we could do. What a helpless feeling. Even now, looking at those homes towering over mine just disgusts me.
I'm happy that the council has unanimously ... instituted a moratorium on new building in Tillicum and furthermore looking at future development throughout Lakewood. I would hope you take it a step further and ban homes from being torn down just to build two or three new homes that don't fit in with the old neighborhood homes and add congestion to our side streets.
I have no idea how this will all end up ... only that we will be much better informed, and thus a stronger community, when it is all over. More comments are always welcome -
Forward this post
I've received a number of thoughtful reactions that show how much there is to consider, and how much is at stake. I thought I would include excerpts of a couple of thought-provoking emails so you can see what's on the table.
If you have not read the post below about the moratorium itself, you might want to do so, or the references to 25-foot lots will be very confusing.
The names were changed, as the saying goes, to protect the innocent.
From one correspondent:
My experience with ancient, usually turn of the century 25' lots
whether in (four different places) is they are never
grandfathered as a given to build on. (The Lakewood city staff) seem to think
otherwise. It may be that there are precedents in Lakewood that would give
an attorney a good argument. Our question to a planner elsewhere is how
many of the 25'ers does it take for a building lot. Some will tell us they
mean nothing if the plat was done on a hillside and most will say 3 or 4 25'
lots for a building permit.
I have come to the conclusion ... that there is no protection from the whims
[or good thinking]of a planner or engineer if they decide at any time that a
new standard must be met. Therefore there is no such thing as vesting.
This is confirmed by a development specialists who had argued many cases trying to
establish a vesting right, and the courts will not give it to them if a new
standard has good health and safety reasoning. And they all do. Much (of what results is not) bad, just very expensive to redo a
development after it is completed under old rules.
So that's one perspective, and it shows we have a lot to talk about in terms of property rules within Lakewood. Here is a note from someone who contacted me awhile ago about one of the underlying issues:
"I live (in Lake City) and I had the opportunity to write to you and the other council members a year or so ago. One rambler house was torn down and three huge two story homes were built. I asked you why there was no warning to the neighbors, no chances provided to speak before counsel, no yellow signs posted etc. and you and John Arbeeny and Doug Richardson took the time to explain to me that there was nothing we could do. What a helpless feeling. Even now, looking at those homes towering over mine just disgusts me.
I'm happy that the council has unanimously ... instituted a moratorium on new building in Tillicum and furthermore looking at future development throughout Lakewood. I would hope you take it a step further and ban homes from being torn down just to build two or three new homes that don't fit in with the old neighborhood homes and add congestion to our side streets.
I have no idea how this will all end up ... only that we will be much better informed, and thus a stronger community, when it is all over. More comments are always welcome -
