The local government may be trying to say that granting a permit to build can be considered a quid pro quo for requiring the open space easement, and thus "just compensation." A good lawyer should be able to knock this argument down.
Califronians flooded into Colorado and now Colorado is a mini California. Citizen lead is what happen to the hills of San Jose California the elitist bought up the land then had laws passed to stop anyone else from obscuring their views from the hill sides. All in the name of Green policies and enviromental concerns.
Did you even watch the video or do you just blindly comment anti-government rhetoric on everything you click on? The city doesn't even care for this land, but the citizens voted for an initiative that forces their hand.
@RustyFoundry yes I did watch the video. The family is having to give land they own to the city for open space. If the code is enforced by the city then it's a city issue.
agreed with @ChadBray also why does it have to be in the middle of family's property also the family would have to give up more than indicated space to let people get to and from the park space so they wouldn't be able to fence off their backyard for privacy
This is what happens when people and politicians alike are intent on punishing one or two people, the lawmakers become so narrowly focused that their laws are never thought through that they punish anyone and everyone.
Tear everything down but three walls. Then build what you want. It's considered a renovation and not new construction. Apparently these people were not aware of this when they decided that they were going to tear the whole house down.
Southern New Mexico has a similar ordinance but it only around new housing area development. basically its for every X amount of houses you build in an area you have to dedicate x amount of space for a like a park or play ground, or you can leave it as a untouched nature walk.
i bet that gets overturned for single family home as unconditional i would like to see them present that plan to a judge and ask him to explain why ppl could be in the middle of your yard
And people wonder why new housing is so expensive. The fact that this whole situation was created with the original intent of stopping one apartment building from being built just takes it to a whole entire level of ridiculousness.
In NY, theres rescrictions on teating down older buildings so most architects are quite adept at building around and enclosing the old structure into the new building.
Kathy Kentner: "...you will provide this land for dedication..." She makes no mention of compensation or imminent domain--simply states the citizens voted for more park space and we're going to take it. Her governing philosophy can be summarized best by the following phrase I heard somewhere I can't quite recall: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
To that family I highly suggest do not rebuild do not even remodel the outside of the home then if it requires you to remove land that you purchased you bought and they want you to give back I don't think so then it is in your best interest not to remodel the outside too much a little here a little there paint good gutters fine New roof no big deal from my understanding of this but renovating to a higher pitched home or removing an add-on that she's already there or adding an add-on for a larger garage then they want your land and that's a big no-no so again don't remodel add to it like additional garage on the opposite side over there not a living space area that would indicate more hassle than you were willing to worth to go through
It seems that this would be an unjust taking of ones land without compensation. It also seems to have originally been meant to apply to large scale building projects and not to residential properties.
Do a remodel, leaving one original exterior wall. After the remodel, redo the original wall. I knew a guy who bought a house and when he went to rebuild it, there was a size restriction on new houses due to lot size. He left the end garage wall standing, dug a new 10' cellar, built his new house joining it to the lone standing wall. The inspector shook his head every time he was on site, but there wasn't anything he could do.
Well, the good news is this example might break these sort of restrictions on development that people can impose. The bad news, is it will probably not happen during these folks time raising kids. Clearly unconstitutional, and it might be obvious to SCOTUS for this case.
I'm thinking that would work also. But we would have to read the ordinance. My next thought would be to build a larger basement area. Nothing would change on the outside.
This why I don't live in Lakewood. You groups ruin other people's dreams cause of your selfishness. Well Lakewood Residents nice Job. In Arvada we don't worry about that cause our city created open space long ago.😂😂😂sorry for you lakewood
Leave one wall and include it as the main existing structure to build off of an that will not allow them to take the property easement. When you completely remove and build a new structure recently adopted laws come into play.
That's an unreasonable taking. Unconstitutional. Violates the 4th Amendment. You can't impose a public easment on a property without properly compensating the property owner unless it is for utilities purposes (storm drainage, electrical lines, natural gas lines, etc.) Nature reserve or pond access for nature walks is not applicable. Take it to federal court as a class action.
The Fifth Amendment- …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The local government may be trying to say that granting a permit to build can be considered a quid pro quo for requiring the open space easement, and thus "just compensation." A good lawyer should be able to knock this argument down.
oddly, in MAGA red Iowa, they use eminent domain for private for profit companies benefit, they just approved it for a carbon capture scam
So they can kick her off and pay her a check. That's what that means
Imminent domain, it’s really that simple.
@@_DB.COOPER *eminent
These crazy laws "ordinances" that drive up the cost of housing for everyone is one of the reasons I left CO.
Califronians flooded into Colorado and now Colorado is a mini California. Citizen lead is what happen to the hills of San Jose California the elitist bought up the land then had laws passed to stop anyone else from obscuring their views from the hill sides. All in the name of Green policies and enviromental concerns.
If they want the land then the city can buy it
Did you even watch the video or do you just blindly comment anti-government rhetoric on everything you click on? The city doesn't even care for this land, but the citizens voted for an initiative that forces their hand.
@RustyFoundry yes I did watch the video. The family is having to give land they own to the city for open space. If the code is enforced by the city then it's a city issue.
@@RustyFoundry that city ordinance should never have been for residential property only commercial.
they need to change the ordinance to exempt privately owned single family properties.
That would be a "simple solution", one would think.
Open space is a joke they ruined everything good in Colorado...
@@SS-iw1gf Open space is where we. Would 4÷wheel. Now they think everyone rides a bicycle! Tour De France is east.....peddle there!
They totally ruined Denver and Lakewood and the entire state. Nothing is as close to as great as it once was.
Doesn't this violate the takings clause of the constitution?
Ah. But they are TECHNICALLY not "taking". After all you still have to pay to maintain it. Pay property tax on it. You just cannot USE it.
@Bigrignohio unbelievable.
It violates the 8th Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
My family and friends have serious boundary and ethics issues.
@@Bigrignohio actually ordinance doesn't say can't use it says can't build on it BIG DIFFERENCE but still bullshit ordinance
Heres what you do: you elect new city leaders and change this ridiculous ordinance.
Demo the house back to a single brick wall façade & rebuild around; it's no longer new construction, now it's a just a very elaborate remodel.
Yep, maybe 2 at an L for structural support. I know of people who have had vandals push over the 1 wall and that was that.
Common Sense has left the building.
Vote them all out!
Vote in someone that believes in property rights.
and who would that be?
@@pmurt_kcuf Failed civics class?
He whole state of Colorado has gone to shit due to drugs, nut cases, and politicians!
don't forget Illegal Aliens TDA etc...
And tree hugging wackos...
Democrats
That started back in the early 2000’s. I left in 2005 and it’s getting worse than CA with stories like this.
And yuppies that think they aren't greedy but act as though it's about preservation.
agreed with @ChadBray also why does it have to be in the middle of family's property also the family would have to give up more than indicated space to let people get to and from the park space so they wouldn't be able to fence off their backyard for privacy
The native Americans had the same problem.
This is what happens when people and politicians alike are intent on punishing one or two people, the lawmakers become so narrowly focused that their laws are never thought through that they punish anyone and everyone.
kinda like the bible thumpers and their book bans not realizing the Bible is one that would be banned under their own criteria
Citizen initiative? Never went on the ballot
Tear everything down but three walls. Then build what you want. It's considered a renovation and not new construction. Apparently these people were not aware of this when they decided that they were going to tear the whole house down.
I bet this initiative was led by someone who's not a Colorado native.
💯🎯
Southern New Mexico has a similar ordinance but it only around new housing area development. basically its for every X amount of houses you build in an area you have to dedicate x amount of space for a like a park or play ground, or you can leave it as a untouched nature walk.
How many possibly impacted people voted FOR the initiave thinking it was JUST going to be against large commercial buildings/apartment complexes?
We didn't have a vote. The city said a vote would be too expensive. Now the city is being sued so 🤷🏼♀️
i bet that gets overturned for single family home as unconditional i would like to see them present that plan to a judge and ask him to explain why ppl could be in the middle of your yard
They were OK with this until it impacted THEIR plans.
We don't know if that family voted for that initiative.
She didn't say she was part of what they did, I'm sure they only informed the exact number of people that was required
Citizen led initiatives can't trump the Constitution.
Just put commercial residential instead of just residential
Then these boomers wonder why their offspring don't want to work for stuff they'll never own. 😂
Dolan v city of Tygard us supreme court 1994. Absolutely unconstitutional
And people wonder why new housing is so expensive. The fact that this whole situation was created with the original intent of stopping one apartment building from being built just takes it to a whole entire level of ridiculousness.
In NY, theres rescrictions on teating down older buildings so most architects are quite adept at building around and enclosing the old structure into the new building.
The city is doing what’s called malicious compliance. This isn’t permanent, it can be changed again. This is a learning lesson for all involved
Kathy Kentner: "...you will provide this land for dedication..."
She makes no mention of compensation or imminent domain--simply states the citizens voted for more park space and we're going to take it. Her governing philosophy can be summarized best by the following phrase I heard somewhere I can't quite recall: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
To that family I highly suggest do not rebuild do not even remodel the outside of the home then if it requires you to remove land that you purchased you bought and they want you to give back I don't think so then it is in your best interest not to remodel the outside too much a little here a little there paint good gutters fine New roof no big deal from my understanding of this but renovating to a higher pitched home or removing an add-on that she's already there or adding an add-on for a larger garage then they want your land and that's a big no-no so again don't remodel add to it like additional garage on the opposite side over there not a living space area that would indicate more hassle than you were willing to worth to go through
better to move out of that liberal state thanks to people fleeing California and bringing their problems with them.
It seems that this would be an unjust taking of ones land without compensation. It also seems to have originally been meant to apply to large scale building projects and not to residential properties.
Do a remodel, leaving one original exterior wall. After the remodel, redo the original wall. I knew a guy who bought a house and when he went to rebuild it, there was a size restriction on new houses due to lot size. He left the end garage wall standing, dug a new 10' cellar, built his new house joining it to the lone standing wall. The inspector shook his head every time he was on site, but there wasn't anything he could do.
Never gonna fly in court.
Colorado is a horrible place
You know where the exits are.
And this is why it’s a horrible place.
The law of unintended consequences and never asking lawyers about what might happen if the law is written this way.
Well, the good news is this example might break these sort of restrictions on development that people can impose. The bad news, is it will probably not happen during these folks time raising kids. Clearly unconstitutional, and it might be obvious to SCOTUS for this case.
No imagination. Does the city ordinance cover renovations? Jack the roof up, replace everything under the roof. Then replace the roof.
I'm thinking that would work also.
But we would have to read the ordinance.
My next thought would be to build a larger basement area. Nothing would change on the outside.
This why I don't live in Lakewood. You groups ruin other people's dreams cause of your selfishness. Well Lakewood Residents nice Job. In Arvada we don't worry about that cause our city created open space long ago.😂😂😂sorry for you lakewood
I bet theres a farm allowance...
Leave one wall and include it as the main existing structure to build off of an that will not allow them to take the property easement. When you completely remove and build a new structure recently adopted laws come into play.
limited resources? really, they bought a HUGE lot and want to build a BIG house? they need a reality check.
The city or county will declare imminent domain and just take it. Worst law ever, there should be no such law anywhere period!!
It's not a new structure as long as one wall still remains of the old structure. Then it's just a remodel.
Just go pay some politicians to get an amendment excluding single family homes passed.
No one said it had to be a NICE open space... Rock and thorn landscaping...
That's an unreasonable taking. Unconstitutional. Violates the 4th Amendment. You can't impose a public easment on a property without properly compensating the property owner unless it is for utilities purposes (storm drainage, electrical lines, natural gas lines, etc.) Nature reserve or pond access for nature walks is not applicable. Take it to federal court as a class action.
They didnt consider private property rights or the 5th amendment
A goverment cannot take your property without recompense.
Another case of government "employees" misinterpretting code intent and where it is meant to apply.
So you don't rebuild your house, you remodel it. Won't be exactly what you want but I think you can still make improvements to it
Easy fix..
Don't demolish, add on, and on, and on and on.
Regulation only applies to new housing.
Dang ... I remember a time when you bought property ... It was your property and yours alone ...smh
So don't rebuild, be happy with what you have
It's Denver .. what do you expect ?
seems like property value is to high.
his neighborhood needs a few scats to cruse it every few days and just drypop a few,,,
Be careful what you ask for because you might get it
Thanks Obama
this is what lawyers are for ,may they find a good one
2A all the way this is what a tyrannical government looks like.
What's wrong with the existing house? Looks fine to me. Just renovate it for like 1/8th the cost of new.
Do gooders, doing good with other peoples money and property.
The city going to lose.
You will own nothing
And you will be happy
What moron decided to apply the same requirement on both commercial and residential properties? How does that make sense any individual home owner?
You get the government you vote for.
Please do remember that this was all the way back when Obama was president when this oriented was being changed
Rocky mountain cry, Colorado.
You will own nothing and be happy.
Enjoy your life in an extremely liberal state. You voted for it.
Don't rebuild
the lady CATh y looks just like what my mind would make up.
🤦🏻
Keep voting blue y’all, 😂😂😂
Lol MERIKA
Ingnert
Lol...
The land ordinance is unconstitutional
An ordinance is not a law, you do not have to comply.
Sounds like a slam dunk class action law suit
Not if you take out the people of powder . Kinda like the CEO of the healthcare 🤷