Are you mad yet? You will be!

[CJ1089]

I will take that bet. If your home is in need of repairs that would justify replacement over remodeling you will be issued a permit to repair your residence up to and including replacement (whichever is cheaper) if it is your primary residence. Unless of course you do not yet own your home and you would also have to get approval from whoever holds the deed. The codes allow for replacement and repair of residence if determined unsuitable for habitation due to fire, flood, or other damage in accordance with your insurance and in relation to the pre-existing structure. Like I said, you need to get a lawyer if you think the city is preventing you from repairing your primary residence.

Washington County Planning Dept, tommorrow at 1100? Bring anyone you like. I'll have printouts of the post to demonstrate the terms cannot be met.
Remember:
1. The house is habitable, never said it wasn't.
2. The property is in the county, see previous post.
3. The property is subject to involuntary annexation, see previous post.
See you there, it is the third floor, south end. Bring cash I don't take checks.

 

[CJ1089]

My partner just alerted me to missed opportunity.
I will wager Playboy $1000 USD that the governing planning office for my property will not issue a residential building permit to me based on current policy.

PlayPenguin has taken my bet. Who wants to umpire the exchange?

 

[CJ1089]

....... You need to get a lawyer that can explain this to you just like we did.

What a patronizing statement. Just because you cannot comprehend building code does not mean the rest of us are so challenged.

 

[CJ1089]

I would take that bet. If your home is in need of repairs that would justify replacement over remodeling you will be issued a permit to repair your residence up to and including replacement (whichever is cheaper) if it is your primary residence. Unless of course you do not yet own your home and you would also have to get approval from whoever holds the deed. The codes allow for replacement and repair of residence if determined unsuitable for habitation due to fire, flood, or other damage in accordance with your insurance and in relation to the pre-existing structure. Like I said, you need to get a lawyer if you think the city is preventing you from repairing your primary residence.

I went to several town halls style hearing where people showed up griping about the rules. Many of them were completely incorrect when they claimed to have been told they could not add a bathroom, etc but the vast majority were there for one reason. They were being urged by developers to try to bring legal challenges to the laws. They wanted to gut the laws and be able to sell their land to developers to build multi-home sub-divisions outside the growth boundary.

Edit added to permanent record.

The first paragraph assumes the house I referenced as uninhabitable or needy extensive repair. That is not true.
The second paragraph addresses issues totally absent from any of my posts. So, WTH?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Washington County Planning Dept, tommorrow at 1100? Bring anyone you like. I'll have printouts of the post to demonstrate the terms cannot be met.
Remember:
1. The house is habitable, never said it wasn't.
2. The property is in the county, see previous post.
3. The property is subject to involuntary annexation, see previous post.
See you there, it is the third floor, south end. Bring cash I don't take checks.

I flipped houses for several years before the market crashed. Your original statement is you want to simply replace your home one for one. Why would you do that if the home standing is in good repair? Seems to me like you are trying to develop for resale (like building a larger home). I informed you via private message what you would need to get your variance. I also offered to give you the name of our attorney that helped us do exactly what you are claiming you can't do. Maybe YOU can't do it, but as long as you are not developing for resale it can be done. It is within the law. Only four states in the union have annexation laws that would disallow it...Oregon is not one of them.

Sounds to me like the county is not buying that you want a building permit to replace a sound standing home with an equal home without the intent of resale. I don't blame them. I would love to hear you reasoning myself. Here is your chance to explain it. Like I asked you in PM, why don't you shoot me over a copy of your plans and a site outline of the current site and let's see how honest you are being in your representation of this situation.

 

[CJ1089]

I flipped houses for several years before the market crashed. Your original statement is you want to simply replace your home one for one. Why would you do that if the home standing is in good repair. Seems to me like you are trying to develop for resale. I informed you via private message what you would need to get your variance. I also offered to give you the name of our attorney that helped us do exactly what you are claiming you can't do. Maybe YOU can't do it, but as long as you are not developing for resale it can be done. It is within the law. Only four states in the union have annexation laws that would disallow it...Oregon is not one of them.

So let's break it down is small words for you.
I flipped houses for several years before the market crashed.--So F'ing what. So did I. Makes neither of us a legal authority, just experienced.
Your original statement is you want to simply replace your home one for one.--Well at least you can read that much.
Why would you do that if the home standing is in good repair.--Cuz the house is 108 years old and too small for my uses. Alternately, my motivation is not an issue, it's mine and I should be able to do as I please with it.
Seems to me like you are trying to develop for resale. Wrong, dont assume, you aren't very good at it so far.
I informed you via private message what you would need to get your variance. Wrong, assumption again.
I also offered to give you the name of our attorney that helped us do exactly what you are claiming you can't do. Show up and take my money, show up and give me my money or STFU. I don't need your help and it won't work.
Maybe YOU can't do it, but as long as you are not developing for resale it can be done. You're finally getting warm. I, as the current owner of this property as it is currently listed in Washington county cannot do it. I have to sell it to someone that wishes to annex to the city of Hillsboro, get it re-zoned, then start paying lawyers before a permit could be issued.
It is within the law. Nonsense, you should be dis-barred for this drivel.
Only four states in the union have annexation laws that would disallow it...Oregon is not one of them. Nonsense, you should be dis-barred for this drivel.

The bet was, the governing planning office for the property (Washington County) ....based on current policy. And that's the hook.

Washington county has a policy agreement with the city of Hillsboro to not issue building permits to 'island properties' (those currently surrounded by Hillsboro city properties). Only the City of Hillsboro will do that and they are not "the governing planning office for the property" (yet anyway).
In simpler terms, Washington county will never-ever-ever issue a permit to me as the owner of an 'island property'.
Do you understand yet?

 

[CJ1089]

So you see it was a trap of sorts. After all when someone bets $1000 that he can make a monkey fly out his a**, you better stand back and get some papertowels.
Sorry if that seems underhanded, but this may serve as a lesson for serial a**talkers everywhere. I never expected you to show, that would have been out of character.

 

[buick455]

this whole conversations leads me to ask the question............... why the F*** is it any concern of the Gubment what I build on my property. It's not like this guy is building a wal mart he's building a house where a house used to be.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So let's break it down is small words for you.
Why would you do that if the home standing is in good repair.--Cuz the house is 108 years old and too small for my uses. Alternately, my motivation is not an issue, it's mine and I should be able to do as I please with it.
Seems to me like you are trying to develop for resale. Wrong, dont assume, you aren't very good at it so far.

Actually, your reasons for developing the home is in question. Do you think you are the first person to try and develop a property under the guise of simply improving their primary residence.

I also offered to give you the name of our attorney that helped us do exactly what you are claiming you can't do. Show up and take my money, show up and give me my money or STFU. I don't need your help and it won't work.

You originally claimed you are trading one for one. I clearly told you as long as you are not increasing demand on infrastructure you could get your variance. Now you claim you are expanding the home. That clearly increases the demand on infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, etc). Like I said, e-mail me a copy of your plans and your site documents. I would love to see how honestly you are representing the situation.

Maybe YOU can't do it, but as long as you are not developing for resale it can be done. You're finally getting warm. I, as the current owner of this property as it is currently listed in Washington county cannot do it. I have to sell it to someone that wishes to annex to the city of Hillsboro, get it re-zoned, then start paying lawyers before a permit could be issued.

Your initial claim was "I own an acre of county land within the UGB, house was bult in 1903. I want to replace it one for one. I can't legally, city won't issue the permits. I could replace it with NINE houses but not ONE." which is totally false. You can easily have the home rezoned and just replace the one home. Why would the issuing authority matter to you if this is to be your primary residence? That is another thing that would make me think you were trying to maintain current zoning and annexation for resale purposes.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

this whole conversations leads me to ask the question............... why the F*** is it any concern of the Gubment what I build on my property. It's not like this guy is building a wal mart he's building a house where a house used to be.

In the end, it is all about two things. Money...and money. The money the government wants to make and the money neighbors don't want to lose.

 

[CJ1089]

Actually, your reasons for developing the home is in question. Do you think you are the first person to try and develop a property under the guise of simply improving their primary residence.

You originally claimed you are trading one for one. I clearly told you as long as you are not increasing demand on infrastructure you could get your variance. Now you claim you are expanding the home. That clearly increases the demand on infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, etc). Like I said, e-mail me a copy of your plans and your site documents. I would love to see how honestly you are representing the situation.

Your initial claim was "I own an acre of county land within the UGB, house was bult in 1903. I want to replace it one for one. I can't legally, city won't issue the permits. I could replace it with NINE houses but not ONE." which is totally false. You can easily have the home rezoned and just replace the one home. Why would the issuing authority matter to you if this is to be your primary residence? That is another thing that would make me think you were trying to maintain current zoning and annexation for resale purposes.

I repeat, repeatedly, the wager:
I will wager Playboy $1000 USD that the governing planning office for my property will not issue a residential building permit to me based on current policy.
And your response:
I would take that bet.
You show me how anything you wrote changes the outcome and you win. You fail and you lose.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I repeat, repeatedly, the wager:
I will wager Playboy $1000 USD that the governing planning office for my property will not issue a residential building permit to me based on current policy.
And your response:
I would take that bet.
You show me how anything you wrote changes the outcome and you win. You fail and you lose.

One for one they will...all you need to do is jump through the hoops. Please send me the documents we discussed in our PM. You keep saying you will but I have not seen them. You are clearly not trying to replace "one for one" at all. You are trying to develop the property and increase it's value. You also seem unwilling to allow it to be annexed to do so.

You can read where in my initial reply that I told you that not increasing demand on infrastructure is a requirement to get the variance. You do understand that developing the property is not building one for one in any legal sense, correct?

 

[CJ1089]

Actually, your reasons for developing the home is in question. Do you think you are the first person to try and develop a property under the guise of simply improving their primary residence.

You originally claimed you are trading one for one. I clearly told you as long as you are not increasing demand on infrastructure you could get your variance. Now you claim you are expanding the home. That clearly increases the demand on infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, etc). Like I said, e-mail me a copy of your plans and your site documents. I would love to see how honestly you are representing the situation.

Your initial claim was "I own an acre of county land within the UGB, house was bult in 1903. I want to replace it one for one. I can't legally, city won't issue the permits. I could replace it with NINE houses but not ONE." which is totally false. You can easily have the home rezoned and just replace the one home. Why would the issuing authority matter to you if this is to be your primary residence? That is another thing that would make me think you were trying to maintain current zoning and annexation for resale purposes.

Some more details, the House is on Septic/Well, so that infrastructure crap is just that. My plans, LOL, since the county won't issue I never got any.

Why it matters is my concern alone, F'ing liberals always trying to tell you what you should do. All I wanted was to be left ALONE.

 

[CJ1089]

One for one they will...all you need to do is jump through the hoops. Please send me the documents we discussed in our PM. You keep saying you will but I have not seen them. You are clearly not trying to replace "one for one" at all. You are trying to develop the property and increase it's value. You also seem unwilling to allow it to be annexed to do so.

You can read where in my initial reply that I told you that not increasing demand on infrastructure is a requirement to get the variance. You do understand that developing the property is not building one for one in any legal sense, correct?

Sh#t, lets try again.
I repeat, repeatedly, the wager:
I will wager Playboy $1000 USD that the governing planning office for my property will not issue a residential building permit to me based on current policy.
And your response:
I would take that bet.
You show me how anything you wrote changes the outcome and you win. You fail and you lose.

 

[CJ1089]

One for one they will...all you need to do is jump through the hoops. Please send me the documents we discussed in our PM. You keep saying you will but I have not seen them. You are clearly not trying to replace "one for one" at all. You are trying to develop the property and increase it's value. You also seem unwilling to allow it to be annexed to do so.

You can read where in my initial reply that I told you that not increasing demand on infrastructure is a requirement to get the variance. You do understand that developing the property is not building one for one in any legal sense, correct?

The wager wasn't that if I spent enough money I could build a house. If I have to change the "governing planning office" cuz the first won't issue then the wager is won.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The wager wasn't that if I spent enough money I could build a house. If I have to change the "governing planning office" cuz the first won't issue then the wager is won.

No, your original claim, which you now seem to be backing off of, was that you could not replace the home on your own property "one for one" and that you would have to build nine houses instead. That is just as false now as it was when I originally called you on it. You are doing the same thing as the people in the story, giving part of the story that makes you look like a victim without adding the options you have to do it the right way.

 

[RB87]

In the end, it is all about two things. Money...and money. The money the government wants to make and the money neighbors don't want to lose.

Aka when the government makes shady real estate deals, that often line the pockets of all involved its ok. When the individual wants to make any use of their land, they gotta pay the piper aka bribe the oh so high and mighty government crooks. So many Oregonians think way way too much of their property values and ignore the negatives of laws like the UGB.

 

[Grunwald]

Trolling?
I got a short story about that Metro UGB. I own an acre of county land within the UGB, house was bult in 1903. I want to replace it one for one. I can't legally, city won't issue the permits. I could replace it with NINE houses but not ONE.
So you take that greedy developer sh** and stick it back where it came from.

Garbage similar to this goes on in Seattle as well. I have seen a house "rebuilt" because it was either easier or cheaper than a tear down and new construction.
House was a single story "craftsman". First thing the house was raised so that the existing first floor became the second floor and a new first floor was built.
Then the second floor was redone, one wall at a time.

A friend of mine went though the same crap with his garage. He had to rebuild his garage one wall at a time because the location no longer satisfied current building codes so he could not demolish the old garage and build a new one.

 

[deen_ad]

​

 

[buick455]

​

nah still kinda on topic......... people are getting mad

what boggles me is that someone could ever defend the BS the government puts us thru

This post was about uncle sam forgetting that we make the rules and when we want liberty we should get it