They gotcha. The term 'public use' has been widely interpreted to be 'public purpose'. So even though the public won't be using your land the construction company will be engaged in a 'public purpose'. A mendacious slight of hand.
Free Property Use To Expand A Bridge
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
+1 for getting a lawyer and a counter offer. There are lots of scummy workers and project managers in AEC that will cut corners, especially if they work for a municipal. You don't want to deal with the whole legal BS if they tear up too much, take longer than a year, or any during/after affects from using your property.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
All true but I don't want to talk legal here. It's against the rules but you and others have been really helpful and I appreciate it. My initial irritation was I had to jump NOW... your post here is something I absolutely need to look into... they should supply me with proof of insurance if nothing else. Bridge building isn't a walk in the park.
Will they pay the taxes on the piece of property that you have been deprived of using for an entire year? I'd ask them for ten more acres and a mule.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
A buddy of mine and I think the same most of the time whether we are right or wrong.
Extreme urgency is usually a red flag to me.
Equivalent to someone pulling a fast one...
Extreme urgency is usually a red flag to me.
Equivalent to someone pulling a fast one...
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
That was my thought early on here. That and proof of liability-insurance.
I also wanted to sell that property this year and I guess that ain't gonna happen
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,570
Not legal, just what if scenarios.
No good deed goes unpunished these days. You have to look after yourself.
The rush is to assert authority.
A righteous entity would have called or visited, asked what they would have to do to use it.
I especially like the 5 day time limitation attempt. My response is always the same. "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part."
By putting in a ridiculous time limitation they are trying to eliminate your ability to obtain counsel on the matter and just agree to their conditions. Don't.
By putting in a ridiculous time limitation they are trying to eliminate your ability to obtain counsel on the matter and just agree to their conditions. Don't.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Agreed...their way or no way is the way it reads.
I have limitations on that property myself.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
That's it !!!!
I run the books for my church, and we are getting about $750 for the city to use a 20' by 3' area for project staging for a couple of months. No notary, just sign and return to city in pre-paid envelope. So, seems like you are getting a far worse deal.
They are trying to rush you. DON'T! Get a lawyer, ASAP!
Crops? Be aware of soil compaction, tile? damage, etc.. If a lawyer is needed, they should cover that cost as part of the compensation.
Yes, if they are attempting to play hardball, respond appropriately. This, from an old guy that operates as much as possible " scratch my back, and I will return the same".
Yes, if they are attempting to play hardball, respond appropriately. This, from an old guy that operates as much as possible " scratch my back, and I will return the same".
Not a lawyer, but this clearly sounds like they're requesting a temporary easement and you should be compensated for the use of your land.
JHZR2
Staff member
I would write back and deny pending a need for more time, plus attorneys fees, to draw an appropriate use contract. Now, lawyers are thieves too, so you probably can draw up something yourself, but it would need to be VERY explicit, and use shall statements to avoid interpretation. And I would expect or ask for much but at least the value of planting that area, and/or the fractional tax rate should be compensated, with stipulations associated with damage, dumping, return to original, etc.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,570
Given they expect use for free, I presume they deem the property value to also be worth zero. Hence whatever the outcome you should request your property tax value to be set at zero. Forever. 
Did I understand correctly, that the property they want to use for a year, would normally be planted with crops?
Back in 2019, when the sequicentennial for completion of the Transcontinental railroad was celebrated, a LOT of parking was needed for all the visitors to the Golden Spike monument site, here in Northern Utah. The fed's leased land from a farmer that owns the farm, that is adjacent to the monument. I would guess it was about a 1/4 section of land, that would have been dry farmed that year, if it wasn't for it being used as a parking lot for the celebration. A raised dirt access road was put down the middle of the parking area, so traffic could flow in and out of the parking lot.
Even though the celebration event only lasted three days, the farmer was paid by the NPS for the loss of his crop for the entire year, plus they paid for how much it was going to cost him, in fuel and equipment use, to restore the land for farming, after it had been used for parking, by tens of thousands of cars and RV's.
I would want the restoration clause to state that you will be reimbursed for actual cost, regardless of how much it costs. I can imagine them turning it into a sort of toxic dump, with spills from fuels and oils, that you shouldn't have to put up with.
I get the impression they are trying to intimidate you with the short time to react.
Back in 2019, when the sequicentennial for completion of the Transcontinental railroad was celebrated, a LOT of parking was needed for all the visitors to the Golden Spike monument site, here in Northern Utah. The fed's leased land from a farmer that owns the farm, that is adjacent to the monument. I would guess it was about a 1/4 section of land, that would have been dry farmed that year, if it wasn't for it being used as a parking lot for the celebration. A raised dirt access road was put down the middle of the parking area, so traffic could flow in and out of the parking lot.
Even though the celebration event only lasted three days, the farmer was paid by the NPS for the loss of his crop for the entire year, plus they paid for how much it was going to cost him, in fuel and equipment use, to restore the land for farming, after it had been used for parking, by tens of thousands of cars and RV's.
I would want the restoration clause to state that you will be reimbursed for actual cost, regardless of how much it costs. I can imagine them turning it into a sort of toxic dump, with spills from fuels and oils, that you shouldn't have to put up with.
I get the impression they are trying to intimidate you with the short time to react.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Yes you are correct. Thank you !!
I'm no law expert, but perhaps an attorney could do some research on this example of temporary land use, and use it as precedence? Perhaps there are other cases that are much better for precedence. IDK.
If you end up with an agreement , I'd want the use area defined. Otherwise they could end up spreading out way over and who knows how much property would be used with wire, bridge parts girders etc.
Similar threads
