Lost Tax Monies At Milky Way
Yesterday at the Financial Management Committee a proposal was offered by the owner of the Milky Way Farm that would have provided the county with a tremendous boost to tax revenues.
Currently, as a result of the previous bankruptcy, the owner of the farm has thirty two undeveloped lots in a proposed subdivision. In this subdivision there is an existing house on one lot and four lots now owned by the county from non payment of taxes. The county is required to sell their lots for not less than the amount the county is owed, approximately $40,000.
The roads and lot boundaries have been laid out and all the lots are available for purchase. The problem is that the road is not paved and until the road is paved, all are in agreement on this, the lots have little value especially when compared to their potential with a paved road. The majority owner of the property offered to pave the road at no expense to the county if the county would continue to tax the property at the current rate until the properties are sold and the owner recoups the cost of the road. This is the very same policy used to build most factories and develop industrial properties. With this proposal everyone wins. The severe building restrictions are changed to allow more affordable houses and the lots become far more attractive to buyers and realtors. The county gains value on their four lots and the future tax value is increased greatly.
The alternative offered by the owner of the farm is to forget the road paving and regroup the lots into one parcel to raise hay on. This would cut the tax liability to the county from thousands of dollars per year to a couple of hundred.
So what was the recommendation by the Committee to delay a decision and have the county attorney research whether the owner of the property can restore it to a hay field, if he can change the restrictions in place even as the majority owner of the lots.
Currently, as a result of the previous bankruptcy, the owner of the farm has thirty two undeveloped lots in a proposed subdivision. In this subdivision there is an existing house on one lot and four lots now owned by the county from non payment of taxes. The county is required to sell their lots for not less than the amount the county is owed, approximately $40,000.
The roads and lot boundaries have been laid out and all the lots are available for purchase. The problem is that the road is not paved and until the road is paved, all are in agreement on this, the lots have little value especially when compared to their potential with a paved road. The majority owner of the property offered to pave the road at no expense to the county if the county would continue to tax the property at the current rate until the properties are sold and the owner recoups the cost of the road. This is the very same policy used to build most factories and develop industrial properties. With this proposal everyone wins. The severe building restrictions are changed to allow more affordable houses and the lots become far more attractive to buyers and realtors. The county gains value on their four lots and the future tax value is increased greatly.
The alternative offered by the owner of the farm is to forget the road paving and regroup the lots into one parcel to raise hay on. This would cut the tax liability to the county from thousands of dollars per year to a couple of hundred.
So what was the recommendation by the Committee to delay a decision and have the county attorney research whether the owner of the property can restore it to a hay field, if he can change the restrictions in place even as the majority owner of the lots.
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:18 AM
31 Comments:
It is unlawful for the county to be involved in any residential arrangements.
BULL 6:41. The county is involved is every property that doesn't have the taxes paid on them. Oh, you do remember the Hunter Smith Building don't you.
The only thing the county was asked to do was keep collecting taxes at the property at the current rate until after the property is sold which makes a lot of sense. the road would not cost the county anything. This is the same plan used in most of the industrial development across the state.
If you are concerned with violations of the law read the topic City abandons rule of law".
FYI - The City has not violated a rule of law. Currently, the only thing that has been given is an opinion.
Decisions like this are made frequently to force other actions.
Really 8:56? You are so full of bull. MTAS and the Attorney General both issued the same opinions. The opinions were issued because that is the law. Unlike the city of Pulaski the only goals of the Attorney General and MTAS are to see the laws are followed and municipals are compliant in their ordinances. Something obviously the city of Pulaski does not care about.
I thought the same thing as 6:41 a.m. that it wasn't lawful for the County to do a deal like this because it was residential and not industrial in nature. If that is true I am really confused. WAB gripes because the City is ignoring the law and he gripes because the County asks their attorney for an opinion to ensure they follow the law?
The Duck at 7:45 am
What was residential about the Hunter Smith building?
Agree the City broke the law when they passed the Resolution about the pseudoephedrine. When they voted on it the MTAS letter had already been received at the city, now they also have the AG opinion. Wish someone (maybe the manufacturer) would sue every town across the nation on this. Law is law.
It is not the law, morons. It is an opinion by a lawyer. The state will probably follow Giles County on this issue and put into a place a law that either makes the entire state follow, or each county will be able to use it's own discretion. I am glad we are ahead of it.
Do you honestly think the city would keep it in place if it was illegal? Some of you are very damn stupid!
Could we not discuss thing without calling one another names like moron or stupid?
Moron Said
Giles county was not the leader in the state to adopt this ordinance but is about No. 18 to do so in the state. Cant imagine the state following Giles county on anything. If they did we would be up the creek. And, one Moron to another, the law is FEDERAL not a state law. The AG opinion is based upon research on that level.
Who is the current owner of the Milk Way Farm?
Would not the current owner need to get building restrictions removed from the land which would have been put in place by the owener who went bankrupt? Or the financial institution carrying the mortgage if there is one?
As the majority owner Mr. Jones can dictate what the restrictions are. It's not that hard to understand that if a vote to change the restrictions were taken and each lot owner was given one vote that Mr. Jones as owner of 32 lots would be able to override the other six lot owners.
Dear 8:46 PM,
I understand what you are saying but am still not sure it's right. Otherwise a developer can create a 20 lot subdivision, sell 9 lots with restrictions of $300,000+ houses must be built. So those 9 owners have bought their lots at a value and with the understanding that their neighbor will have a house of at least $300,000 value. Then by your explanation, the developer can change his mind (he's still majority owner of lots) and sell the rest as trailer park lots. I don't think the majority owner can do that all by themselves. That seems like fraud to the other owners that paid more to have those restrictions. And the opposite is true too. The developer couldn't change the restrictions to be only $1,000,000 homes to be built because the 9 other owners then couldn't afford to ever build a home and therefore those lots would sit empty. Once there are restrictions, it seems like it would take everyone's vote to change them.
My understanding is any restrictions stay with a property until legally removed by the then owner who put the restrictions there in the first place.
Excellent post 7:15 AM.
Is Mr. Jones the same Mr. Jones(?) that owns the Wales Farm mansion that was falling into decay and now renovated?
Just like with any other homeowners association the majority of the people vote to make the rules for all the homeowners. Usually each lot and home is owned by a separate person thus giving each owner their one vote. In the Milky Way situation because Mr. Jones currently own 32 of 40 lots he has 32 votes in deciding how those undeveloped lots can be used. He can change the restrictions to more severe or less severe or he can simply choose to re-group all his lots into one big yard for one house or even make a huge hay field out of his lots. Keep in mind at the present time there is only one house on any of the lots.
And are you honestly naive enough to think a little ol' law would stop the city or county from doing as they damned well please? What turnip truck did you just fall off of? Some of you are very damn stupid!
My 4:14 post was in reply to January 12, 2014 3:39:00 PM, not Mr. Barrett's.
Jan. 12th 3:39, Yes I am sure the city of Pulaski would keep a law in place they know is illegal. It has become practice with the city council.
Were not the building restrictions put on the lots by the person who was developing Milky Way into a restricted community before he went bankrupt?
4:57 They make idiots every day. You are at the top of the class.
Such a stupid statement!
8:36 is correct. It is not majority rule. The persons who purchased lots have to be protected from the uneducated and stupid majority.
6:28
You obviously don't know anything about the law and have to resort to name calling. You must be a council member.
6:28 Please tell us about your vast knowledge of the law.
This blog is boring!
Here with have our literary genius again. Just stay off of here and read the Pulaski Citizen and the rest of us won't have to put up with you useless input.
I think that every post on here is pretty much useless, including yours 4:41.
Does any one have any information about the EDC and IDB lawsuit?
And does any one have any information about the audit of the EDC and IDB. Are the ones doing the audit related to any one associated with those boards? Or should we ask who this auditor is married to? Or maybe what job has been promised to the spouse of this auditor? Seems like that is standard operating procedure.
How will the mortgage the tax payers are still paying for at first national bank for a property already sold and transferred be reported?
I wonder if this auditor is the best the EDC and IDB can buy?
I heard some disturbing talk today about the Subway restaurants. Is it true that Subway is being investigated because of something being added to the breads that could cause cancers? I'm not making an accusation but would just like to know if anyone else has heard anything about this?
I went to you tube and found an interesting video about this. The title of the video is Subway 9 Grain Bread. This is worth watching. It's shocking.
I feel safer eating a sub than I do drinking water after it's been treated by TVR. Besides, isn't there some new cancer-causing agent discovered about every other week?
1:27 Brilliant response!
Post a Comment
<< Home