A city should not be able to force its residents to pay to renovate city property before they can renovate their own homes.
But the City of Richland, Washington disagrees. Linda Cameron has been living in the same Richland, Washington home for nearly 40 years. The home, which she purchased with her late husband, has only one small bedroom and bathroom, and with visits from family and friends, it was proving to be too cramped. After consulting with a builder, Linda decided to turn her outdated carport into a garage and add a second bedroom and bathroom. It was all she dreamed for.
But her dreams quickly became a nightmare. Although the city building permit and inspection office was prepared to approve the permit, the Richland Public Works Department, which also reviewed Linda’s application, informed her that because her renovations were slated to cost more than $50,000, she’d have to “renovate” the city street adjoining the back of her property. That meant paying to widen 400 feet of pavement, install sidewalks, and add curbs and storm drains to the street. All told, the mandatory street “improvements” added roughly $60,000 to the cost of Linda’s renovation-$60,000 that Linda doesn't have and shouldn’t have to pay.
Linda is the victim of unconstitutionally applied “impact fees”-fees municipalities charge when development has an impact on public infrastructure. But adding a bedroom and bathroom to a modest home has no impact on Richland’s streets or sidewalks. These fees amount to an unconstitutional condition on a property owner’s right to use her own property. That’s why Linda has partnered with the Institute for Justice to challenge Richland’s unconstitutional law in federal court.
ij.org/case/wa...
28 сен 2024
