Mistakes happen. The township owned up and offered to buy the land at fair market price. Farmer says no you owe me 2x that because I like money. The then offer to demo the whole building and remove it from his land. Farmer once again says no, your workers can't come the 5 feet into my property to remove the building you put there that I don't want there. So they remove what they can on their property and erect a property line border to mark what is now his. I don't know what you expect the township to do different the Farmer is being unreasonable at each step. Yes the township made a survey mistake when they erected the building. They admit that and are trying to correct the mistake. The Farmer doesn't want the mistake just corrected though, he wants to screw the township and the taxpayers so he is being intentionally obtuse.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 The township should have to pay him $1000 dollars a day until they tore down the building. That's probab;y what they would have done if the tables were turned.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 the township effed up... I'm sure there is going to be more litigation soon... becuase political posturing from town council people... this is just stupid....
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 that’s why property laws written on the state level so some backwards Township with 905 people doesn’t screw some farmer out of his property rights . Why because they’re too incompetent to survey ! Hold some people accountable don’t double down on dumb.
A lot of people are missing the fact that the township didn't want to do this. The farmer saw this as a payday and was trying to extort money from them. They were willing to remove the part of the building that was on his land, but he refused to let them correct the issue; he said it was on his land, so no one could touch it. He didn't want it fixed because then he couldn't cash in on it. So they severed the part of the building on his property from the part on their property, and put a fence on the property line to ensure no claim can ever be made that anyone stepped across the property line. The township also told him that they will pay to have the remaining piece removed from his property at any time if he wants that to be done. He's just pissed off because he knows he'll never get that payday he was hoping for now. It wasn't a reasonable solution to a normal problem, but he purposely created a completely unreasonable problem for personal gain. If you research what happened, it seems pretty clear the farmer was the one who purposely forced this situation to happen, despite the way they tried to spin it in this news story.
Yeah I knew something was off with him, it wasn't adding up. He said "they tried to tear it down, we stopped them" and also "they offered to buy the property, but they didn't address MY DAMAGES". This is definitely a guy being difficult just to scam more money out of them. Glad they figured out a way to stop him.
@@randomvids8124 Exactly. He never mentioned what those "damages" were either. But he states his property there is "unuseable", yet there is a tree that is obviously beside that building on his side that does the same thing. If he wanted to farm that part, the tree would have been removed before. Wait till that lady who thinks this is a "waste of taxpayer funding" sees how much this was vs how much the guy was demanding.
@passportspider That’s all he would let them do, so it’s exactly what they did. Couldn’t go on his property to remove the building, so they left it there. Ask someone a yes or no question, then tell them they aren’t allowed to answer yes, and then get mad and call the news when they say no.
If the farmer put anything outside of his property line accidentally, he would have been financially decimated, dragged through litigation, harassed and jailed if he didn't play along.
@@mikeneff832 So... are you saying this is really a good proverbial hill to die on??? It's a total non-issue, looked to be that maybe a couple of feet extended onto his property, just ignore it, and work around it.
@@looneyburgmusic have you ever tilled or gardened ? Have you ever worked on a farm ? That space could be used for a lot of things. It’s his property they had no business building on to begin with. So if I build a shed in your yard it’s okay ? Hell no. Wanna pay my property taxes ? Thought not.
@@mikeneff832 Yes and... yes and yes... And yes, sure there are a lot of things the space could be used for. Now, all that said, from what I found from some digging this incident is the perfect case of all parties involved being both immature and overly aggressive. For example... why did this guy say, 'We stopped them" when the topic was the town attempting to REMOVE the offending building? Was that not what he wanted? Would that not "fix" the error? I don't know, but I can take a guess - if the building is gone, and there is nothing sticking over onto his property, then he is "whole", he has suffered no losses he could point to in a lawsuit against the town, meaning no $$$$ award for him . It's all about greed, always has been, always will be.
Except, the township offered to tear down the building, but the farmer didn't want them on his property. He was asking them for half a million dollars. The township called his bluff and now the farmer is playing dumb. The farmer got too greedy. That's all.
@@johnpatrick1647 Might have been to compensate for the lost revenue and legal expenses from the lost land. We know where the building was but how much of his land around it did they actually keep him from using.
*It would have been a much better investigation if they reported on this option....... what if... what if... the owner countered the price proposal they offered him to buy the land he was "infringing" but to buy the land instead. Basically he flips their reasonable price back at them. If it's reasonable for you to buy my property at this price... then it should be reasonable for me to buy your property at that price and if you say that's not reasonable then you're not giving me a good price. If they raise the price that they want for the land then you read your price you want for your land to the same amount.*
My father and I built large houses. Any time we started a new home we would always find the property corners no matter how long it took so there could be no mistakes. One time it came up with a neighbor saying the one side driveway was on his property until we pulled a string and proved that his driveway was 1 1-2' over the line he couldn't get back in his house fast enough.
I mean, building a house you're paying a surveyor to come out and flag the property lines for you anyways. You'd be nuts not too. Any place I've ever pulled a permit you wanted be able to. So that helps quite a bit. I don't get how this ever happens honestly if people simply did things the way they're supposed to. But it's a small town in the middle of nowhere and they probably put no thought into it really.
@@SalK-LShe has a right to not want construction equipment tearing through his property. he probably just wants financial compensation, which he has a right to, but the town is being petty
@gwp4eva “tearing through his property” do you see where the fence is, clown? They can tear it down from their side of the fence. But he refuses to allow the, to tear it down. He wants damages for not being able to use that section for farming, yet right next to it is a decades old tree that would have to be removed for farming as well, so there are no damages!
If it was the farmers building on township property they would have fined him for every day the structure stood on public property, then went after him for cutting the building in two peices like they did. This sounds like a HOA more than a government entity.
They tried tearing building down ..farmer stopped it..hmmm ..in the end they couldn't come up with agreement and that how it was settled..The End ..farmer got free 3 walled metal building and new shiney fence ..now tax payers will get bill for new city council building ...who really lost, farmer? City? Community residence ?
@@stanfen1966 the farmer the residents lost cause they city belongs to the people not local gov,they are just civil servants,whom are supposed to work for the people not in spite of them
@@texasmonster1668 if you look in video tractor not in skinny side ..I could be wrong to witch side belongs to whom, but why was farmer being interviewed on other side of fence from where you say he owns ...makes no sense how farmers stopped demolition of a building on someone else's property ...
They offered to move the building and the property owner said no, you can't come on my property. Why would he not let them move it. Something is not being mentioned.
Just curious, where does it say that? I was just searching for more info because im bored and nosey. I heard in this video that they had started tearing the building down but the farmer stopped them. Why? And it keeps mentioning that that township offered to buy the property isnt there weird zoning to protect farm land? Wouldnt he be giving up more than 20 ft of land if he sold it? Depending on the selling price it could be a good or bad deal. Also, what other thing was tied up with the township? I keep seeing that on the reports but I cant find the nitty gritty. Again, Im bored and you seem to know more than the rest of us, so please do tell.
@@seadragon1456 At :25 seconds they offered to tear it down and the property owner said you can't come on my property, then at 2:00 he is complaining about the building 2' on his property still when the township said they offered to remove it. They should have asked the property owner why he refused the offer to remove the building from his property. Reporters dont ask that of course. He is being difficult. So essentially he said "Its on my property", township "We will remove it", he said "Can't come on my property", township then said they would buy his property, he said "No". Sounds like two good solutions the township offered. He had several disagreements with the township on other matters he said so they didn't get along before this. Looks like he lives in the middle of nowhere, seems like he wouldn't be bothered.
@@seadragon1456 There is one where someone had a mortgage on two lots next to eachother and built a house 1/4 on one lot and 3/4 on the other. It went into foreclosure and the bank sold the 2 lots separately. The person that bought the lot with 1/4 of the residence on it which was mainly a garage and pool put up a fence right through the pool and garage.
@@seadragon1456 From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
Your forgetting that the town built a building on private land without purchasing it properly... They could have condemned the property before.... then took it... this was just childish tantrum by county officials becuase their building still sits on this farmers land do you not see that
@@tdgreenbay There wasn't even any urgent public need to condemn this farmer's property and exercise eminent domain. Based upon the footage shown in the video, it seems there is plenty of room to have constructed this building entirely on land owned by the town. My guess is that it neglected to have a professional survey of the area done before beginning construction to figure out where the property lines are located. Had the town done so and built this structure just a few feet over, this entire mess could have been avoided. But no, this happened and then town officials threw a childish tantrum over a mistake caused by their own stupidity.
From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.” Sounds like that part got cut for time
@@gwp4eva If they're tearing it down he wins either way. He's partially responsible for the outcome of this. The initial mistake was on the county, but not letting them remove the building properly is on him. He chose the outcome of this by being stubborn.
From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
If they were told to stay off his property, As a contractor I would only Demo on the side I had permission. Probably would recommend leaving or building something to catch the structure on the other side if it fell or was pushed over.
He's being a dick because he's had unrelated disputes (more than 1) with them so when this screw-up arose (the county didn't build the building, a contractor did) the owner refused to allow them to physically step on his property to remedy things. County said "eff you owner" & did what they could from their side of the property line! They need to seal up the back of the building & let the rest of it rot! Later, when the owner pulls his head out of his butt & agrees to let them remove the wall they should tell him to do it himself or charge him an amount to remove it that also covers all their legal costs & the demo costs. It's less than 10 feet of a pasture! Screw him.
@@Beezlie727 you should read some law. The contractor is an agent of the County, they are ultimately responsible for his error. Who was supposed to get a survey of the property line? Clue, the owner of the building. Were there county ordinances about set backs from the property line? Sure there were, and you need to know where the line is to comply with the ordinance. Maybe the farmer is being a little harsh, but in the eyes of the law, he has been harmed, so is due compensation. That said, if the County required the contractor to survey, and follow set backs, then they can go after him..but they are primarily responsible. In my experience, the only instance that would justify the Counties error is if they had an erroneous survey. In that case they have followed reasonable procedures, and the surveyor becomes responsible.
He’s a farmer. Probably has a tractor/bulldozer or something. Pull it apart and dump it over the fence. Problem solved. Township has the rest of their building back. Everybody happy. Farmer bills them for labor.
Hey they made a mistake and tried to resolve. I noticed he didn’t allow them to enter the property to take care of that section. He said he wanted money for damages. What are damages on that 5’ x 25’ section on the edge of his land that are greater than the price of the land they offered. We should all be reasonable. Everyone is human and we all makes mistakes.
@@dillchives no not solved seems to me they owe him lease and demolition money... this was straight up public officials acting a tantrum... becuase they didnt want to pay for their mistake
no, still the city’s. if he built something on their property, he’d be fined into oblivion. when the roles are reversed, it’s now “whoops sorry we’ll take it down”? nope, uh uh, he has a right to compensation for the unlawful occupation of his property. you get taxed for the square footage of property you own after all
@gwp4eva Why should the tax payer give this loser money? Because two feet of his land had a county building on it that he didn't even know was his for years? Go have a slip and fall dork.
@ibrahim Swindon Oh yes we would. There was a time before big overgrown and expensive government where private businesses provided all our needs. Even schools were private once. Home schooling was very effective and very good years ago. The cost of living was a lot lower due to free market economics. And RU-vid is a private platform running on private infrastructure installed and maintained by private business from the data center to the outside and where ever it goes. So, no, we can do without big mommy and daddy government.
@ibrahim Swindon I totally disagree. The market regulates itself. When we govern outselves first and morally and by respecting the boundaries of private property then all falls into place. The whole concept of a free market is to do and be the best balanced against profit. A study of the Austrian school of economics always prove that. Everything in America is regulated because we lost everything to the banks in the 30's due to bankruptcy of the original republic. We also lost almost all property rights.
@ibrahim Swindon possibly. Still, though, in a free Austrian market, liabilty is placed squarely upon the business owner. I believe it would have been morally correct for Tesla to use his own capital. Still would not matter, in capitalism the state owns and controls all commerce. The United States as a private corporation that controls all commerce through the UCC. I also have the stance that using state/public money is theft. As it is the product of confiscation. Maybe I am long winded. The state as a parasite is the issue.
ibrahim Swindon It’s been proven time and time again, the private sector does a better job than any government program. I’d love to debate this with you, unfortunately I don’t have the patience for typing. One day maybe we could meet. With that said, the government does have its place, but don’t give them too much credit, you do more for us than them😉
This reminds me of that old biblical story when two women are fighting over who the rightful mother is to a baby is and the first solution brought to the table is “cut the baby in half and share it” but the actual mother is like wtf no don’t do that and that’s how they figured out the real mother.
Same. But according to the story, Solomon was wise enough to know that the real mother would step forward before the infant was harmed. If only these town officials had even a fraction of Solomon's wisdom. :)
@@gueritajfs I realize that. That's why I'm pointing out that resolving this property dispute by splitting the building is the "Dumb and Dumber" modern day counterpart to this biblical story without any of the wisdom, fairness and sacrificial love.
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble just drew a chalk line across the floor and shared the building. In the end, Bam Bam knocked it down. If I was the farmer, I would knock down the part they left on my side and throw the scrap pieces back over the fence.
Nah, the town would probably just fine the guy for littering on public property if he were to throw the pieces over the fence. The metal parts of the slice of the building on his land could be sold as scrap metal and he might be able to reuse or give away the timber frames. At least this way he could get _something_ out of this utterly needless mess the town foisted upon him.
"I stopped them from removing the building" then "Idk what to do there is part of the building still on my property" After he stopped them from removing it LOL
Haha so true. And what's the big deal when the building is on his property 3 feet. Why does he even care? Seems like he made a problem when it didn't have to go this far
@@An11inchPenis There is such a thing as adverse possession. Building on and maintaining a property will eventually lead to being able to claim that property as yours. It takes decades but it happens.
@@Tb0n3 They offered to buy it and he refused because they would not pay him the amount of money he wanted for 'damages'. Im not sure how he could claim damages if they were willing to buy the land, how is he being damaged by them buying the land. I can see making them remove it and pay damages or make them buy the land but not both. He just wanted more money and thought they would cave....nope.
Obviously. I'm wondering if town officials secretly hope the farmer won't promptly tear down the piece of the building on his property so they have an excuse to levy a hefty fine against him for having a structure on his property that doesn't meet code!!
@@photios4779a structure they built that doesn't meet code. That would definitely come up. They are also the ones who cut it in two. They caused every violation that's mentioned in this story.
You shouldn't judge without both sides of the story. They said the man would not allow them on his property to tear it down. He wanted to sell his land for three times the value
@@johncuervo3019 do you know he was trying to sell it for 3 times the appraised value or just assuming ? And it is his land, he can sell it for however much he wants. Or not sell it, if he doesn't want to.
@@jopiekkola527 he thought he could force them into buying it for more than it was worth since they built on it already. He threw a bitch fit when they didn't buy it and offered to remove it. The guy was still trying to get money for damages to his property afterwards.
That would be considered exhortation. This is mainly his fault.while the township did make a mistake he refused to allow them to correct the mistake so now he is stuck with it.
@@charlesalexanderable And for all I know between the land he couldn't use and the legal fees he has had to pay because of their mistake that might be a valid price tag.
I got the same type of problem, the township allowed the fire company to build a fence and blocked my ability to get in or out to the back of my property. I ended up filing a lawsuit and after a few years, the fence was taken down. the fire company needs my property to build a new fire company and I am standing in the way of their progress. so they cause trouble. this is just one example of the crap they have pulled.
Wow people like u that stand in the way of progres make me sick. Why do u even need ur own property in 2021?? Just move into an apartment or something.
@@KrolKaz if your lucky, you will pay it off and have no mortgage payment and only have to pay the taxes each year. it's as close to living free as possible, however, if you want to make someone else rich pay rent.
@@gino007able i too know what its like to have a propery "in the way of progress". they dont want people like us with property around any more, they just want us living in tiny little boxes
If I understand correctly, the town offered to buy the property, he said no. So they went to tear down the building, and he said no. So, what else were they supposed to do?
They tried other options 1st but the farmer refused them all. They offered to remove the whole building, farmer won't let the workers on his land. They offered to buy the land at market value but the farmer said no and countered with a 2x market price as a firm lowest he will take. This was a last resort option by the township.
Thanosehadthewrongidea you are wrong the county officials owe him due to Damages they caused when adding on to the existing building they destroyed one of their own drainage systems flooding the farmers field that they refused to compensate for and there's no telling how much damage they would have caused while removing said addition the farmer also had to pay out of his own pocket for additional drainage tiles on his own property to stop the county's Fuckup so why don't you get the story straight and do some research before giving all these stupid comments to people questioning the Dispute or siding with the farmer over the worthless overreaching Government that has become too big for it's own ass.
You voted for stupidity and now you got it. That building doesn't meet any building codes. Get that equipment out of there before further collapse and damages. File suits against the management and inspectors for misconduct misappropriation of funds and fraud at a minimum. Remove all the involved parties out
You must be the only person that is questioning this. Do you see what they did to that building? Do you see half the building left by the government? Are you really asking who is unreasonable here?
Not really, they would have to offer over market value and the fact that they offered to move the structure (which would cost WAY more than the cost of the 2ft strip of land) should give you an idea as to how much he must have been demanding as 'damages'
@Danny DNA Exactly! I don't understand why this news crew didn't understand this and most of the commentators on here! Good Lord! It's on the farmer. He is being stubborn, not anyone else, they tried!
@Danny DNA Removing it alone does jot compensate him for the dates of the building being put there in the first place. Until those damages are paid, nothing moves.
@Robin Kidwell I wish I was one or the other. I wouldn't have to work two Essential full-time jobs. Thanks to PayPal and access to the internet, I have my CV-19 survival kit of masks, hand-sanitizer, gloves, and all the raw ingredients to make more sanitizer. The anti-bacterial wipes I got from the local supermarket, and the Home Depot by my nightshift job.
@Robin Kidwell *Yawn* Your trolling is genuinely pathetic. And what is it even based on? I insulted no one who is part of this property line dispute. If you're that upset by it, go troll someone who cares. Next time, put a bit of creativity and effort into it. It's genuinely sad that you have nothing better to do with your life than try to troll random strangers on RU-vid. I'm done with you. Whoever you are in Life, clearly you're not someone worth bothering with.
So: for the rest of the story. In addition to improperly siting this building in 2011, the township also damaged a drain tile in such away the the township's drain field for its septic system at this site now illegally drains into the county drain and causes the drain to flood this field. The farmer was trying to leverage selling this strip of land to the township with getting the township to finally repair the damage they had done to the county drain. The situation is actually mote idiotic than depicted by Fox new. My source of this information was to Google the situation and find a source other than Fox to try and find a source I felt I could trust.
The township should repair what they destroyed, because if it had been the other way around, they would have fined him into the poor house until he had dug up every particle of damaged soil and replaced it, which is what you have to do when sewage has been dumped into land like this.
Thank you so much for clearing this up for me! I knew there was more to the story! The county will always try to screw the farmer or the taxpayer! Its the only way they know to operate! Bite the hand that you steal from is their way! Either bite it or take the whole hand! I really don't blame the farmer in this! I wouldn't trust them with a blade of grass! Believe me, I know first hand...Gotta let them think they won! 🙏❤💪🇺🇸😀
Were you able to find out if the farmer sued the township for damages? Sounds like having a court decide would have been the proper course of action instead of playing silly games with property lines.
But wait, if he doesn't want that slice of building on his property why didn't he let them on the property to take it down? What "damages" did he suffer from this.. how much did he demand from them? Something doesn't seem right here.
To be honest, why would any intelligent person capable of making a successful life for themselves, ever want to be a township official? Henceforth, we're left with idiotic control freaks to fill the void.
@@ctb2814 .......according to the story..."The Government"......offered to remove the building.......Greedy farmer seems to be trying to extort the tax payers for more what reasonable...
Ashland is such a hellhole. I cant even drive through on rt 20 without getting pulled over while following every traffic law. Ill drive an extra hr or two just to avoid a ticket from them.
The only way to negotiate an issue like this is to restore the owner's property to its original condition. If anyone is allowed to build on other's land without a contract, and then expect to cut a deal, this kind of fraud will happen all over the place.
When authorities get this stupid and petty and have so much time on their hands they should all be fired and dismissed never to hold an office with government again. Absolutely rediculous, no surprise?
The farmer wants a million dollar for the littel piece of land the Gov't had accidentally used. No possible solution could ever pacified him, but a huge sum of dollar. Greedy farmer.
Oh yes he's greedy because he wants compensation from the government who tried to steal his property 🙄 you know how fucking idiotic you sound right now?
It sounds like the county just does whatever it wants, builds on people property then give them low offers to buy the land because they know farmers can’t afford lawyers.
Well not exactly but close . Kind Solomon was wise and at the very end justice and truth and love prevailed . But in this case the town idiot decided to actually go trough with the cutting . Maybe he was fed up with both this men's BS lol
Did i hear this right? The building belonged to the township, they tried to remove it, and he stopped them? Why did he stop them after he brought up the issue and they tried to remedy it by taking it down?
Ridiculous indeed. Those county officials should be fired for their lack of problem solving skills. Who in their right mind would think that applying the Solomon's solution would be the proper thing to do.
From the thumbnail you think that the government ruined some guy’s private building because they thought it was slightly on public land. But it sounds like he caught them building a couple feet onto his land, what I’m getting is that he doesn’t want crews on his property to tare down the small portion of building because he wants a settlement for the mistake instead of the problem being fixed. They could’ve just settled on an above market offer for the extra slice of acreage, built a fence, and kept the building intact. But everybody has to get one over on each other. He probably just wants a nice payout so he can demolish it for free with his tractor and keep his old property lines
If he just let a crew in to fix it, it would've been solved immediately after it was discovered. It's an accident that can be fixed. I think the guy wants "pain and suffering" money or something.
Apparently, the first time around, when they built the building they caused damages to the water cycle in that area and caused his fields to flood. As a result, before they deal with this mistake he wants them to fix the first problem they caused as they can claim the building is gone so they're not responsible for anything else.
Seems like the farmer was thinking he'd hit the jackpot or something. Wants it moved but won't let them come and move it? He was just looking for a payout. Now all he has is 1/8th of a shop building. LOL!
"I want this building removed from my property. But I also don't want you to work on my property to remove this building." "Oh no, who could have seen this coming?"
@Danny DNA It's not a resolution. It did not solve the issue, it made a new one. They were so unwilling to just pay him for the land that they went out of their way to be childish about it. That's not a resolution.
Oh yeah... and then the next few feet, and the next few feet... no big deal right!? I'm sure you would appreciate it if your neighbors did that until your back door opened up to a fence right!?
I'd bet that the city tried that. I'm guessing the guy tried to squeeze them for half a million $ for 1500 square feet of land. The city called the guy's bluff. The only reason the wall is still standing is the guy wouldn't let the city crew on his property to tear it down.
@@noyopacific , "called the guys bluff"? Some of you act like the city is entitled to build wherever the hell they feel like, say "oopsie daisy", and get a price they like. Maybe this guy was not interested in selling or having a screwey property line, and since he owns it (wrap your head around that fact) he can say no.
Simple solution to me: Farmer demos the part of the building on his property, throws the debris on the other side of the fence, since it is after all the town's materials, and moves on with his life. The town built the fence.....the town wrecked their own building. Get rid of that sliver on your side of the fence and forget about it. As for the townspeople, they should consider electing officials that are actually educated.
It's the city's building. They offered to buy the property. He said no. Then they tried to remove the building, since they messed and he wouldn't sell, but he wouldn't let them come onto his property to do it.
@@ndn2589 then you would get left a useless part of a building 🤷🏽♂️. The world doesn't have to cater to you nobody is special you would whine about workers on your property then I see it as just trying to get money basically social leech
@@datchicoroc1345 or.... and follow me here... he hires a company that is NOT completely incompetent to do it. Would you hire the plumber that flooded your house to fix his own problem??
That’s why it’s so important to have your property professionally Survey !! I don’t do nothing until I have all legal surveys proofs !! This old Wild West oak tree over there is my property … heard that too many time !! Lol
