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.
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 ?
@@stanfen 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 ...
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.*
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.
@@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.”
@@Cormonkey18 Ah that makes sense. Though I still would have thought the normal procedure here would be to get a court order for the township to fix the damage they caused, instead of denying them the ability to fix part of the same problem...
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.”
It's the township that built on the farmers property. The farmer wouldn't let them on his property to tear the building down, so this is what happened.
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
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.
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.
@@RyanLawrence-v6y I’ve owned my own homes since I was 24. I’ve dealt with someone trying to build on my land before. He thought it was his family’s land, I listened to him and then explained it was my land and he could verify that by looking up the tax maps. Next week he was gone. People tend to be nicer to you if you are nice to them
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.
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.
That's exactly what I was thinking. "I don't want them on my property, but I don't want this building here either." This is what you get for being stubborn.
@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😉
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.
@@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.
@@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!
@@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
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.
@@BoleDaPole 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
The farmer wanted excessive compensation. He suffered no damages, but had the right to have the infringement removed. The city offered a reasonable solution, to buy the property. After rejected, the city offered another reasonable solution, to tear down the building, the farmer rejected having the workers on his property. This is the farmers fault and getting greedy asking for compensation for damages.
then he gets on the news fir sympothy an i dont have any some people just like ti be a pain, for what lil that place took up, as soon as he found out it was over his line dollars sighns went up, prople act like idiots over mole hills, an glad the city done what they did,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
I love how when its the town's problem its as simple as "let them on the property and remove it". Meanwhile you have to file 42 documents of paperwork to legally paint your front door 😆😆
@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.
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.
This is an abuse of power. It angers me. Even if this is several years old. This continues to happen all over the US. I stand corrected, though. Sounds as if the property owner was the one who was very unreasonable.
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.
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
As someone who moved into a property, and found out the owners and neighbors in the past didn't check property lines, I like this. There are lots of stupid issues that I have to deal with now with no end in sight because over 15 years ago someone allowed the property I am paying for to be taken for free by the neighbor. Only way to fix it at this point is either destroy what was errected like this, or cause a major dispute and make our minimally workable relationship worse. Seems like they are setting a precident for future property line disputes.
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
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.
Don’t people have their property surveyed BEFORE building? Seriously we had a fence built there were markers and the contractor got the necessary permits.
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.
That farmer sounds like a real pain in the ear and completely impossible to deal with. I can just imagine the frustration the township folks were feeling trying to negotiate a solution with him. Good for them taking this action, that’s malicious compliance carried out superbly! Then here comes dippy and dopey from the TV station (are they actually married?) to stand around and gawk like a couple pigeons. And where the heck did they find dingy to come squawk her opinion?
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.
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?
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!
Yeah, he didn't want workers on his property. Told them no when they offered to tear it down. He's crying over a situation of his making at that point.
@@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...
He wanted money, and was hoping to exploit the situation. Technically, the property owner could have removed the encroachment. The township offered to remove the encroachment, but he wouldn't let them on his property to do it, because he wanted the situation to remain to extort damages and other money from the situation as long as part of the building sat on his property. So the township removed the attached encroachment without actually using, or creating a situation for the farmer to claim additional damages. At best the farmer can sue for removal of residual debris. But he certainly is not going to be forcing the towns tax payers to buy his property or pay rent. Technically, the farmer could have sold them an easement. But he seemed to be looking to win the lottery. The structure seems to be substantially over discribed as a "building" At best it's a tin shed and doesn't even have a concrete foundation floor.
@@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??
The farmer did OK. He can take that down in an afternoon and he's gained some materials he might be able to sell or use. Taxpayers may have lost out, but it would have cost more to buy an easement than it will to rebuild a smaller structure. Of course the township and contractor screwed up, if they were paying attention this would not have happened.
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?
So let me get this straight..... the town offered to buy the land and offered to tear down the building and the farmer refused both? Seems like the farmer was the unreasonable half to this story
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.
I am a surveyor, and I see this happen a lot, its VERY upsetting to see two neighbors disputing this when there should be agreements and a good relationship with between one another.
@@socketyellow3 You're correct, but professional surveyors make these kinds of serious errors at a much lower rate than property owners who start building without bothering to locate the boundary lines first. Besides, if you get a professional survey done and they make a mistake, then you can hold them legally liable for damages caused by building on someone's property which their survey indicated is on your land. But if you didn't get the survey done first, then you're the one that's out of luck.
he just stopped them too late they already had the roof down really he just needs to build 1 wall buy some new rafters and metal building for next to nothing its an ag building no permits needed
What sort of dumb shit are you saying. They settled in court. The piece of building they left behind after cutting is his now. He can trash it if he wants and they would need to prove he was the one who dumped it back on their side. And hate crime? Are you that dumb? @@brianhaflin9799
Farmer: I just noticed, your building is a little over the line. Township: Oops. Can we just buy the land it's on? Farmer: Nuh uh. Township: Ok. We'll take it down and put up a fence. Won't happen again. Farmer: Stay off of my land! Township: Sure thing, sir. Just the fence, then. I think it's the solution he left for them... and kinda funny.
Exactly. Im reading all the comments calling the town the jerks. They guy could of just sucked it up and let the building stay on the land or he could have sold it.
I think it was: You built on my land after I told you it was going to be and you didn't move your plans. Why don't you adjust the property lines, taking this portion and granting me an equal portion right over there? Nope, sorry, we can't just give you land and we aren't paying for this... Eminent domain. Well, I'll just tear it down... You need a permit or it's destruction of town property. We can't give you one. Okay... I can still farm over here and... Sorry, zoning laws say property with this type of building can't be used for farming.
He wouldn't let them buy it because the township previously caused damage to some drain line of his. He wanted them to pay for the damages first - it was never about the stupid shed. Rather than having a court rule about the damages, he played stupid games and won 1/4th of a shed.
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.
They offered to tear it down, so why did he refuse? He wanted to be paid more for damages? Realistically, what damages have been done by a 5'x30' piece of a building on the edge of his land? Obviously cutting the building like this is unreasonable, but it sounds like the farmer may have been expecting to laugh all the way to the bank on a dispute that really hadn't effected him all that much. Without more information though, it's impossible to say who is in the right here.
K D how many years have you farmed?? I’m betting zero by your comment.... there is considerable damage to the ground, crops, his own financial gain of not being able to farm that area, not to mention if he has animals graze...
@@CHIM601 I'm guessing that building occupied 1500 square feet of the farmers land. If it were the best corn land in the country and produced 300 bushels an acre that patch of dirt could have produced almost $40 a year before cultural costs. Farmer Dick probably would have been willing to let it go, for half a million $. City called his bluff and now he's a-singing poor-poor pitiful me.
@@noyopacific it is stated in quite a few responses that the township ruined drainage tiles when they built the building and that's causing his land to flood. The township refused to fix or adequately compensate for the damage, hence his reluctance at their offers. Can't farm or graze flooded land. Also, did the township not get the proper survey done and building permits before they put up that building ? If they had, they wouldn't have built on his land and ruined the drainage tiles.
This represents our country, our government, our lives. If we can't work together to make things better for us all, this is the type of hurdles we will face. The two party system is no different. It will never work. It will always fail. Absolutely shameful. Imagine what this country could achieve if we actually worked together, ALL of us.
This is what you got out of this? Whoa boy the world must be falling apart for you. The farmer is a jackass trying to extort money out of the town over a mistake they offered to resolve.
This is fishy. I think the farmer wanted money for the ‘damages’ of the town’s building on his land. The town decided it was a better idea to just sever the building and take their losses (maybe the building wasn’t serving much purpose anymore). I don’t see a problem with what the town did. As for leaving the partial building on his property, it sure seems like he’s the one preventing them from extracting that part of it, not the town.
