SU0014635 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

San Joaquin County Planning Commission July 13, 1987 From Dave Pechan 940 N Fine Rd, Subject:Lindberg Proposed Development/condemnationof Vacco Land Gentlemen: As my work precludes my attending the planning meeting on the above proposal please accept this statemnt for entry into the record. My property, 940 N Fine Rd is adjacent to the subject development. I have no objection to the lindbergs right to develop their property as they see fit, but I do object to the overbearing use of the condemnation powers of County government to make the development economically feasable. I, myself was threatened with expropriation of 25' along the south side of my property for this development. The idea of using a road along the south side died when I pointed out the Lindberg's house, well, and septic tank would have to be moved. Obviously, moving a house is a expensive proposition, from my experience moving 3 homes in 1986 it would cost around $25,000 to accomplish this task. Plus the Lindbergs would have to fight at least two possibly 3 separate legal/political battles to obtain ownership. Or they would have to make offers for the strip at a price commensurate with what the current owners want. This seeminly useless strip of land is of great value to their owners because it provides us with privacy. It removes us by a significant distance from the public road. These are benefits that Mr. Pete Vacco now has and wants to maintain, or in the alternative he should be compensated a price commensurate with what he gives up and with what the lind- bergs gain. In the final analysis it seems fair that the future owners of lots to be subdivided should pay their fair share of the cost of that access. 13 acres lots in this area now are worth $50,000 if you could find one to buy. Further, Mr Vacco's land is worth more than a buildable lot because it is situated to create access for many parcels, which will vastly increase the value of that land. I submit Mr Vacco should not suffer the loss of his property with or witho ut government intervention for anything less than $50,000 value of the land, $25,000 savings to the Lindbergs by not having to move their house, $25,000 for Mr Vacco's share of the incr esed value to adjacent parcels the result of his private road becomming public. - 2 -