City slaps widow with $60k in permit fees for simple home renovation
601,515
Published 2019-10-08
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 After consulting with a builder, Linda decided to turn her outdated carport into a garage and add a second bedroom and bathroom.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/washington-street-fees/
All Comments (21)
-
If they want her to rebuild the entire road next to her property, then the road should become hers and she should put up a toll booth on it as well.
-
My guess is some one wants the land and they are trying to force her to move.
-
Anyone enforcing the policy should be jailed. It's not a civil case. This is criminal activity.
-
Update for anyone discovering the story: "The city of Richland has revised its ordinance that forced homeowners to pay for costly street upgrades as a condition for getting a building permit. A lawsuit against the city of Richland was dismissed Thursday after both the city and homeowner Linda Cameron notified federal court that they had reached an agreement out of court."
-
This is what drives people to arm a bulldozer and rip the whole town apart... RIP Killdozer.
-
Since when is it a homeowner's responsibility to fix public roads? And if she did , could she put up a toll booth for letting the community drive through it?
-
Fight the good fight Linda. You're a hero to all property owners.
-
"THEY ARE LYING TO HER!!!!!" "ADD TO YOUR HOUSE IN THE BACK NOT THE FRONT!"
-
The government’s ability to impose arbitrary fines, fees, and forfeitures represents one of the greatest threats to property rights of Americans
-
The improvements they want her to pay for are what we already pay taxes for..what a bunch of crooks...this is outrageous
-
Absolutely outrageous. Someone needs to go to PRISON for this abuse.
-
This stuff is going on everywhere!
-
I'm not a US citizen but isn't this "extortion" and "abuse of power" ? Since the road and the renovation have no connection whatsoever.
-
Cities have way overstepped their bounds. LEAVE HARMLESS PEOPLE ALONE!
-
Sue every one of the city council individually too.
-
Sounds like your local swamp needs draining.
-
The mayor, city commissioners and all of those who have made this heinous decision, well, there's a special place in hell for people like that.
-
If I were the contractor, I would give her an estimate for $49,999
-
Well, She is living the American nightmare.
-
20 million city hall. Talk about feathering your own nest
