@@brentfarvors192 spoiler: gov wont be held accountable untill something drastic actually happens. Almost happened on jan 6 and im not one of those loonies.. IF NOTHING CHANGES NOTHING CHANGES...
@@brentfarvors192 Exactly. The story was about the shock factor and not about the amount of compensation being worth while. I'm sure they did just fine in the end run at the end of the deal.
@@brentfarvors192 Gov? Not the builder? This is what everyone wants less rules Good for the builder f*cking his customers why not just keep f*cking people Less rules.
Fair market price for a house that floods because of where it was built. Council is in the wrong for approving the works, but councils are never held liable. In reality, they are lucky they got anything back.
What city or county government would approve a retention pond being filled in and built on. I live in Florida, and this was done by me, however, the builder didn't fill in the pond. They waited until the dry season, then built the home and placed it on stilts and even built a walkway over the pond to get to their car. It's still there today and in the rain season the house is well above the water in the pond. It's unusual for sure. They purposely built the home over a pond.
@@MartinReiter143 These days that doesn't work. They are going at the people that own the company not the company. Been a lot of guys that have 4 to 10 LLC that have been sued and the lawyers have gone after all the LLC to get the money and even the owner of the LLC.
They may not be able to hold the builder accountable. It depends on how statute of limitations are in that state for liability and if the builder is still in business.
@@Anonymous-pm7jf And because it is so easy to 'phoenix' a construction company, they know they can get away with doing the wrong thing, so, that's why they do it.
I used to be a city engineer. I have no idea how this could possibly happen. Don’t they have a building permit process? Any reviewer would look at any set of blueprints and see this was supposed to be a retention pond. There’s more to this story.
So the city paid for the problem and not the builder? And then the person leaving the house is now selling parts of the house that the city now owns? From a site that the city should have never allowed a builder to build on? The taxpayers need to elect new leaders?
@@davidlowe8597 The hose is 10 yrs old. I'm 90% sure the "leaders" that made this decision are not in that role now, long since moved up or on to other things ...
Yep I seen that in by the freedom Factory where they're building all these retention walls and it's making the water rise higher because it's not allowing it to flow off into the swamps like it normally did
@@spunn_co even the drag strip next to the freedom factory is affected by the same problem Cleetus made a video a few weeks ago where he was literally driving his mini jet boat on the drag strip because it had been flooded
I understand it's a losing battle in that she won't be able to keep the house, and the retention pond must be built. But her not getting enough to buy a same or similar size house in the neighborhood or nearby means she's not being compensated enough. That, I hope the lawyer can or could have fought for? I wish they had covered that in this story.
The city should have offered her current replacement cost of her home to buy in a comparable neighbourhood in the area. That doesn’t even account for the stress and hassle she’s endured.
The city bought HER home, so they offered the current value of HER home. What she does with that money is up to her. If she thinks other neighborhoods are too expensive, that’s her prerogative, but she was compensated for what was taken from her, per the fifth amendment. Which I might add has no provision for arbitrarily giving away the taxpayers’ money for someone’s perceived (and entirely subjective) “stress” or “hassle”. That’s what you go talk to a therapist for.
She is such a genuinely good person. (Clean the house for next person, miss her neighbors, etc) May God bless her and provide her with an even better home and give her peace. 💐🙏
@Nova-mid8d That's a stretchhhhh to say the least. ONLY if her property was part of the community prior to her birth 50-60-70 years ago they 'MIGHT' have been aware. Even it was City owned but NOT developed they might not have known. AND if the City didn't even own the property way back then, then NO, they definitely weren't aware
He's built a very nice home on a hill looking over a few small houses in a depression below. Although I hate it when someone names their house. What kind of name is "Pond View"?
My friend was in a somewhat similar situation here in Kansas. Flooding overwhelmed the nearby drainage creek and flooded out five houses. The city decided to change the flood plane to encompass those five lots, and gave them fair market value for their homes. They also got to salvage virtually anything from the house before it was leveled. It worked out well for them overall.
The city approved the build, the city is buying the houses back. But If the city is paying fair market for the houses and it's not enough to get another similar house in the state then she either bought it suspiciously cheap due to where it was built and never looked into it, or someone's definition of fair market price is off.
everyone saying sue the developer. I'm thinking the city allowed the developer to fill in the pond and later realized after a big storm that the pond was there for a reason! City should've moved the houses...
Our city is inundated with tons of water and any piece of land is set aside to catch run off water. Sometimes they'll pull public domain purchase a property and move the house a few blocks down. I understand her house flooded, but it could have been done.
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 8 to 9% and 9% to 10% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone want to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
I just looked her up on the internet and found her webpage with her credentials. I wrote her a outlining my financial objectives and planned a call with her.
@@JacquelinePerriraaffordable housing isn’t even affordable anymore investment companies by the housing and rent it out. Until that stops this country is going to get further into a housing crisis
@ 0: 52, there is only a passing mention of the builder. Hard to believe that they're not liable, maybe even partially and surprised a city would jump so fast to buy the houses back, usually they would fight something like this. This is only reporting part of the story.
Why I despise local news organizations... They tell you next to nothing. Who was the builder? Was the builder fined or prosecuted for fraud? On and on...
The reporters took the easy angle to make the builder out to be the bad guy. The city planning peeps made the choices behind this problem. If the city approves the build, everyone else involved relies on the city to engineer adequate sewage, drainage, water, etc.
@@mattmaloney5988 um, yeah - what about the responsibility for submitting the plan in the first place? Shouldn't a builder be competent enough to figure out you can't build in a certain place?
Right? How much, EXACTLY, did the city pay her for her home? How much, EXACTLY, are similar nearby homes worth? We can only guess why this information was omitted, but it's safe to assume that if it made us feel any sorrier for the "victim" it'd have been included? And speaking of that, I'm supposed to feel sorry for because "normally, a seller is supposed to clean a house for the next owner" but she doesn't have to? Boo hoo.
It sounds like the city was at fault, or they wouldn’t have asked to buy back the houses. It also sounds like the home owners accepted the offers without being eminent domained. However, the reporter seems to slant the way the story is presented to make the builder sound like they did it maliciously. Decent story, but they could do a little better.
There was a similiar situation where I live. A developer bought some municipal land that was used for decades to dump sewage. At first, the smell was only when it rained. As they continued to grade the dirt to build more homes, the smell never went away, and all development stopped. There were lawsuits for the next decade. The land wont be useable for another 50 to 100 years accorsing to experts. Over the course of 75 years, over 100 million gallons of human waste was dumped across 100 acres of land.
I used to live in Grand Junction, CO and a subdivision was being built behind my house so I decided to go check the plat. I had a license as a General Contractor and was curious if they needed anything. It was then that I noticed there was a retention pond going in behind my existing property. I was fine with that since the area had been a farm for generations and the land was about 6' lower than mine so it would not cause me any problems. After the last house in the subdivision was built I noticed work beginning on the retention pond area but it turned out to be a house. I went to the county and informed them but they did NOTHING. Yes, soon there was a house built on the pond area with no front yard and the skinniest driveway I had ever seen. 9 months later all of the new houses all along the back of our existing street had active flooding in their basements in them because there was an open irrigation ditch located right on the edge of the drop off. Hmmmmmm.... the owners tried to find the builder but guess what? They had moved out of state as soon as the subdivision was done being built. This is a very common practice for a "builder". I had tried to warn them but quite often no one listens to a female general contractor or maybe the upper levels had gotten a kick back. Use this as a warning.... always check the plat for new construction and yes watch your house being built every step of the way so you can correct "mistakes".
The secretary of state of Louisiana essentially did the same thing when he rescinded the need for flood insurance in New Orleans to benefit developers and the tax base.
Yeah it has been obvious for years fines and other monetary penalties do not work and are just and excuse to let the fraudsters and the politicians who look the other way off the hook.
This Happened Next To Me, Town Allowed Contractors To Fill In Wetlands, Now me And A Neighbor Have Ground And Surface Water Issues. This Seems To Be Very Common! Sorry To See These People Lose Their Homes!
Here in Dayton NV. they built 400 homes right on top of a Historical flood plain filled in a Pond created by the water from the Comstock load . and in the process destroyed a herd of 65 horses . This land has had Tainted water from mining flowing over it for a hundred years . I blame the Town councils for this kind of greed , It happens everywhere
The real estate and building industry in the USA has no regard for anything but the easiest buck they can suck out of people. This industry really needs to be reorganized and stop the predatory actions that has been practiced for past several years.
A fair deal would be the same house in another part of the town...bought and paid for by the town. That would mean far less heartbreak for this lady......
I live in GA and I have no doubt they will be able to find an amazing house with what they have. Either that or rent somewhere for a year and wait until inflation drops. The South is very friendly, different climate, very affordable, and a much slower pace of life. I moved here from the Washington DC area 20 years ago and never looked back. LOVE IT HERE!!!
Inflation already has dropped. It's at 2.2% Housing prices were escalating in Colorado long before we had the 8% inflation rate. Housing is a beast all on its own. Hope you got through Helene ok down there in Georgia. I lived in Atlanta for 3 years, and there was nothing like the flooding I saw in yesterday's footage of that city.
@@urkiddingme6254 Yes, I live 15 min south of Atlanta. The flooding was bad in certain areas. Crumbling infostructure has been an issue for the last few years in the city and suburbs, especially roads, bridges, and water drainage systems. We had heavy rain for 3 days and it took it's toll.
@@souljourney60 i have yet to hear of any drainage system that is capable of handling that much rain. Even the best of them get clogged quickly with all the debris the flooding picks up. The rain you got in one day is what we get in one year here. I lived in Marietta in the 80's, commuted into Atlanta area, and back then the infrastructure seemed pretty good, other than the constant traffic jams. 24x7 heavy traffic. Glad you are safe! Must be a bit of a mess to clean up.
There is also the headache, The builder never would have been able to build on the retention cells without City Permission. The real issue is they need the land back. Not the house.
The township should be forced by the courts to pay them in full for their move…this includes home price, moving costs, etc…it’s the courts job to “make them whole”…
Friend moved a 3 bed 2 bath home 40 year ago one mile and it 50,000. Back then . Hime still standing in good condition though, and they gir it for a dollar, I believe
This is like here where I live. There are many homes built on filled in natural playa lakes. The rain water all drains to these areas and it still wants to do that even with them filled in. And the ground still shifts and will start to crack foundations in just a year or two after the house is built. Unless you’re from here and know where these places are, the builders don’t tell you what they did to the land before building the house.
Otherwise known as sinkholes? Playa lakes sounds much nicer. I have something like that; it only appeared after a wildfire took all the ponderosas out, and subsequent flooding moved the earth around. Now I have a small bog at 7500 feet. Last year, to prevent mosquitoes breeding, i trucked in a load of woodchips just to soak up the unusual rainfall we had. Clover and other grasses and Canada thistle(😭) are thriving in it. I have never found any pockets of clay on my land. I think the flooding just moved every inch of top soil into that one low spot, and it holds the water. I like my little bog; it's always green.
If the town issued a certificate of occupancy for this house, they are liable for at least their incompetence and possibly for conspiring with the builder. This needs to be investigated and both the builder and the town sued for compensatory and punitive damages.
@@Bill-im6nt Investigated themselves? This requires a decent land use lawyer and a aggressive litigating attorney. They should be able to get legal fees from the settlement making it well worthwhile for the attorneys.
Journalism is truely dead. But some retention ponds are detention ponds. A detention pond is a retention pond whose contents get drained somehow, usually by pumping, sometimes to slow total runoff for a longer duration so as not to overload drains.
@@slave2apup279 - I understand the distinction - but it cannot be both. It’s either a retention pond - which holds runoff, or a detention pond, which is fully drained. They are similar in that they collect water runoff - but they cannot be both. Perhaps I am either missing something, or there is colloquial usage that I am unfamiliar with. Sort of like a car is a car, and a pickup truck is a truck, but some nitwit is going to call their pickup a “car,” while most people wouldn’t describe their automobile as a “pickup” unless it was. And, since we’re here - what, precisely, is that vehicle designed to “pick up?” Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it a “carry truck,” or a “wagon?” Oh, wait… that’s… English is stupid. And journalism is still dead. 😉
@@slave2apup279 - I am NOT a contractor, or inspector. If they consider a detention pond as a TYPE of retention pond - then I have learned something new… and that I am kinda hard on the misuse of linguistic aphorisms - but that, I already knew. 🤪 Thanks for the clarification. I’ll stick to my areas of expertise. 👍🏻🤪
Uh, they follow all the local, city, and state building codes and regulations? They get all their permits signed, stamped, and notarized? Then when the city realizes they screwed up and let them build on a retention pond, the builder stays in business and the city takes the hit?
@@joez.2794 Kind of like all the fake property transfers we are seeing all over? Notice the builder doesn't get mentioned or investigated at all in this, probably long gone.
Sue every single person involved. Sue every single member of the city council or whomever gave the valuation of the payout. Sue the builders, and sue the city employee that authorized the permit to fill it in.
that's what I thought too! City could've given them a lot and although expensive, moved the houses! Or, I wonder if the money they got would've been enough to buy a lot and move the house themselves? Looks like this was rushed...
Because you can't blame the builder if they did everything they were supposed to do according to the city? And when the city messes up, taxpayers foot the bill. Please remember to vote in local elections.
why explain what he did wrong he went to the city and asked for a permit to be allowed to build homes there and the town said sure go ahead if anyone is guilty of anything it would be the city officials.
@@geeknoid That explains why they can't go after the builder, $omeone gave him the permit. But the name has faded so badly over the few year$ that they can't figure out who did it.
This sounds like an eminent domain type thing and you're not supposed to get "fair market value" because you're being forced to move against your will for the public good. You're supposed to get 200-400% of market value. The point would be to get more money, not keep the house. I think there is something missing in this story.
This exact same thing happened to relatives of mine in the UK. Bought a brand new house erected on the site of a former pond that used to collect heavy rain water and protect the neighbourhood from flooding. Nobody knew this until the pond was gone and rain water started to collect in people's basements. My relatives were also reimbursed for the house and were lucky to find somewhere nearby just as nice for the same price. But they had all the months of bother that nobody compensated them for.
I bet she got a hefty sum. Might not be enough for her but to 99% of us.. Probably would have been. Think about it, they gave her enough money to buy another home AND to move to a different state comfortably I bet. You can tell she's happy but at the same time sad. But the happiness is there is there.
A friend has lived on a beautiful retention pond outside of Sacramento Calif. for years. About 5 years ago the land opposite was changed from Ag. to industrial with a huge warehouse going in and a lot of setback problems occurred. County employees were not following regs. The builder corrected what they could with fencing and trees. Amazon suddenly moved in. Now its lights on and all 7 days a week trucks coming and going.
How does a builder fill in a retention pond and get the drawings approved by the city? Either the city is completely incompetent, or the builder did something highly illegal and needs to be in prison. The responsible party in either case should be paying ALL of the associated expenses of the homeowner.
Whoever filled in the retention pond or approved building on top of it should be held liable. That’s some BS.
Spoilers: Gov't is never held accountable. At least in her situation, she was compensated.
@@brentfarvors192 spoiler: gov wont be held accountable untill something drastic actually happens. Almost happened on jan 6 and im not one of those loonies.. IF NOTHING CHANGES NOTHING CHANGES...
@@brentfarvors192 Exactly. The story was about the shock factor and not about the amount of compensation being worth while. I'm sure they did just fine in the end run at the end of the deal.
@@brentfarvors192 Gov? Not the builder? This is what everyone wants less rules Good for the builder f*cking his customers why not just keep f*cking people Less rules.
Con-Qwackters
If the city paid a fair price and they can't afford to purchase a similar home nearby, then it wasn't a fair price. What am I missing?
Don't know what the city paid, but it don't sound like it was fair market value for the area.
@@TheMje1963 Eminent Domain ""fair market value"" In that type of situation Never seems fair when looking at the numbers in hindsight.
It's a fair price but they want more than what the area can offer. Human nature.
Fair market price for a house that floods because of where it was built. Council is in the wrong for approving the works, but councils are never held liable. In reality, they are lucky they got anything back.
what they classify fair price is usually pennies on the dollar my grandmother had that grudge for the rest of her days
So did the city permit the filling of the retention pond? Can the builder be held accountable?
That's the first thing I thought. Good Lord how could it get that far?
What city or county government would approve a retention pond being filled in and built on. I live in Florida, and this was done by me, however, the builder didn't fill in the pond. They waited until the dry season, then built the home and placed it on stilts and even built a walkway over the pond to get to their car. It's still there today and in the rain season the house is well above the water in the pond. It's unusual for sure. They purposely built the home over a pond.
@@tomh-ph3dp don't use the Lord's name in vain
@punk oh my god, do shut up
That's not his name !@PunkDogCreations
The builders who filled it in and built on top of it without telling anyone should be held accountable for all these families losses.
Builders avoid liability by setting up a new corporation for a new project, and then closing it when they are done.
@@MartinReiter143 That still doesn't absolve the executives of any crimes committed
@@safeandeffectivelol True
@@MartinReiter143 These days that doesn't work. They are going at the people that own the company not the company. Been a lot of guys that have 4 to 10 LLC that have been sued and the lawyers have gone after all the LLC to get the money and even the owner of the LLC.
@@johnunsicker7440 Good. That’s progress.
What about legal recourse against the builder? This was not disclosed in the purchasing agreement.
They may not be able to hold the builder accountable. It depends on how statute of limitations are in that state for liability and if the builder is still in business.
Who allows them to build
Knowing for well, the recourse …😂
Even if you sue the builder and win, the builder will declare bankruptcy spinoff the business and pay them NOTHING
@@Anonymous-pm7jf And because it is so easy to 'phoenix' a construction company, they know they can get away with doing the wrong thing, so, that's why they do it.
Who approved the building permits? The county!
I used to be a city engineer. I have no idea how this could possibly happen. Don’t they have a building permit process? Any reviewer would look at any set of blueprints and see this was supposed to be a retention pond. There’s more to this story.
So the city paid for the problem and not the builder? And then the person leaving the house is now selling parts of the house that the city now owns? From a site that the city should have never allowed a builder to build on? The taxpayers need to elect new leaders?
sounds like the builder had a friend at the permit office.
@@davidlowe8597 The hose is 10 yrs old. I'm 90% sure the "leaders" that made this decision are not in that role now, long since moved up or on to other things ...
Because town officials are corrupt and this is the capitalism everyone wanted.
Corruption is the US way of life.
Its called greed stop denying it. Here in Florida they have been allowing builders to flood older homes out with no consequences. Its greed.
Yep I seen that in by the freedom Factory where they're building all these retention walls and it's making the water rise higher because it's not allowing it to flow off into the swamps like it normally did
Tennessee too! Force them out build more homes!
Yup 💯
Florida is the flim-flam capital of the country in all respects.
@@spunn_co even the drag strip next to the freedom factory is affected by the same problem Cleetus made a video a few weeks ago where he was literally driving his mini jet boat on the drag strip because it had been flooded
I understand it's a losing battle in that she won't be able to keep the house, and the retention pond must be built. But her not getting enough to buy a same or similar size house in the neighborhood or nearby means she's not being compensated enough. That, I hope the lawyer can or could have fought for? I wish they had covered that in this story.
Loose like an arrow? Loose like pants that are too big?
@@jonjones9072 Opps, fixed it.
I’m just messing with ya.
Exactly! But yet they’re saying she was paid fairly and can’t buy a similar house in the area right now… That doesn’t sound right
They were paid 809k for a house they paid 325k for, 10 years ago. To say they weren’t fairly compensated is just wrong..
The city should have offered her current replacement cost of her home to buy in a comparable neighbourhood in the area. That doesn’t even account for the stress and hassle she’s endured.
The city bought HER home, so they offered the current value of HER home. What she does with that money is up to her. If she thinks other neighborhoods are too expensive, that’s her prerogative, but she was compensated for what was taken from her, per the fifth amendment. Which I might add has no provision for arbitrarily giving away the taxpayers’ money for someone’s perceived (and entirely subjective) “stress” or “hassle”. That’s what you go talk to a therapist for.
Fair price / fair market price is ONLY at the evaluated price of the property. It does NOT consider the market inflation and never will..
She is such a genuinely good person. (Clean the house for next person, miss her neighbors, etc) May God bless her and provide her with an even better home and give her peace. 💐🙏
God bless this lady with a new home and good neighbors in Jesus name amen.
More and more, it seems an important question when house-hunting is “What was on this land before?” A pond? An oil or gas well? A cemetery? 😳
Remember Love Canal in New York state,was filled with barrels of toxic chemical waste.Homes were built and 100's of people got sick an died.
I could deal with almost anything except a cemetery. I mean, you’ve seen “Poltergeist” (1982), right? 👻
A dump? Radioactive waste site? Yes! In Colorado this happens. And toxic gas leaks up.
Ancient Indian Burial ground…Alien crash site…
When they were excavating the property I grew up in, they found human remains.
After moving out on my own, I still sleep with the light on
The town knew the retention pond existed before she was born.
@Nova-mid8d That's a stretchhhhh to say the least. ONLY if her property was part of the community prior to her birth 50-60-70 years ago they 'MIGHT' have been aware. Even it was City owned but NOT developed they might not have known. AND if the City didn't even own the property way back then, then NO, they definitely weren't aware
The bank, builder and contractors are laughing together
Over at the town permit officer's mansion.
He's built a very nice home on a hill looking over a few small houses in a depression below. Although I hate it when someone names their house. What kind of name is "Pond View"?
My friend was in a somewhat similar situation here in Kansas. Flooding overwhelmed the nearby drainage creek and flooded out five houses. The city decided to change the flood plane to encompass those five lots, and gave them fair market value for their homes. They also got to salvage virtually anything from the house before it was leveled. It worked out well for them overall.
Can't she sue the builder?
They sold her property under a false pretense.🤔
Says the trumptard...
The city approved the build, the city is buying the houses back. But If the city is paying fair market for the houses and it's not enough to get another similar house in the state then she either bought it suspiciously cheap due to where it was built and never looked into it, or someone's definition of fair market price is off.
Statue of limitations
She bought it over 10 years ago so doubtful any law allows suing a builder after that length of time...
@@whatsamatteryou791Statute
everyone saying sue the developer. I'm thinking the city allowed the developer to fill in the pond and later realized after a big storm that the pond was there for a reason!
City should've moved the houses...
Our city is inundated with tons of water and any piece of land is set aside to catch run off water. Sometimes they'll pull public domain purchase a property and move the house a few blocks down. I understand her house flooded, but it could have been done.
sue the city ..ur right
@@joez.2794 I've heard of plenty of "regular" houses being moved so no, it's not ridiculous
The city should’ve never issued a building permit their part of the problem too.
@@douglasldn2831 yup, that's why cities need an good engineer that should've analyzed the flow of water if the pond were filled in.
Back in the day, when I purchased my first home to live-in; that was Miami in the early 1990s, first mortgages with rates of 8 to 9% and 9% to 10% were typical. People will have to accept the possibility that we won't ever return to 3%. If sellers must sell, home prices will have to decline, and lower evaluations will follow. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my chain of thoughts.
If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone want to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.
nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier.. who is your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking?
I just looked her up on the internet and found her webpage with her credentials. I wrote her a outlining my financial objectives and planned a call with her.
In the late 70s, interest rates for homes were around 18 percent. They can be 3 again. Quit voting blue..
@@JacquelinePerriraaffordable housing isn’t even affordable anymore investment companies by the housing and rent it out. Until that stops this country is going to get further into a housing crisis
I am so sorry for your loss lady.
@ 0: 52, there is only a passing mention of the builder. Hard to believe that they're not liable, maybe even partially and surprised a city would jump so fast to buy the houses back, usually they would fight something like this. This is only reporting part of the story.
That’s considered news nowadays.
My heart goes out to this lady. Prayers to you. 😢❤
Why I despise local news organizations... They tell you next to nothing. Who was the builder? Was the builder fined or prosecuted for fraud? On and on...
The reporters took the easy angle to make the builder out to be the bad guy. The city planning peeps made the choices behind this problem. If the city approves the build, everyone else involved relies on the city to engineer adequate sewage, drainage, water, etc.
@@mattmaloney5988 um, yeah - what about the responsibility for submitting the plan in the first place? Shouldn't a builder be competent enough to figure out you can't build in a certain place?
Right? How much, EXACTLY, did the city pay her for her home? How much, EXACTLY, are similar nearby homes worth? We can only guess why this information was omitted, but it's safe to assume that if it made us feel any sorrier for the "victim" it'd have been included? And speaking of that, I'm supposed to feel sorry for because "normally, a seller is supposed to clean a house for the next owner" but she doesn't have to? Boo hoo.
It sounds like the city was at fault, or they wouldn’t have asked to buy back the houses. It also sounds like the home owners accepted the offers without being eminent domained. However, the reporter seems to slant the way the story is presented to make the builder sound like they did it maliciously. Decent story, but they could do a little better.
More focused on self-promotion than actual reporting.
She seems like such a nice neighbor
There was a similiar situation where I live. A developer bought some municipal land that was used for decades to dump sewage. At first, the smell was only when it rained. As they continued to grade the dirt to build more homes, the smell never went away, and all development stopped. There were lawsuits for the next decade. The land wont be useable for another 50 to 100 years accorsing to experts. Over the course of 75 years, over 100 million gallons of human waste was dumped across 100 acres of land.
That neighborhood turned to shit in a hurry.
I used to live in Grand Junction, CO and a subdivision was being built behind my house so I decided to go check the plat. I had a license as a General Contractor and was curious if they needed anything. It was then that I noticed there was a retention pond going in behind my existing property. I was fine with that since the area had been a farm for generations and the land was about 6' lower than mine so it would not cause me any problems. After the last house in the subdivision was built I noticed work beginning on the retention pond area but it turned out to be a house. I went to the county and informed them but they did NOTHING. Yes, soon there was a house built on the pond area with no front yard and the skinniest driveway I had ever seen. 9 months later all of the new houses all along the back of our existing street had active flooding in their basements in them because there was an open irrigation ditch located right on the edge of the drop off. Hmmmmmm.... the owners tried to find the builder but guess what? They had moved out of state as soon as the subdivision was done being built. This is a very common practice for a "builder". I had tried to warn them but quite often no one listens to a female general contractor or maybe the upper levels had gotten a kick back. Use this as a warning.... always check the plat for new construction and yes watch your house being built every step of the way so you can correct "mistakes".
No jail, why bother. It's a fkn joke. Builder moves on, fks others
Try growing a brain and learning how to use it!
The secretary of state of Louisiana essentially did the same thing when he rescinded the need for flood insurance in New Orleans to benefit developers and the tax base.
My heart goes out to these people,a home becomes part of your life part of your existence.❤
So do treasured neighbors.
The builder and the inspectors should be criminally liable. But not in america.
Yeah it has been obvious for years fines and other monetary penalties do not work and are just and excuse to let the fraudsters and the politicians who look the other way off the hook.
Why did the city issue a building permit in the first place.... smh
The city is liable too 😂
Not the builder from my standpoint, the local government had to give permits.
Sorry. That sucks. That guy should be hauled into court.
This Happened Next To Me, Town Allowed Contractors To Fill In Wetlands, Now me And A Neighbor Have Ground And Surface Water Issues. This Seems To Be Very Common! Sorry To See These People Lose Their Homes!
Omgoodness what a nightmare
Here in Dayton NV. they built 400 homes right on top of a Historical flood plain filled in a Pond created by the water from the Comstock load . and in the process destroyed a herd of 65 horses .
This land has had Tainted water from mining flowing over it for a hundred years . I blame the Town councils for this kind of greed , It happens everywhere
Usually the developers/builders have managed to get themselves voted onto the councils!
The real estate and building industry in the USA has no regard for anything but the easiest buck they can suck out of people.
This industry really needs to be reorganized and stop the predatory actions that has been practiced for past several years.
Then the county an the builder has to fit all the bills because there the one's who allowed it to happen. Without telling others
Greed is the most evil flaw of humanity.
Terrible situation. Just a total nightmare to find out your builder cut that big of a corner.
The builder needs to be arrested and charged! But the councillors that gave the building permits need jail time!
Poor Holly. I hope she enjoys Georgia. It’s beautiful, too
A fair deal would be the same house in another part of the town...bought and paid for by the town.
That would mean far less heartbreak for this lady......
What happened to the permits the building inspector etc you mean they missed all of this??
🤣
@@Bill-im6nt corruption
Where was the EPA in all of this???
Such a crock, that builder needs to be held accountable, so sick of seeing these stories of people getting ripped off by builders.
I hope she’s blessed by being closer to family. I’d cry every day too if this happened to me
I tracked the house down on Google Maps, and if you go to Google Street View and set the dates to 2007, it was an empty dry pond.
Rain is so rare in Colorado, every thing is empty and dry until...oops it isn't.
Thanks for the input.
I’ll take the kitchen cabinets!
That's the first time I've heard of a municipality taking any responsibility for anything. Kudos to the Town of Johnstown!
That is probably why the city bought the houses - permits should never have issued. Bad job by the building department.
I live in GA and I have no doubt they will be able to find an amazing house with what they have. Either that or rent somewhere for a year and wait until inflation drops. The South is very friendly, different climate, very affordable, and a much slower pace of life. I moved here from the Washington DC area 20 years ago and never looked back. LOVE IT HERE!!!
Inflation already has dropped. It's at 2.2% Housing prices were escalating in Colorado long before we had the 8% inflation rate. Housing is a beast all on its own. Hope you got through Helene ok down there in Georgia. I lived in Atlanta for 3 years, and there was nothing like the flooding I saw in yesterday's footage of that city.
@@urkiddingme6254 Yes, I live 15 min south of Atlanta. The flooding was bad in certain areas. Crumbling infostructure has been an issue for the last few years in the city and suburbs, especially roads, bridges, and water drainage systems. We had heavy rain for 3 days and it took it's toll.
@@souljourney60 i have yet to hear of any drainage system that is capable of handling that much rain. Even the best of them get clogged quickly with all the debris the flooding picks up. The rain you got in one day is what we get in one year here. I lived in Marietta in the 80's, commuted into Atlanta area, and back then the infrastructure seemed pretty good, other than the constant traffic jams. 24x7 heavy traffic. Glad you are safe! Must be a bit of a mess to clean up.
Thats really sad and terrible.
she "Took One" ... for the Community.
That woman is a Trooper. & she has Every Right to Grieve.
The town needs to pay up for allowing the builders to that and then reneging on it.
There is also the headache, The builder never would have been able to build on the retention cells without City Permission. The real issue is they need the land back. Not the house.
The township should be forced by the courts to pay them in full for their move…this includes home price, moving costs, etc…it’s the courts job to “make them whole”…
Time to get a cheque from the builder.
Could they have moved the house on a huge trailer to another land parcel??
Friend moved a 3 bed 2 bath home 40 year ago one mile and it 50,000. Back then . Hime still standing in good condition though, and they gir it for a dollar, I believe
The builders need to be prosecuted
This is like here where I live. There are many homes built on filled in natural playa lakes. The rain water all drains to these areas and it still wants to do that even with them filled in. And the ground still shifts and will start to crack foundations in just a year or two after the house is built. Unless you’re from here and know where these places are, the builders don’t tell you what they did to the land before building the house.
Otherwise known as sinkholes? Playa lakes sounds much nicer. I have something like that; it only appeared after a wildfire took all the ponderosas out, and subsequent flooding moved the earth around. Now I have a small bog at 7500 feet. Last year, to prevent mosquitoes breeding, i trucked in a load of woodchips just to soak up the unusual rainfall we had. Clover and other grasses and Canada thistle(😭) are thriving in it. I have never found any pockets of clay on my land. I think the flooding just moved every inch of top soil into that one low spot, and it holds the water. I like my little bog; it's always green.
ever hear of a holding tank? seems they are chasing their tails.. building permit should never have been permitted, sue the city & building dept!
The City AND the builder should be held accountable. This was FRAUD PURE & SIMPLE
How did it pass inspection in the 1st place
Criminal.
This IS CRAZY! But it’s also a GREAT WARNING
Con-tractor corruption is beyond belief
Who issued the permits...
Someone needs to go to jail.
A place called “Johnstown” that has flooding problems…. I’ve seen this before 😯
The city/county approved this 🐂💩.
They should be giving you a settlement.
Yep. That's going on in Florida too. The county officials might as well have a building permit drive-thru 24/7. That's why we flood everywhere.
Yeah but you expect that in Florida.
@@steven4315 huh?
@@parranoya100 Florida is the most developer friendly state in the union.
@@Plutogalaxy so was new york
Those beautiful wood floors. I hope they're salvageable.
This is inhumane. She needs to sue someone
Why not take your stuff to the new house? What am I not understanding??
If the town issued a certificate of occupancy for this house, they are liable for at least their incompetence and possibly for conspiring with the builder. This needs to be investigated and both the builder and the town sued for compensatory and punitive damages.
They have investigated themselves and found nothing wrong.
@@Bill-im6nt Investigated themselves? This requires a decent land use lawyer and a aggressive litigating attorney. They should be able to get legal fees from the settlement making it well worthwhile for the attorneys.
@@MrSugnamaharg Sorry, I didn't think I needed a /s after that one!
SO WHY NOT MOVE THE HOUSE TO A NEW SAFE LOT
I THINK THAT WOULD THE BETTER WAY
BUT TAKING ANYTHING GOOD IS A FANTASTIC IDEA THAN SLL IN LAND FILL
So the person that built the house and the people that sold the house should be held accountable.
People get displaced every day.. 🤷♀️
Moving to Georgia, poor woman.
I feel that pain... That's heart breaking 💔😢
Why did the reporter call a retention pond a “detention pond?” @ apx 1:10
Oh - that’s right - because JOURNALISM IS DEAD. Pathetic.
Journalism is truely dead. But some retention ponds are detention ponds. A detention pond is a retention pond whose contents get drained somehow, usually by pumping, sometimes to slow total runoff for a longer duration so as not to overload drains.
@@slave2apup279 - I understand the distinction - but it cannot be both. It’s either a retention pond - which holds runoff, or a detention pond, which is fully drained. They are similar in that they collect water runoff - but they cannot be both.
Perhaps I am either missing something, or there is colloquial usage that I am unfamiliar with. Sort of like a car is a car, and a pickup truck is a truck, but some nitwit is going to call their pickup a “car,” while most people wouldn’t describe their automobile as a “pickup” unless it was. And, since we’re here - what, precisely, is that vehicle designed to “pick up?” Wouldn’t it be more accurate to call it a “carry truck,” or a “wagon?” Oh, wait… that’s…
English is stupid. And journalism is still dead. 😉
@@UnintendedConsequences Building Inspectors consider a detention pond a type of retention pond. it is just an interesting topic to me.
@@slave2apup279 - I am NOT a contractor, or inspector. If they consider a detention pond as a TYPE of retention pond - then I have learned something new… and that I am kinda hard on the misuse of linguistic aphorisms - but that, I already knew. 🤪
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll stick to my areas of expertise. 👍🏻🤪
@@UnintendedConsequences I learned it from an architect on a project as an optional solution to a problem.
What about the contractors?
How do these builders get away with this crap?
Merica
Zero regulations. That place is also a Home Rule Municipality. This lady is paying the price for others libertarian esque incompetence.
@@Official-Comments Trump real estate company.
Uh, they follow all the local, city, and state building codes and regulations? They get all their permits signed, stamped, and notarized? Then when the city realizes they screwed up and let them build on a retention pond, the builder stays in business and the city takes the hit?
@@joez.2794 Kind of like all the fake property transfers we are seeing all over? Notice the builder doesn't get mentioned or investigated at all in this, probably long gone.
They should have paid what the equivalent cost of today!!!
Sue every single person involved. Sue every single member of the city council or whomever gave the valuation of the payout. Sue the builders, and sue the city employee that authorized the permit to fill it in.
So why did the city approve the build
Why didn't they move the house?
Moving a house costs about as much as buying a house.
I would have moved the house for free because I’m nice.
Needs an empty lot fairly close to do that. Moving a house through intersections with traffic lights can get expensive.
So you're getting all the money back that you paid for the house and you're also selling the house. Why are we supposed to feel bad for you?
why not move them too a new lot ?
I would find a nice hole in the ground somewhere and live like a mole-person.
that's what I thought too! City could've given them a lot and although expensive, moved the houses!
Or, I wonder if the money they got would've been enough to buy a lot and move the house themselves?
Looks like this was rushed...
They bought your home back whats the issue lady
Why did tax payers foot thr bill?
OF COURSE!!
@@joez.2794 ?
Because you can't blame the builder if they did everything they were supposed to do according to the city? And when the city messes up, taxpayers foot the bill. Please remember to vote in local elections.
Why is she selling her furniture? Won't she need it?
The builder should be in prison for fifty years.
Cite the statue... Loser.
Are you a bot or a human? Because reading dumb comments like yours leaves me wondering.
why explain what he did wrong he went to the city and asked for a permit to be allowed to build homes there and the town said sure go ahead if anyone is guilty of anything it would be the city officials.
@@geeknoid That explains why they can't go after the builder, $omeone gave him the permit. But the name has faded so badly over the few year$ that they can't figure out who did it.
@@geeknoid filling in a retention pond,and built houses on it,greed.
Developers knew it, County should have known it, that’s why you get permits!
This sounds like an eminent domain type thing and you're not supposed to get "fair market value" because you're being forced to move against your will for the public good. You're supposed to get 200-400% of market value. The point would be to get more money, not keep the house. I think there is something missing in this story.
This exact same thing happened to relatives of mine in the UK. Bought a brand new house erected on the site of a former pond that used to collect heavy rain water and protect the neighbourhood from flooding. Nobody knew this until the pond was gone and rain water started to collect in people's basements. My relatives were also reimbursed for the house and were lucky to find somewhere nearby just as nice for the same price. But they had all the months of bother that nobody compensated them for.
I bet she got a hefty sum. Might not be enough for her but to 99% of us.. Probably would have been.
Think about it, they gave her enough money to buy another home AND to move to a different state comfortably I bet.
You can tell she's happy but at the same time sad. But the happiness is there is there.
So, how did City planners ALLOW & GIVE THE GO AHEAD to these homes built on a filled in pond.
This poor sweet lady. I’m so sorry you lost your dream home.
Sue the builder
A friend has lived on a beautiful retention pond outside of Sacramento Calif. for years. About 5 years ago the land opposite was changed from Ag. to industrial with a huge warehouse going in and a lot of setback problems occurred. County employees were not following regs. The builder corrected what they could with fencing and trees. Amazon suddenly moved in. Now its lights on and all 7 days a week trucks coming and going.
How does a builder fill in a retention pond and get the drawings approved by the city? Either the city is completely incompetent, or the builder did something highly illegal and needs to be in prison. The responsible party in either case should be paying ALL of the associated expenses of the homeowner.
I'm sure the builder pulled permits for everything involved. This is the BUILDING DEPARTMENTS fault. Don't blame the builder!