Posts: 1,219
Threads: 52
Joined: Dec 2014
quote:
Originally posted by Newgirl
quote:
If you own 10 lots and cannot afford $200 per lot, you cannot afford to own 10 lots
Now come on Dude...that's not fair.
Look at it this way. How much is it going to cost over 20 years? That's a big chunk of change. I'd be making sure this was a fair and legit by-the-book increase. I can't imagine fees going up by triple digits without acceptable explanation.
No one put a gun to anyone's head and made them buy 10 (or 3) lots in a thinly settled rural subdivision with per lot road fees. Part of the reality of these subdivisions all over Puna is road fees that are controlled by a wide variety of "volunteer" boards. When you buy the lot you are told before signing at closing that the road fees come with the territory.
The WTF attitude is understandable, no one is mentally prepared for such a big road fee increase, and inquiring on the thinking behind it would be in order, but these subdivisions all come with road fees that are charged PER LOT and will inevitably go up over time. Fair or not, it is the deal all of us who own lots in subdivisions with private roads bought when we bought here.
Posts: 278
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2014
[quote]Originally posted by rainyjim
Missing aspect in the discussion thus far...
"We should have the right to compile multiple parcels into one plot or TMK."
I have heard (and have seen signs occasionally) that one can consolidate two or more lots into one (4 acre) parcel. If done assume it would mean only one road fee? Can anyone explain the proceedure to do this legally, whom to go to in the County, cost?
Assume also one parcel and homeowners exemption applicable for county tax purposes.?
Posts: 4,243
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
Most subdivisions have by-laws that allow you to combine multiple lots but you are still obligated for the fees that the multiple lots would have been subject to.
Posts: 8,462
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
I dont understand why anyone owning multiple lots would think they should not be expected to pay the per lot fee. Kinda like property tax. You own more, you pay more.
Not that complicated.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 2,490
Threads: 222
Joined: Dec 2005
Apparently, the state thinks that lots next to the ocean (only a few streets from it) should be paying 4-6X the tax as people 8-10 streets back.
Posts: 8,462
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Property tax is a county tax. But the county also seems to think that if you have thousands of acres, like Shipman, Ltd, then you pay next to nothing.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 7,733
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
Some of these people bought their lots when they were only several hundred dollars a piece. Likewise, many people purchased the lots before road fees were mandatory. These people aren't going to pay the road fees because they probably can't.
In Fern Forest (at least when I paid road fees there) they could only increase the road fees by 10% a year. That seems reasonable.
At $200/lot, the road fees are only $33 less than the property taxes.
County tax is predictable, and you can make two installments, not like the Orchidland debacle where you get a surprise bill in the mail due in 30 days.
Posts: 14,107
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
lots next to the ocean should be paying 4-6X the tax as people 8-10 streets back
Exactly: lots near the ocean are more expensive to build and insure.
Kinda like property tax. You own more, you pay more.
As noted: only true for the first few hundred acres, if you have thousands of acres the rate goes way way down to something like $2-3/acre, and you're eligible for eventual "upzoning" to some flavor of Urban, as is now happening in Keaau.
Fair or not, it is the deal all of us who own lots in subdivisions with private roads bought when we bought here.
The "no fees/no maintenance" system in Hawaiian Acres is looking pretty good lately.
We should have the right to compile multiple parcels into one plot or TMK.
Consolidation (with or without resubdivision) is a standard process, County has paperwork and fees and everything. The resulting TMK is like any other, subject to whatever RPT exemptions may apply.
We should have the right to subdivide one parcel into multiple parcels.
Same answer, however, newly created lots must still meet the parent zoning, and must have "access". Where the existing subdivision is "legal nonconforming" the lots cannot be further divided without variance or rezoning. Example: lots in Ainaloa are ~7500sf, but the land is zoned A-1 ("minimum 1 acre lot size"). A more "appropriate" zoning would be RS-7.5, but this change would create massive wealth for the common folk who own those lots, and that's not allowed.
you are still obligated for the fees that the multiple lots would have been
Nanavale does this; your dues are per "original subdivision lot", a double lot is still double fees even if consolidated into a single TMK.
Imagine if you bought several side-by-side lots ... But you still only have 1 house and 1 car.
If the "private" roads were really "private", we would all pay for vehicle tags, so the guard at the gate would know to let us in. As the roads aren't really "private" they should be entitled to County and State funds for maintenance. Leaving it to the subdivisions is a recipe for disaster, which is what we're getting now (as cold leftovers).
Posts: 7,733
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
So.... if a property owner in Orchidland can't afford the new road fees and became one of the many that quit paying them indefinitely, what would the consequences be?
I'm thinking that if a lien is placed against the property... so what? The fees are paid at the end of property ownership during transfer instead of yearly. Am I right or wrong?
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Just got my bill with MRMA $100.00 and Paving assessment $100.00
What every BOD, and newly formed BOD's do here is print this up as if both of these are Mandatory. A deceptive practice. The first M in MRMA is for Mandatory.
Now what they don't tell you is that the Paving assessment is NOT mandatory or enforceable but voluntary.
I forget what year, I think around 1992, that court judgement was given to the BOD at the time to enforce collections of the MRMA's. The board tried to start foreclosure proceedings, and illegally I think, It was a big court mess and the Board lost lots of revenue defending their case in which the plaintiffs won I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
So we are REQUIRED to pay the MRMA's ONLY . And if you are paid up on your MRMA's then you are listed in good standing and allowed to vote.
I'm not totally against paying the Paving assessment if the BOD would be forthcoming and honest about what is actually Mandatory and enforceable and what's voluntary. But for me its a matter of integrity and being transparent when they sent out these bills to the Owners/Members of OLE.
And in my Opinion they're not.
If I am wrong on any of these points PLEASE someone correct me.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
