NF parking fees to be used to encourage illegal encroachment

[RoySwkr]

Apparently some careless property owners in Colo built on NF property instead of their own

One might think that if this was critical habitat they would be forced to remove their structures, otherwise they would be required to swap land of equal value

Instead they are being allowed to keep the property they built on at no cost, and given $200,000 from the recreation fee account to sweeten the deal

http://www.westernslopenofee.org/pdfuploads/HR 1858.pdf

Anybody want to explain how encouraging illegal encroachment enhances recreation and is an appropriate use of parking fees?

 

[Mike P.]

Wow, I'd love to see the real facts behind this. Who did the erronous survey? Should be collecting from them or their E&O insurance carrier.

Was it the USFS who maybe made the mistake & it was private property all along. (it's possible maybe, Hey, I'm trying not to be a cynic)

Was a friend of a politican or CO power broker part of the group that made a nice profit selling what sounds like a very nice subdivision' "Cyrstal Lakes", in a remote wilderness setting (as opposed to value priced housing for the less fortunate) or maybe they have their 2nd or 3rd homes there.

Maybe some decision makers got a sweetheart home now that the Friends of Angelo Mortgage company is gone. (did you think regulation was meant for the regulators? it's meant to stop you & me from getting sweetheart deals)

If a certain careless VP bought a house their, don't go out during hunting season!

 

[MichaelJ]

Hang on - "The conveyances required by subsection (b) shall be made without consideration" means they didn't get money as part of the land swap. The cancellation of unobligated (not assigned to go to a project or budget) funds looks to be an independent rider, it doesn't say anything about what happens to that money.

Keep in mind that this bill was introduced a year ago, passed a vote in the House, but as of the end of September was in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and has not yet seen the Senate floor.

In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management conducted a survey of the forest boundary around Crystal Lakes in preparation for a fuels-treatment program. The project revealed that a 1975 survey setting the boundaries of a portion of the subdivision was incorrect.

Affected property owners were told in 2006 their lots were encroaching on Forest Service land. In some cases, the new boundary ran through cabins and across driveways. The property owners were told they would have to buy back the land from the government.

The 20 properties in question are along Chiricahua Circle and Tesuque Trail, with the amount of disputed land on individual lots ranging from 0.01 acres to 1.63 acres.

 

[Bob]

another case of our 'voluntary' fees being put to good use. Better than subsidizing the building of logging roads I suppose.

 

[Mike P.]

Hang on - "The conveyances required by subsection (b) shall be made without consideration" means they didn't get money as part of the land swap. The cancellation of unobligated (not assigned to go to a project or budget) funds looks to be an independent rider, it doesn't say anything about what happens to that money.

Keep in mind that this bill was introduced a year ago, passed a vote in the House, but as of the end of September was in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and has not yet seen the Senate floor.

Way too calm & logical a reason a week before election day. (Thanks Michael )

Do my fees, get me a discount if I rent a house there for vacation?

 

[RoySwkr]

"The conveyances required by subsection (b) shall be made without consideration" means they didn't get money as part of the land swap.

It is not a land swap, it is a land gift - the residents get 7 acres of National Forest at no charge. And it's not clear who gets the $200,000 of parking fees but it's not going for recreation as promised.
http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=780

 

[LarryD]

At the risk of politicizing this thread, I don't think the issue is that simple. From what I could gather from a little research, the homeowners bought their land 30 years ago, based on a survey showing the land was outside of the National Forest. (It is not clear to me whether the survey itself was done by the federal government.) Thirty years later the government discovered the mistake. I am not sure you can call the homeowners "careless" for relying on the survey, and whether I agree with the legislation or not I do think a case can be made for not requiring these homeowners to re-purchase what they already bought, especially if the mistake was on the part of the government.

Also worth noting that Senator Udall, who proposed the bill in the Senate, is among the most environmentally-friendly Senators, receiving very high marks from conservation and environmental organizations.

 

[MichaelJ]

Here's a PDF map of the Crystal Lakes development:
http://crystal-lakes.org/app/download/1927682304/Crystal+Lakes.pdf

The properties in question are said to be on Chiricahua Circle and Tesuque Trail, which makes the survey problem basically the left half of the bottom lower-right (southeast) rectangle of properties on the map.

 

[Mike P.]

Looking to buy? http://crystal-lakes.org/

Crystal Lakes is a private mountain subdivision located in Larimer County near Red Feather Lakes Village approximately 50 miles northwest of Fort Collins, one of Colorado’s fastest growing front-range communities. Established in 1969, Crystal Lakes contains approximately 1,600 lots distributed over more than 4,800 acres surrounded by the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests at elevations ranging from 8,000 to 9,500 feet. The alpine setting of Crystal Lakes blends beautiful meadows of wildflowers and native grasses, rugged mountainsides of pine, fir, aspen, and spectacular rock formations to create a perfect environment for both vacation and full-time living. Year around accessibility is provided over well-maintained, all-weather roads. More than 700 dwellings ranging from modest cabins to spacious mountain homes have been built to date. Many other property owners enjoy camping on their property under covenants which permit temporary shelters (trailers and RVs) for up to 5 months per year. Privacy and seclusion have been preserved by lot sizes generally ranging from 1/2 to 10 acres. Approximately 10% of the land area within Crystal Lakes has been set aside as open space for the common enjoyment of property owners, guests and the abundant wildlife inhabiting the area.


1600 lots
8000 - 9500 ft. above sea level (part envy yet a careless match could be devastating
The smallest lots are near public Cyrstal Lake, the area in question closer to the private lake

It looks like an ideal place to retire or even own a lot & spend summers their if you own a mobile home. It looks like a park setting

I'm part cynic, it's many years in insurance & before that the trash business. (Rodney was right) If you know the Gov't has a bad survey, do you have a duty to tell them? The cost of 1600 lots, road, sewers, etc are such that you'd get your own survey done before getting funding spending that kind of cash.

 

[MichaelJ]

Generally, property surveys for subdivisions work off established benchmarks. If a benchmark was in the wrong place, that would throw the entire leg off.

In all probability, this was a layout survey — from a benchmark, given the written description of the property bounds, staking out the actual points on the ground, but having somehow screwed up so that leg was in the wrong place.

Questions here that aren't answered - was the 1975 survey done by USGS or by Crystal Lakes? Was the benchmark in the right or wrong place? Was a written description incorrect? Was it just a procedural mistake by the surveyor?

There are a lot of references to "pay the government again for their land" ... was this property once owned by USFS and sold to Crystal Lakes way back when?

If I bought property in good faith that the title was clear, and suddenly after 31 years had this encumbrance dropped in my lap, devastating my property value, I'd want it fixed at no charge to myself, too.

 

[RoySwkr]

If I bought property in good faith that the title was clear, and suddenly after 31 years had this encumbrance dropped in my lap, devastating my property value, I'd want it fixed at no charge to myself, too.

Sure, I'd want that, too, but would I get free from the abutter if they were private instead of Uncle Sugar?

If I had a warranty deed, the seller would have to make it good and there's no doubt that Crystal Lakes is still in business and can well afford to. If I had title insurance, they would pay.

This is just a government bailout not of the needy but of well-to-do second home owners and a rich developer - wonder what you would have to pay Crystal Lakes for 7 acres?

And I'd still not sure who gets the $200,000 raided from parking fees - nobody has explained this one yet.

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Note
The topic is fine, but let's not have this turn into a bashing.

 

[MichaelJ]

Looks to me like they're taking $200,000 in surplus, funds that are not obligated to any specific contracts or expenses, and just cancelling it, which I believe means it goes back to the Treasury general fund? Seems to violate the law that set up the special account in the first place, which says funds stay there, allocated by local agency, for the local agency to use. Dunno, I'm way too far into speculation at this point.

 

[RoySwkr]

Here is the Forest Service testimony on the subject:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/SmithForestServicetestimonyonHR1858S3283S3822092910.pdf

* It was a private surveyor who made the error

* The rec fund money will repay the govt for value of land and documents

* The Forest Service does not support the bill

Apparently under the law, the FS can only deal with the current landowners - it is them that must go after the developer and surveyor

[also note unrelated last page re name change in Wilderness]

 

[kltilton]

If the private surveyor made the mistake, than the offending land owners should be the ones paying to rectify the situation. It sounds like the Small Tracts Act as quoted by the Forest Service Director of Lands allows the government to sell the land to the offending land owners for fair market value. Reading between the lines it looks like the group of landowners have lobbied hard to their reps to avoid having to pay for their predecessors' mistake.