The County, Cities and Water Management have failed to accurately keep track of permits. I have spoken with several escrow officers to see if they would be agreeable to record documents and permits for properties in order to have a permanent, accurate record. As Realtors, we so often encounter problems where a governmental agency states there was no permit for whatever. Water Mgmt. has incorrect records (I just went thru this on a CV property). If the plans and permits had been recorded, it could have saved the Seller money, saved the Realtors many hours and a lot of gas driving from one governmental agency to another. As Realtors, looking out for our Buyers’ and Sellers’ interests, I think we would do them a great service to immediately implement a procedure where all plans and permits are recorded through the title companies, Just like CC&R’s, deed restrictions, easements, the plans and permits would be preserved, long after specific properties have changed hands once, twice or more times. Too often, we run into issues where cities dig in their heels and state there was no permit for whatever. An example, I sold one house in Monterey three times over the years. The first two sales had City Inspection Reports and passed without an issue. The third time, the City said there was a porch enclosure without permit. The neighbor who lived next door for over 30 years stated the house had been the same during the entire time she lived there. When I approached the City with the two prior City Reports and the neighbor’s written statement, their response was “we are not responsible for our errors”. (Only the governmental agencies can get away with a statement like this.) The net result was that the Seller had to pay thousands of dollars to hire a structural engineer, architect, contractors and pay for a permit to bring the porch up to current code requirements. Another example - the City Inspector said the second bath was without permits, it had to be taken out. No one had the plans on the house that was over 50 years old (the City has no documentation and the owner/builder was deceased). Luckily, the agent representing the Buyer had gone thru this before and was smart enough to check with the Assessor’s office. As it turned, out the Assessor had been taxing the house with two baths. Once we got the document from the Assessor, the City had to back off. What astounds me is that cities can make a statement without documentation - they no longer had the building permit or plans yet, were able to state there is no record of a 2nd bath. How many Sellers have been blackmailed into paying for something, at point of sale, that was legally permitted but no one had the old records? Water Management was a major recent issue. The home I sold was going to the third owner. Water Management had come to the house at the time of sale from owner one to owner two. At the time of the sale to my Buyer, Water Mgmt. declared that we had seven wash basins, their records only showed five. The current owner stated that the house was exactly as the way it was when the purchased it (did not add two wash basins). We had two sets of plans that showed seven wash basins. Without the “permit stamp”, Water Mgmt. did not want to accept the plans as a “legal record”. Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and Water Resources and bought permits for the two “additional sinks” in order to get the transaction closed. Water Mgmt. also showed one showerhead in the Master bath - it had dual showerheads. We got a letter from a contractor stating that the plumbing fixtures in the Master shower were discontinued in the 80’s. That did not matter, Water Mgmt. took the position it was added and needed a permit. Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and paid for the second showerhead, which resulted in a deed restriction. I went to the Mty County Building Dept. because the County Building Report showed that the plans had been microfilmed. Unfortunately, the County got rid of the microfilm. I went to the Assessor’s office, they only had the number of baths, no fixture count. (Mty County Building said they will only keep the plans for about three months after the permit is finalled and will not microfilm.) My Buyer and I requested a meeting with Water Mgmt. We went in armed with the plans, the contractor’s letter and photos of all the baths. Showed them the photos which helped our case that the prior inspector may have missed two sinks if they ran through quickly. We were able to convince them that (a) it appeared that the sinks and showerhead were all original and (b) they made an error on their prior inspection. The Seller did get some of his money back from the additional permit fees and we were able to get the deed restriction released. I believe Water Mgmt. went on the basis of the original permit application which showed 5 sinks when, in fact, 7 sinks were built into the house. Probably what happened, they used that for their basis and just kept going with the original application document, not paying attention to what was built. Had we had recorded plans and permits, we could have saved many hours on everyone’s part, gas and unnecessary permit fees and a lot of aggravation. It demonstrated to me how careless the government agencies are and Sellers are forced to pay for something that was already permitted. The only way to avoid these issues is for owners to record their documents with the title companies so there is a permanent record. It could all be so simple. Sincerely,
Lore Lingner |
Archive for the 'Salinas' Category
This week, both proponents and opponents anxiously awaited the results of Measure W, Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital’s $400 million bond effort. Much to the hospital’s dismay, the effort failed. The real news story here however, is not that the measure failed, it is that its’ failure was not unique. That same night, three hours east of Salinas in a small town named Oakdale, Oak Valley Hospital awaited the voters’ decision on their bond effort and received the same results.
District Hospitals all over the state are rushing to meet state seismic requirements by 2013 and in their quest to raise taxes in order to meet a legislative mandate, they are bumping up against what I like to call the Bond Ceiling. Looking across the state it appears as though somewhere in the last two years voters have lost their tolerance for self-taxation and managed to erect a ceiling that nary a public agency has yet to break through. Tough economic times are upon us all, our houses are worth less, our cars and groceries cost more and our jobs are not keeping up with the cost of living. The excesses of the late 90’s and early 2000’s have caught up with the energy industry, the banking industry, Wall Street and now the average American. Unlike its’ big corporate brothers, the average American, with less than $1000 in savings, is unable to pull out of the rut very quickly. Alas, the only thing the average person can control is the measure to which he or she will tax themselves.
So here is my question: is the post Prop 13 California, coupled with an economic downturn, a place where no bond can be passed for the foreseeable future? If so, what are special districts and municipalities to do? While I don’t think there is one right answer to this question, a possible answer might be: nothing. Well, maybe not nothing, but very little…let me explain.
Financial experts will tell you if you don’t have money, don’t spend money. As such, in lean economic times certain projects should be put off until a person has more disposable income. For example, in lean times when the kitchen sink breaks, you pay to fix the sink. When your house was worth 30% more and your sink broke, you may consider taking the opportunity to remodel the kitchen. The average person can appreciate the distinction between a necessary repair and a job that can wait.
It appears that local governments have entered into very lean times, along with the rest of the country. The voters are saying they won’t tolerate big projects and big spending by government because they themselves aren’t spending. Yes, this means deferring some projects that would be really nice to have done, like the building of better roads and new schools. But if government is of the people and for the people, shouldn’t it be like the people? Eventually, the economy will progress and people will begin to shout for better streets and bigger schools, and as such, maybe they will then be willing to pay for it.
Powered by FireStats
Latest Comments
RSS