THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 29, 1996 TAG: 9608280161
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Guest Column
SOURCE: BY C. LEONARD WILLIS
LENGTH: 76 lines
I was pleased to read that the Planning Commission again tabled proposed subdivision ordinance amendments regarding family transfers. I commend the commissioners who had the intestinal fortitude to resist this unwarranted attempt by city employees to punish law-abiding citizens for the purported illegal acts of very, very few persons.
I've found two persons who support the proposed changes - a Planning Department employee and a lawyer who feels there have been abuses. On the multiple occasions we've spoken about this issue, that lawyer has always mentioned the same individual as having ``abused'' the present ordinance.
I carefully reviewed and commented in detail, in writing, on the prior proposed amendments to both the Planning Commission and City Council. I've also carefully studied the most recent draft. While the current draft is certainly less onerous than the first, it is still a needless amendment that would violate individual property rights. Specifically:
It excludes siblings from the definition of ``immediate family member.''
It prohibits a property owner who has ever made a family transfer to an ``immediate family member,'' even outside Suffolk, from making another family transfer in Suffolk to that same person. Aside from the patent inequity and the lack of any reasonable public purpose of such a prohibition, I fail to understand why the City of Suffolk should have an interest in what is done outside its borders.
It makes it illegal to sell a lot or parcel created under the ordinance for three years after recordation without approval of the city and thus will decrease the market value of such lot or parcel and any improvements thereon.
This means that lending institutions will reduce the amount they will lend under a mortgage on such property - or refuse to make a mortgage lien until the end of the three-year restriction.
Somewhat tongue in cheek, I suggest that the city assessor reduce the assessed value during this ``no-sale'' period, with attendant reduction in real estate taxes.
I've discussed the proposed ``no-sale'' restriction with several nationally known lawyers, some who practice regularly in Virginia, and I'm advised such a provision violates the state Constitution.
I'm told by those pressing for this restriction that it's necessary because ``developers'' are buying property at farmland prices and immediately reselling it ``illegally'' under the current family transfer ordinance. No one has identified to me more than three individuals who have done this. There's a simple ``fix'' if this is really a problem. Since ``developers'' have to make a profit to stay in business, they can't buy land and hold it for very long before reselling it. This stated ``problem'' would be greatly reduced, if not totally eliminated, requiring the transferor to have held title to the property for one year before making a family transfer.
The draft limits a family transfer to a ``person competent to hold and convey title to real estate in his or her own right.'' This means a parent can't give a lot to a minor child (or to a trust for a minor child) so that child can later build and live there.
Similarly, a parent wishing to give a lot to a mentally incompetent ``immediate family member,'' or to a trust for such incompetent, can't do so. How will the people of the City of Suffolk derive any benefit from such a heartless and unfeeling prohibition?
It restricts the use of a family transfer lot or parcel to ``places of residence.'' Why must usage be so limited?
It requires that ``each lot or parcel created by the family subdivision, including the remainder, shall front on a right of way not less than 50 feet in width, developed so as to provide reasonable all-weather access to each lot or parcel.'' This restriction would benefit no one.
It is my opinion that both the original proposed amendment to the family transfer ordinance and the current draft are seriously flawed. If there's a genuine problem, a much more reasoned and even-handed approach is needed. The simple expedient of enforcing the existing law should cure any problem.
I urge my fellow citizens to contact their elected and appointed representatives and make their voices heard. We don't need any more laws to penalize those of us who obey the law or ``Big-Brother laws'' that tell us what we can and can't do with our property. MEMO: C. Leonard Willis is a resident of Suffolk. by CNB