Mistakes happen. The township owned up and offered to buy the land at fair market price. Farmer says no you owe me 2x that because I like money. The then offer to demo the whole building and remove it from his land. Farmer once again says no, your workers can't come the 5 feet into my property to remove the building you put there that I don't want there. So they remove what they can on their property and erect a property line border to mark what is now his. I don't know what you expect the township to do different the Farmer is being unreasonable at each step. Yes the township made a survey mistake when they erected the building. They admit that and are trying to correct the mistake. The Farmer doesn't want the mistake just corrected though, he wants to screw the township and the taxpayers so he is being intentionally obtuse.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 The township should have to pay him $1000 dollars a day until they tore down the building. That's probab;y what they would have done if the tables were turned.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 the township effed up... I'm sure there is going to be more litigation soon... becuase political posturing from town council people... this is just stupid....
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 that’s why property laws written on the state level so some backwards Township with 905 people doesn’t screw some farmer out of his property rights . Why because they’re too incompetent to survey ! Hold some people accountable don’t double down on dumb.
If the farmer put anything outside of his property line accidentally, he would have been financially decimated, dragged through litigation, harassed and jailed if he didn't play along.
@@mikeneff832 So... are you saying this is really a good proverbial hill to die on??? It's a total non-issue, looked to be that maybe a couple of feet extended onto his property, just ignore it, and work around it.
@@looneyburgmusic have you ever tilled or gardened ? Have you ever worked on a farm ? That space could be used for a lot of things. It’s his property they had no business building on to begin with. So if I build a shed in your yard it’s okay ? Hell no. Wanna pay my property taxes ? Thought not.
@@mikeneff832 Yes and... yes and yes... And yes, sure there are a lot of things the space could be used for. Now, all that said, from what I found from some digging this incident is the perfect case of all parties involved being both immature and overly aggressive. For example... why did this guy say, 'We stopped them" when the topic was the town attempting to REMOVE the offending building? Was that not what he wanted? Would that not "fix" the error? I don't know, but I can take a guess - if the building is gone, and there is nothing sticking over onto his property, then he is "whole", he has suffered no losses he could point to in a lawsuit against the town, meaning no $$$$ award for him . It's all about greed, always has been, always will be.
A lot of people are missing the fact that the township didn't want to do this. The farmer saw this as a payday and was trying to extort money from them. They were willing to remove the part of the building that was on his land, but he refused to let them correct the issue; he said it was on his land, so no one could touch it. He didn't want it fixed because then he couldn't cash in on it. So they severed the part of the building on his property from the part on their property, and put a fence on the property line to ensure no claim can ever be made that anyone stepped across the property line. The township also told him that they will pay to have the remaining piece removed from his property at any time if he wants that to be done. He's just pissed off because he knows he'll never get that payday he was hoping for now. It wasn't a reasonable solution to a normal problem, but he purposely created a completely unreasonable problem for personal gain. If you research what happened, it seems pretty clear the farmer was the one who purposely forced this situation to happen, despite the way they tried to spin it in this news story.
Yeah I knew something was off with him, it wasn't adding up. He said "they tried to tear it down, we stopped them" and also "they offered to buy the property, but they didn't address MY DAMAGES". This is definitely a guy being difficult just to scam more money out of them. Glad they figured out a way to stop him.
@@randomvids8124 Exactly. He never mentioned what those "damages" were either. But he states his property there is "unuseable", yet there is a tree that is obviously beside that building on his side that does the same thing. If he wanted to farm that part, the tree would have been removed before. Wait till that lady who thinks this is a "waste of taxpayer funding" sees how much this was vs how much the guy was demanding.
@passportspider That’s all he would let them do, so it’s exactly what they did. Couldn’t go on his property to remove the building, so they left it there. Ask someone a yes or no question, then tell them they aren’t allowed to answer yes, and then get mad and call the news when they say no.
Except, the township offered to tear down the building, but the farmer didn't want them on his property. He was asking them for half a million dollars. The township called his bluff and now the farmer is playing dumb. The farmer got too greedy. That's all.
@@johnpatrick1647 Might have been to compensate for the lost revenue and legal expenses from the lost land. We know where the building was but how much of his land around it did they actually keep him from using.
*It would have been a much better investigation if they reported on this option....... what if... what if... the owner countered the price proposal they offered him to buy the land he was "infringing" but to buy the land instead. Basically he flips their reasonable price back at them. If it's reasonable for you to buy my property at this price... then it should be reasonable for me to buy your property at that price and if you say that's not reasonable then you're not giving me a good price. If they raise the price that they want for the land then you read your price you want for your land to the same amount.*
My father and I built large houses. Any time we started a new home we would always find the property corners no matter how long it took so there could be no mistakes. One time it came up with a neighbor saying the one side driveway was on his property until we pulled a string and proved that his driveway was 1 1-2' over the line he couldn't get back in his house fast enough.
I mean, building a house you're paying a surveyor to come out and flag the property lines for you anyways. You'd be nuts not too. Any place I've ever pulled a permit you wanted be able to. So that helps quite a bit. I don't get how this ever happens honestly if people simply did things the way they're supposed to. But it's a small town in the middle of nowhere and they probably put no thought into it really.
Your forgetting that the town built a building on private land without purchasing it properly... They could have condemned the property before.... then took it... this was just childish tantrum by county officials becuase their building still sits on this farmers land do you not see that
@@tdgreenbay There wasn't even any urgent public need to condemn this farmer's property and exercise eminent domain. Based upon the footage shown in the video, it seems there is plenty of room to have constructed this building entirely on land owned by the town. My guess is that it neglected to have a professional survey of the area done before beginning construction to figure out where the property lines are located. Had the town done so and built this structure just a few feet over, this entire mess could have been avoided. But no, this happened and then town officials threw a childish tantrum over a mistake caused by their own stupidity.
From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.” Sounds like that part got cut for time
If it was the farmers building on township property they would have fined him for every day the structure stood on public property, then went after him for cutting the building in two peices like they did. This sounds like a HOA more than a government entity.
They tried tearing building down ..farmer stopped it..hmmm ..in the end they couldn't come up with agreement and that how it was settled..The End ..farmer got free 3 walled metal building and new shiney fence ..now tax payers will get bill for new city council building ...who really lost, farmer? City? Community residence ?
@@stanfen1966 the farmer the residents lost cause they city belongs to the people not local gov,they are just civil servants,whom are supposed to work for the people not in spite of them
@@texasmonster1668 if you look in video tractor not in skinny side ..I could be wrong to witch side belongs to whom, but why was farmer being interviewed on other side of fence from where you say he owns ...makes no sense how farmers stopped demolition of a building on someone else's property ...
They offered to move the building and the property owner said no, you can't come on my property. Why would he not let them move it. Something is not being mentioned.
Just curious, where does it say that? I was just searching for more info because im bored and nosey. I heard in this video that they had started tearing the building down but the farmer stopped them. Why? And it keeps mentioning that that township offered to buy the property isnt there weird zoning to protect farm land? Wouldnt he be giving up more than 20 ft of land if he sold it? Depending on the selling price it could be a good or bad deal. Also, what other thing was tied up with the township? I keep seeing that on the reports but I cant find the nitty gritty. Again, Im bored and you seem to know more than the rest of us, so please do tell.
@@seadragon1456 At :25 seconds they offered to tear it down and the property owner said you can't come on my property, then at 2:00 he is complaining about the building 2' on his property still when the township said they offered to remove it. They should have asked the property owner why he refused the offer to remove the building from his property. Reporters dont ask that of course. He is being difficult. So essentially he said "Its on my property", township "We will remove it", he said "Can't come on my property", township then said they would buy his property, he said "No". Sounds like two good solutions the township offered. He had several disagreements with the township on other matters he said so they didn't get along before this. Looks like he lives in the middle of nowhere, seems like he wouldn't be bothered.
@@seadragon1456 There is one where someone had a mortgage on two lots next to eachother and built a house 1/4 on one lot and 3/4 on the other. It went into foreclosure and the bank sold the 2 lots separately. The person that bought the lot with 1/4 of the residence on it which was mainly a garage and pool put up a fence right through the pool and garage.
@@seadragon1456 From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
@@gwp4eva If they're tearing it down he wins either way. He's partially responsible for the outcome of this. The initial mistake was on the county, but not letting them remove the building properly is on him. He chose the outcome of this by being stubborn.
From a Fox8 news story: He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property. “The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
@@SalK-LShe has a right to not want construction equipment tearing through his property. he probably just wants financial compensation, which he has a right to, but the town is being petty
@gwp4eva “tearing through his property” do you see where the fence is, clown? They can tear it down from their side of the fence. But he refuses to allow the, to tear it down. He wants damages for not being able to use that section for farming, yet right next to it is a decades old tree that would have to be removed for farming as well, so there are no damages!
If they were told to stay off his property, As a contractor I would only Demo on the side I had permission. Probably would recommend leaving or building something to catch the structure on the other side if it fell or was pushed over.
He's being a dick because he's had unrelated disputes (more than 1) with them so when this screw-up arose (the county didn't build the building, a contractor did) the owner refused to allow them to physically step on his property to remedy things. County said "eff you owner" & did what they could from their side of the property line! They need to seal up the back of the building & let the rest of it rot! Later, when the owner pulls his head out of his butt & agrees to let them remove the wall they should tell him to do it himself or charge him an amount to remove it that also covers all their legal costs & the demo costs. It's less than 10 feet of a pasture! Screw him.
@@Beezlie727 you should read some law. The contractor is an agent of the County, they are ultimately responsible for his error. Who was supposed to get a survey of the property line? Clue, the owner of the building. Were there county ordinances about set backs from the property line? Sure there were, and you need to know where the line is to comply with the ordinance. Maybe the farmer is being a little harsh, but in the eyes of the law, he has been harmed, so is due compensation. That said, if the County required the contractor to survey, and follow set backs, then they can go after him..but they are primarily responsible. In my experience, the only instance that would justify the Counties error is if they had an erroneous survey. In that case they have followed reasonable procedures, and the surveyor becomes responsible.
He’s a farmer. Probably has a tractor/bulldozer or something. Pull it apart and dump it over the fence. Problem solved. Township has the rest of their building back. Everybody happy. Farmer bills them for labor.
Hey they made a mistake and tried to resolve. I noticed he didn’t allow them to enter the property to take care of that section. He said he wanted money for damages. What are damages on that 5’ x 25’ section on the edge of his land that are greater than the price of the land they offered. We should all be reasonable. Everyone is human and we all makes mistakes.
@@dillchives no not solved seems to me they owe him lease and demolition money... this was straight up public officials acting a tantrum... becuase they didnt want to pay for their mistake
Obviously. I'm wondering if town officials secretly hope the farmer won't promptly tear down the piece of the building on his property so they have an excuse to levy a hefty fine against him for having a structure on his property that doesn't meet code!!
@@photios4779a structure they built that doesn't meet code. That would definitely come up. They are also the ones who cut it in two. They caused every violation that's mentioned in this story.
That would be considered exhortation. This is mainly his fault.while the township did make a mistake he refused to allow them to correct the mistake so now he is stuck with it.
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble just drew a chalk line across the floor and shared the building. In the end, Bam Bam knocked it down. If I was the farmer, I would knock down the part they left on my side and throw the scrap pieces back over the fence.
Nah, the town would probably just fine the guy for littering on public property if he were to throw the pieces over the fence. The metal parts of the slice of the building on his land could be sold as scrap metal and he might be able to reuse or give away the timber frames. At least this way he could get _something_ out of this utterly needless mess the town foisted upon him.
no, still the city’s. if he built something on their property, he’d be fined into oblivion. when the roles are reversed, it’s now “whoops sorry we’ll take it down”? nope, uh uh, he has a right to compensation for the unlawful occupation of his property. you get taxed for the square footage of property you own after all
@gwp4eva Why should the tax payer give this loser money? Because two feet of his land had a county building on it that he didn't even know was his for years? Go have a slip and fall dork.
You shouldn't judge without both sides of the story. They said the man would not allow them on his property to tear it down. He wanted to sell his land for three times the value
@@johncuervo3019 do you know he was trying to sell it for 3 times the appraised value or just assuming ? And it is his land, he can sell it for however much he wants. Or not sell it, if he doesn't want to.
@@jopiekkola527 he thought he could force them into buying it for more than it was worth since they built on it already. He threw a bitch fit when they didn't buy it and offered to remove it. The guy was still trying to get money for damages to his property afterwards.
The only way to negotiate an issue like this is to restore the owner's property to its original condition. If anyone is allowed to build on other's land without a contract, and then expect to cut a deal, this kind of fraud will happen all over the place.
@ibrahim Swindon Oh yes we would. There was a time before big overgrown and expensive government where private businesses provided all our needs. Even schools were private once. Home schooling was very effective and very good years ago. The cost of living was a lot lower due to free market economics. And UA-cam is a private platform running on private infrastructure installed and maintained by private business from the data center to the outside and where ever it goes. So, no, we can do without big mommy and daddy government.
@ibrahim Swindon I totally disagree. The market regulates itself. When we govern outselves first and morally and by respecting the boundaries of private property then all falls into place. The whole concept of a free market is to do and be the best balanced against profit. A study of the Austrian school of economics always prove that. Everything in America is regulated because we lost everything to the banks in the 30's due to bankruptcy of the original republic. We also lost almost all property rights.
@ibrahim Swindon possibly. Still, though, in a free Austrian market, liabilty is placed squarely upon the business owner. I believe it would have been morally correct for Tesla to use his own capital. Still would not matter, in capitalism the state owns and controls all commerce. The United States as a private corporation that controls all commerce through the UCC. I also have the stance that using state/public money is theft. As it is the product of confiscation. Maybe I am long winded. The state as a parasite is the issue.
ibrahim Swindon It’s been proven time and time again, the private sector does a better job than any government program. I’d love to debate this with you, unfortunately I don’t have the patience for typing. One day maybe we could meet. With that said, the government does have its place, but don’t give them too much credit, you do more for us than them😉
This reminds me of that old biblical story when two women are fighting over who the rightful mother is to a baby is and the first solution brought to the table is “cut the baby in half and share it” but the actual mother is like wtf no don’t do that and that’s how they figured out the real mother.
Same. But according to the story, Solomon was wise enough to know that the real mother would step forward before the infant was harmed. If only these town officials had even a fraction of Solomon's wisdom. :)
@@gueritajfs I realize that. That's why I'm pointing out that resolving this property dispute by splitting the building is the "Dumb and Dumber" modern day counterpart to this biblical story without any of the wisdom, fairness and sacrificial love.
It's the city's building. They offered to buy the property. He said no. Then they tried to remove the building, since they messed and he wouldn't sell, but he wouldn't let them come onto his property to do it.
I got the same type of problem, the township allowed the fire company to build a fence and blocked my ability to get in or out to the back of my property. I ended up filing a lawsuit and after a few years, the fence was taken down. the fire company needs my property to build a new fire company and I am standing in the way of their progress. so they cause trouble. this is just one example of the crap they have pulled.
Wow people like u that stand in the way of progres make me sick. Why do u even need ur own property in 2021?? Just move into an apartment or something.
@@KrolKaz if your lucky, you will pay it off and have no mortgage payment and only have to pay the taxes each year. it's as close to living free as possible, however, if you want to make someone else rich pay rent.
@@gino007able i too know what its like to have a propery "in the way of progress". they dont want people like us with property around any more, they just want us living in tiny little boxes
If I understand correctly, the town offered to buy the property, he said no. So they went to tear down the building, and he said no. So, what else were they supposed to do?
@@charlesalexanderable And for all I know between the land he couldn't use and the legal fees he has had to pay because of their mistake that might be a valid price tag.
They tried other options 1st but the farmer refused them all. They offered to remove the whole building, farmer won't let the workers on his land. They offered to buy the land at market value but the farmer said no and countered with a 2x market price as a firm lowest he will take. This was a last resort option by the township.
Thanosehadthewrongidea you are wrong the county officials owe him due to Damages they caused when adding on to the existing building they destroyed one of their own drainage systems flooding the farmers field that they refused to compensate for and there's no telling how much damage they would have caused while removing said addition the farmer also had to pay out of his own pocket for additional drainage tiles on his own property to stop the county's Fuckup so why don't you get the story straight and do some research before giving all these stupid comments to people questioning the Dispute or siding with the farmer over the worthless overreaching Government that has become too big for it's own ass.
You must be the only person that is questioning this. Do you see what they did to that building? Do you see half the building left by the government? Are you really asking who is unreasonable here?
Not really, they would have to offer over market value and the fact that they offered to move the structure (which would cost WAY more than the cost of the 2ft strip of land) should give you an idea as to how much he must have been demanding as 'damages'
@Danny DNA Exactly! I don't understand why this news crew didn't understand this and most of the commentators on here! Good Lord! It's on the farmer. He is being stubborn, not anyone else, they tried!
@Danny DNA Removing it alone does jot compensate him for the dates of the building being put there in the first place. Until those damages are paid, nothing moves.
@Robin Kidwell I wish I was one or the other. I wouldn't have to work two Essential full-time jobs. Thanks to PayPal and access to the internet, I have my CV-19 survival kit of masks, hand-sanitizer, gloves, and all the raw ingredients to make more sanitizer. The anti-bacterial wipes I got from the local supermarket, and the Home Depot by my nightshift job.
@Robin Kidwell *Yawn* Your trolling is genuinely pathetic. And what is it even based on? I insulted no one who is part of this property line dispute. If you're that upset by it, go troll someone who cares. Next time, put a bit of creativity and effort into it. It's genuinely sad that you have nothing better to do with your life than try to troll random strangers on UA-cam. I'm done with you. Whoever you are in Life, clearly you're not someone worth bothering with.
To be honest, why would any intelligent person capable of making a successful life for themselves, ever want to be a township official? Henceforth, we're left with idiotic control freaks to fill the void.
@Danny DNA the "occupancy" is the presence of their property, not their employees. The remains of the building is occupying his property, without authorization. That is occupancy trespass. He should be awarded actual damages for his inability to use his property, the cost of removing the county's property and any site rehabilitation costs, and perhaps punitive damages.
So: for the rest of the story. In addition to improperly siting this building in 2011, the township also damaged a drain tile in such away the the township's drain field for its septic system at this site now illegally drains into the county drain and causes the drain to flood this field. The farmer was trying to leverage selling this strip of land to the township with getting the township to finally repair the damage they had done to the county drain. The situation is actually mote idiotic than depicted by Fox new. My source of this information was to Google the situation and find a source other than Fox to try and find a source I felt I could trust.
The township should repair what they destroyed, because if it had been the other way around, they would have fined him into the poor house until he had dug up every particle of damaged soil and replaced it, which is what you have to do when sewage has been dumped into land like this.
Thank you so much for clearing this up for me! I knew there was more to the story! The county will always try to screw the farmer or the taxpayer! Its the only way they know to operate! Bite the hand that you steal from is their way! Either bite it or take the whole hand! I really don't blame the farmer in this! I wouldn't trust them with a blade of grass! Believe me, I know first hand...Gotta let them think they won! 🙏❤💪🇺🇸😀
Were you able to find out if the farmer sued the township for damages? Sounds like having a court decide would have been the proper course of action instead of playing silly games with property lines.
Ridiculous indeed. Those county officials should be fired for their lack of problem solving skills. Who in their right mind would think that applying the Solomon's solution would be the proper thing to do.
@@ctb2814 .......according to the story..."The Government"......offered to remove the building.......Greedy farmer seems to be trying to extort the tax payers for more what reasonable...
So. Basically they are admitting they were wrong. And THIS is the solution.... they screwed over their taxpayers.....he has a MUCH larger claim than he did before.....
Well not exactly but close . Kind Solomon was wise and at the very end justice and truth and love prevailed . But in this case the town idiot decided to actually go trough with the cutting . Maybe he was fed up with both this men's BS lol
He didn’t allow them to get rid of the part on his property so they did the right thing and chopped it and put a fence. He’ll have to deal with the part left on his side
"I stopped them from removing the building" then "Idk what to do there is part of the building still on my property" After he stopped them from removing it LOL
Haha so true. And what's the big deal when the building is on his property 3 feet. Why does he even care? Seems like he made a problem when it didn't have to go this far
@@An11inchPenis There is such a thing as adverse possession. Building on and maintaining a property will eventually lead to being able to claim that property as yours. It takes decades but it happens.
@@Tb0n3 They offered to buy it and he refused because they would not pay him the amount of money he wanted for 'damages'. Im not sure how he could claim damages if they were willing to buy the land, how is he being damaged by them buying the land. I can see making them remove it and pay damages or make them buy the land but not both. He just wanted more money and thought they would cave....nope.
Did i hear this right? The building belonged to the township, they tried to remove it, and he stopped them? Why did he stop them after he brought up the issue and they tried to remedy it by taking it down?
Oh yeah... and then the next few feet, and the next few feet... no big deal right!? I'm sure you would appreciate it if your neighbors did that until your back door opened up to a fence right!?
I'd bet that the city tried that. I'm guessing the guy tried to squeeze them for half a million $ for 1500 square feet of land. The city called the guy's bluff. The only reason the wall is still standing is the guy wouldn't let the city crew on his property to tear it down.
@@noyopacific , "called the guys bluff"? Some of you act like the city is entitled to build wherever the hell they feel like, say "oopsie daisy", and get a price they like. Maybe this guy was not interested in selling or having a screwey property line, and since he owns it (wrap your head around that fact) he can say no.
If a citizen build a building and part of it was on the township's property they wouldn't let them split it on the property line and call it a day. WTH?
Simple solution to me: Farmer demos the part of the building on his property, throws the debris on the other side of the fence, since it is after all the town's materials, and moves on with his life. The town built the fence.....the town wrecked their own building. Get rid of that sliver on your side of the fence and forget about it. As for the townspeople, they should consider electing officials that are actually educated.
Ashland is such a hellhole. I cant even drive through on rt 20 without getting pulled over while following every traffic law. Ill drive an extra hr or two just to avoid a ticket from them.
If he just let a crew in to fix it, it would've been solved immediately after it was discovered. It's an accident that can be fixed. I think the guy wants "pain and suffering" money or something.
Apparently, the first time around, when they built the building they caused damages to the water cycle in that area and caused his fields to flood. As a result, before they deal with this mistake he wants them to fix the first problem they caused as they can claim the building is gone so they're not responsible for anything else.
The farmer wants a million dollar for the littel piece of land the Gov't had accidentally used. No possible solution could ever pacified him, but a huge sum of dollar. Greedy farmer.
Oh yes he's greedy because he wants compensation from the government who tried to steal his property 🙄 you know how fucking idiotic you sound right now?
From the thumbnail you think that the government ruined some guy’s private building because they thought it was slightly on public land. But it sounds like he caught them building a couple feet onto his land, what I’m getting is that he doesn’t want crews on his property to tare down the small portion of building because he wants a settlement for the mistake instead of the problem being fixed. They could’ve just settled on an above market offer for the extra slice of acreage, built a fence, and kept the building intact. But everybody has to get one over on each other. He probably just wants a nice payout so he can demolish it for free with his tractor and keep his old property lines
They offered to tear it down, so why did he refuse? He wanted to be paid more for damages? Realistically, what damages have been done by a 5'x30' piece of a building on the edge of his land? Obviously cutting the building like this is unreasonable, but it sounds like the farmer may have been expecting to laugh all the way to the bank on a dispute that really hadn't effected him all that much. Without more information though, it's impossible to say who is in the right here.
K D how many years have you farmed?? I’m betting zero by your comment.... there is considerable damage to the ground, crops, his own financial gain of not being able to farm that area, not to mention if he has animals graze...
@@furians601 I'm guessing that building occupied 1500 square feet of the farmers land. If it were the best corn land in the country and produced 300 bushels an acre that patch of dirt could have produced almost $40 a year before cultural costs. Farmer Dick probably would have been willing to let it go, for half a million $. City called his bluff and now he's a-singing poor-poor pitiful me.
@@noyopacific it is stated in quite a few responses that the township ruined drainage tiles when they built the building and that's causing his land to flood. The township refused to fix or adequately compensate for the damage, hence his reluctance at their offers. Can't farm or graze flooded land. Also, did the township not get the proper survey done and building permits before they put up that building ? If they had, they wouldn't have built on his land and ruined the drainage tiles.
I am a surveyor, and I see this happen a lot, its VERY upsetting to see two neighbors disputing this when there should be agreements and a good relationship with between one another.
@@socketyellow3 You're correct, but professional surveyors make these kinds of serious errors at a much lower rate than property owners who start building without bothering to locate the boundary lines first. Besides, if you get a professional survey done and they make a mistake, then you can hold them legally liable for damages caused by building on someone's property which their survey indicated is on your land. But if you didn't get the survey done first, then you're the one that's out of luck.
When authorities get this stupid and petty and have so much time on their hands they should all be fired and dismissed never to hold an office with government again. Absolutely rediculous, no surprise?
"I want this building removed from my property. But I also don't want you to work on my property to remove this building." "Oh no, who could have seen this coming?"
@Danny DNA It's not a resolution. It did not solve the issue, it made a new one. They were so unwilling to just pay him for the land that they went out of their way to be childish about it. That's not a resolution.
he just stopped them too late they already had the roof down really he just needs to build 1 wall buy some new rafters and metal building for next to nothing its an ag building no permits needed
What sort of dumb shit are you saying. They settled in court. The piece of building they left behind after cutting is his now. He can trash it if he wants and they would need to prove he was the one who dumped it back on their side. And hate crime? Are you that dumb? @@brianhaflin9799
I love how when its the town's problem its as simple as "let them on the property and remove it". Meanwhile you have to file 42 documents of paperwork to legally paint your front door 😆😆
![[HD] Greatest Hollywood Car Chase of All Time - Bullitt (1968)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FJZ-BHBKyos/mqdefault.jpg)
Just imagine if the farmer had built his shed on county property. Endless fines and fees.
Mistakes happen. The township owned up and offered to buy the land at fair market price. Farmer says no you owe me 2x that because I like money. The then offer to demo the whole building and remove it from his land. Farmer once again says no, your workers can't come the 5 feet into my property to remove the building you put there that I don't want there. So they remove what they can on their property and erect a property line border to mark what is now his. I don't know what you expect the township to do different the Farmer is being unreasonable at each step. Yes the township made a survey mistake when they erected the building. They admit that and are trying to correct the mistake. The Farmer doesn't want the mistake just corrected though, he wants to screw the township and the taxpayers so he is being intentionally obtuse.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 The township should have to pay him $1000 dollars a day until they tore down the building. That's probab;y what they would have done if the tables were turned.
@@georgea.567 but didn’t he say he wouldn’t let them tear it down
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 the township effed up... I'm sure there is going to be more litigation soon... becuase political posturing from town council people... this is just stupid....
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 that’s why property laws written on the state level so some backwards Township with 905 people doesn’t screw some farmer out of his property rights . Why because they’re too incompetent to survey ! Hold some people accountable don’t double down on dumb.
Does anyone else ever get depressed about how stupid this world has become? We're not evolving; we're going the opposite direction.
“It’s evolving, just backwards” - Pewdiepie
its even more stupid that you think an American Town represents the world
You are the stupid one to think this town represents the world. LOL what a joke 😂
contaminated water supply. we're all suffering.
lmao ... american justice for ya
If the farmer put anything outside of his property line accidentally, he would have been financially decimated, dragged through litigation, harassed and jailed if he didn't play along.
What damages? LOL This farmer is an unreasonable dumbass. Then he won't let them on his property to take it down.
@@joemonroe9456 are you dumb ? The county built it on his property.
@@mikeneff832 So... are you saying this is really a good proverbial hill to die on??? It's a total non-issue, looked to be that maybe a couple of feet extended onto his property, just ignore it, and work around it.
@@looneyburgmusic have you ever tilled or gardened ? Have you ever worked on a farm ? That space could be used for a lot of things. It’s his property they had no business building on to begin with. So if I build a shed in your yard it’s okay ? Hell no. Wanna pay my property taxes ? Thought not.
@@mikeneff832 Yes and... yes and yes...
And yes, sure there are a lot of things the space could be used for.
Now, all that said, from what I found from some digging this incident is the perfect case of all parties involved being both immature and overly aggressive.
For example... why did this guy say, 'We stopped them" when the topic was the town attempting to REMOVE the offending building? Was that not what he wanted? Would that not "fix" the error?
I don't know, but I can take a guess - if the building is gone, and there is nothing sticking over onto his property, then he is "whole", he has suffered no losses he could point to in a lawsuit against the town, meaning no $$$$ award for him .
It's all about greed, always has been, always will be.
A lot of people are missing the fact that the township didn't want to do this. The farmer saw this as a payday and was trying to extort money from them. They were willing to remove the part of the building that was on his land, but he refused to let them correct the issue; he said it was on his land, so no one could touch it. He didn't want it fixed because then he couldn't cash in on it.
So they severed the part of the building on his property from the part on their property, and put a fence on the property line to ensure no claim can ever be made that anyone stepped across the property line. The township also told him that they will pay to have the remaining piece removed from his property at any time if he wants that to be done.
He's just pissed off because he knows he'll never get that payday he was hoping for now. It wasn't a reasonable solution to a normal problem, but he purposely created a completely unreasonable problem for personal gain.
If you research what happened, it seems pretty clear the farmer was the one who purposely forced this situation to happen, despite the way they tried to spin it in this news story.
Yeah I knew something was off with him, it wasn't adding up. He said "they tried to tear it down, we stopped them" and also "they offered to buy the property, but they didn't address MY DAMAGES". This is definitely a guy being difficult just to scam more money out of them. Glad they figured out a way to stop him.
@@randomvids8124 Exactly. He never mentioned what those "damages" were either. But he states his property there is "unuseable", yet there is a tree that is obviously beside that building on his side that does the same thing. If he wanted to farm that part, the tree would have been removed before. Wait till that lady who thinks this is a "waste of taxpayer funding" sees how much this was vs how much the guy was demanding.
@passportspider That’s all he would let them do, so it’s exactly what they did. Couldn’t go on his property to remove the building, so they left it there.
Ask someone a yes or no question, then tell them they aren’t allowed to answer yes, and then get mad and call the news when they say no.
@@randomvids8124 there had been previous disputes likely those are the damages he talks about!
Public civil matter. No building blue print in record after 6 months per building safety.
*_Thank God it wasn't a custody dispute..._*
Ah, yes! The "King Solomon Method"!
OUCH!
"Old School"
Jim Finigan that’s exactly what I thought
🤣😂
The people of that county need to file a lawsuit against the county and demand that all of the people involved get fired for misused plublic funds
Except, the township offered to tear down the building, but the farmer didn't want them on his property. He was asking them for half a million dollars. The township called his bluff and now the farmer is playing dumb. The farmer got too greedy. That's all.
That's exactly what they should do.
@@stephanbranczyk8306 I don't know the full story, but would that $500k be to purchase the land and, if so, how much of it?
@@johnpatrick1647 Might have been to compensate for the lost revenue and legal expenses from the lost land. We know where the building was but how much of his land around it did they actually keep him from using.
*It would have been a much better investigation if they reported on this option....... what if... what if... the owner countered the price proposal they offered him to buy the land he was "infringing" but to buy the land instead. Basically he flips their reasonable price back at them. If it's reasonable for you to buy my property at this price... then it should be reasonable for me to buy your property at that price and if you say that's not reasonable then you're not giving me a good price. If they raise the price that they want for the land then you read your price you want for your land to the same amount.*
My father and I built large houses. Any time we started a new home we would always find the property corners no matter how long it took so there could be no mistakes. One time it came up with a neighbor saying the one side driveway was on his property until we pulled a string and proved that his driveway was 1 1-2' over the line he couldn't get back in his house fast enough.
Some people are petty as fuck about their property. My neighbors don't give a single shit, but the county does
I mean, building a house you're paying a surveyor to come out and flag the property lines for you anyways. You'd be nuts not too. Any place I've ever pulled a permit you wanted be able to. So that helps quite a bit. I don't get how this ever happens honestly if people simply did things the way they're supposed to. But it's a small town in the middle of nowhere and they probably put no thought into it really.
Hahaha that's a funny story! What an idiot
The farmer refused to have builders on his property, now he is stuck with a part of the building. What am I missing?
Your forgetting that the town built a building on private land without purchasing it properly... They could have condemned the property before.... then took it... this was just childish tantrum by county officials becuase their building still sits on this farmers land do you not see that
@@tdgreenbay There wasn't even any urgent public need to condemn this farmer's property and exercise eminent domain. Based upon the footage shown in the video, it seems there is plenty of room to have constructed this building entirely on land owned by the town. My guess is that it neglected to have a professional survey of the area done before beginning construction to figure out where the property lines are located. Had the town done so and built this structure just a few feet over, this entire mess could have been avoided. But no, this happened and then town officials threw a childish tantrum over a mistake caused by their own stupidity.
@@photios4779 sounds like to me the town leadership is lead a bunch of dumbarshes and just wanted to be petty pompous asses... imho
you’re missing the part where the town compensates him for illegally occupying his property
From a Fox8 news story:
He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property.
“The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
Sounds like that part got cut for time
If it was the farmers building on township property they would have fined him for every day the structure stood on public property, then went after him for cutting the building in two peices like they did.
This sounds like a HOA more than a government entity.
They tried tearing building down ..farmer stopped it..hmmm ..in the end they couldn't come up with agreement and that how it was settled..The End ..farmer got free 3 walled metal building and new shiney fence ..now tax payers will get bill for new city council building ...who really lost, farmer? City? Community residence ?
@@stanfen1966 the farmer the residents lost cause they city belongs to the people not local gov,they are just civil servants,whom are supposed to work for the people not in spite of them
@@newdogatplay farmer got a building to park his tractor in and a new shiney fence ..I call that working for the people ..
@@stanfen1966 yea some building 🙄 I hope that tractor can super skinny.
@@texasmonster1668 if you look in video tractor not in skinny side ..I could be wrong to witch side belongs to whom, but why was farmer being interviewed on other side of fence from where you say he owns ...makes no sense how farmers stopped demolition of a building on someone else's property ...
They offered to move the building and the property owner said no, you can't come on my property. Why would he not let them move it. Something is not being mentioned.
Just curious, where does it say that? I was just searching for more info because im bored and nosey. I heard in this video that they had started tearing the building down but the farmer stopped them. Why? And it keeps mentioning that that township offered to buy the property isnt there weird zoning to protect farm land? Wouldnt he be giving up more than 20 ft of land if he sold it? Depending on the selling price it could be a good or bad deal. Also, what other thing was tied up with the township? I keep seeing that on the reports but I cant find the nitty gritty. Again, Im bored and you seem to know more than the rest of us, so please do tell.
@@seadragon1456 At :25 seconds they offered to tear it down and the property owner said you can't come on my property, then at 2:00 he is complaining about the building 2' on his property still when the township said they offered to remove it. They should have asked the property owner why he refused the offer to remove the building from his property. Reporters dont ask that of course. He is being difficult. So essentially he said "Its on my property", township "We will remove it", he said "Can't come on my property", township then said they would buy his property, he said "No". Sounds like two good solutions the township offered. He had several disagreements with the township on other matters he said so they didn't get along before this. Looks like he lives in the middle of nowhere, seems like he wouldn't be bothered.
@@seadragon1456 There is one where someone had a mortgage on two lots next to eachother and built a house 1/4 on one lot and 3/4 on the other. It went into foreclosure and the bank sold the 2 lots separately. The person that bought the lot with 1/4 of the residence on it which was mainly a garage and pool put up a fence right through the pool and garage.
Ryan Abbott That story was very interesting and hilarious..
@@seadragon1456 From a Fox8 news story:
He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property.
“The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
So, he wouldn't let the crew on his property that were there to take down the building that was on his property. WTF does he expect?
monetary compensation for the town illegally occupying his property, and not just a “my bad”?
@@gwp4eva If they're tearing it down he wins either way. He's partially responsible for the outcome of this. The initial mistake was on the county, but not letting them remove the building properly is on him. He chose the outcome of this by being stubborn.
From a Fox8 news story:
He said he refused to let officials tear down the portion that is on his property.
“The reason I wouldn’t let the township on my property to remove the building is because I wanted them to fix a tile drain that they admitted they broke and which there leach field ties into. It floods the field making it impossible to farm.”
Charge the town daily for leaving trash on your property.
The farmer won't let the town come onto his property to remove it! Apparently, the town has offered to remove it, but he won't let them.
@@SalK-LShe has a right to not want construction equipment tearing through his property. he probably just wants financial compensation, which he has a right to, but the town is being petty
@@gwp4eva it wiont even make it outside dist court
@gwp4eva “tearing through his property” do you see where the fence is, clown? They can tear it down from their side of the fence. But he refuses to allow the, to tear it down. He wants damages for not being able to use that section for farming, yet right next to it is a decades old tree that would have to be removed for farming as well, so there are no damages!
Isn’t this like cutting off your nose to spite your own face?
Lol it’s like cutting a kid in half at divorce court
If they were told to stay off his property, As a contractor I would only Demo on the side I had permission. Probably would recommend leaving or building something to catch the structure on the other side if it fell or was pushed over.
He's being a dick because he's had unrelated disputes (more than 1) with them so when this screw-up arose (the county didn't build the building, a contractor did) the owner refused to allow them to physically step on his property to remedy things. County said "eff you owner" & did what they could from their side of the property line! They need to seal up the back of the building & let the rest of it rot! Later, when the owner pulls his head out of his butt & agrees to let them remove the wall they should tell him to do it himself or charge him an amount to remove it that also covers all their legal costs & the demo costs. It's less than 10 feet of a pasture! Screw him.
@@Beezlie727 if you ever had any property dealings with local governments you would understand why he's acting the way he's acting
@@Beezlie727 you should read some law. The contractor is an agent of the County, they are ultimately responsible for his error. Who was supposed to get a survey of the property line? Clue, the owner of the building. Were there county ordinances about set backs from the property line? Sure there were, and you need to know where the line is to comply with the ordinance. Maybe the farmer is being a little harsh, but in the eyes of the law, he has been harmed, so is due compensation. That said, if the County required the contractor to survey, and follow set backs, then they can go after him..but they are primarily responsible. In my experience, the only instance that would justify the Counties error is if they had an erroneous survey. In that case they have followed reasonable procedures, and the surveyor becomes responsible.
He’s a farmer. Probably has a tractor/bulldozer or something. Pull it apart and dump it over the fence. Problem solved. Township has the rest of their building back. Everybody happy. Farmer bills them for labor.
Farmer then never gets paid... Fuck out of here.. have those scabs sitting in their lazy boys go tear it down!
Hey they made a mistake and tried to resolve. I noticed he didn’t allow them to enter the property to take care of that section. He said he wanted money for damages. What are damages on that 5’ x 25’ section on the edge of his land that are greater than the price of the land they offered. We should all be reasonable. Everyone is human and we all makes mistakes.
Unfortunately, it’s his building now. If he did that it could be considered illegal dumping
MrWhoevr if you or I made the same mistake we would pay dearly.
I would screen it and fill with chickens!!
Get somebody in there with common sense
A town with a name like "Ruggles" says stay the hell away.
I just wish it was called "Solomon" instead.
Banjo music intensifies
sounds about right for the orange line ruggles too
send the township rent for their structor on his property.
Nah, they solved it. He has his own piece of the structure now.
why would the farmer sent them rent? u r not thinking clearly
@@wesleyhempoli5548 I think he meant send them a bill for rent.
@@dillchives no not solved seems to me they owe him lease and demolition money... this was straight up public officials acting a tantrum... becuase they didnt want to pay for their mistake
@@wesleyhempoli5548 He meant send them a rent bill not money
All party’s should be ashamed of themselves
This shows how educated they are.
Lots of good metal for the farmer.
...or a big sign that says:
"Welcome to Stupidville" LOL
I agree, paint a big insulting sign on it.
Paint "finders keepers" on it.
@Abdul Rahman
I wish I'd thought of that!
mrsparex - fuck you. They are the smartest people on earth
Not sure if he would even be able to take it down without damaging the other part of the structure.
Is this real. 😆 My guess neither building meets code in that condition.
Ya think!
Exactly
Tear down both
Obviously. I'm wondering if town officials secretly hope the farmer won't promptly tear down the piece of the building on his property so they have an excuse to levy a hefty fine against him for having a structure on his property that doesn't meet code!!
@@photios4779a structure they built that doesn't meet code. That would definitely come up. They are also the ones who cut it in two.
They caused every violation that's mentioned in this story.
The farmer should start fining them the same rate, $2,000 per day like how they fine landlord for building code violation.
Or at least charge them a storage fee for the part of their building that's on his land.
Retroactive to the day it was built.
That would be considered exhortation.
This is mainly his fault.while the township did make a mistake he refused to allow them to correct the mistake so now he is stuck with it.
Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble just drew a chalk line across the floor and shared the building. In the end, Bam Bam knocked it down. If I was the farmer, I would knock down the part they left on my side and throw the scrap pieces back over the fence.
Nah, the town would probably just fine the guy for littering on public property if he were to throw the pieces over the fence. The metal parts of the slice of the building on his land could be sold as scrap metal and he might be able to reuse or give away the timber frames. At least this way he could get _something_ out of this utterly needless mess the town foisted upon him.
All he needs to do is post it online as "free if you remove" and it will be gone before he can blink.
I can understand his frustration. But if he does not allow them onto the property to remove this, it is now HIS problem.
he needs to set fire to it and flip it over the fence with his tractor.
no, still the city’s. if he built something on their property, he’d be fined into oblivion. when the roles are reversed, it’s now “whoops sorry we’ll take it down”? nope, uh uh, he has a right to compensation for the unlawful occupation of his property. you get taxed for the square footage of property you own after all
@gwp4eva Why should the tax payer give this loser money? Because two feet of his land had a county building on it that he didn't even know was his for years? Go have a slip and fall dork.
WoW and this is the mentality of the Township? This is so stupid.
🦇💩😜
It seems to be the way America is going.
You shouldn't judge without both sides of the story.
They said the man would not allow them on his property to tear it down.
He wanted to sell his land for three times the value
@@johncuervo3019 do you know he was trying to sell it for 3 times the appraised value or just assuming ? And it is his land, he can sell it for however much he wants. Or not sell it, if he doesn't want to.
@@jopiekkola527 he thought he could force them into buying it for more than it was worth since they built on it already.
He threw a bitch fit when they didn't buy it and offered to remove it.
The guy was still trying to get money for damages to his property afterwards.
The only way to negotiate an issue like this is to restore the owner's property to its original condition. If anyone is allowed to build on other's land without a contract, and then expect to cut a deal, this kind of fraud will happen all over the place.
That is why you never let township leadership stay in office for decades.
lol so why doesn't he let them on his property to remove it and fix their mistake?
The government is so great at solving problems. What would we ever do without them?
@ibrahim Swindon Oh yes we would. There was a time before big overgrown and expensive government where private businesses provided all our needs. Even schools were private once. Home schooling was very effective and very good years ago. The cost of living was a lot lower due to free market economics. And UA-cam is a private platform running on private infrastructure installed and maintained by private business from the data center to the outside and where ever it goes. So, no, we can do without big mommy and daddy government.
@ibrahim Swindon I totally disagree. The market regulates itself. When we govern outselves first and morally and by respecting the boundaries of private property then all falls into place. The whole concept of a free market is to do and be the best balanced against profit. A study of the Austrian school of economics always prove that. Everything in America is regulated because we lost everything to the banks in the 30's due to bankruptcy of the original republic. We also lost almost all property rights.
@ibrahim Swindon possibly. Still, though, in a free Austrian market, liabilty is placed squarely upon the business owner. I believe it would have been morally correct for Tesla to use his own capital. Still would not matter, in capitalism the state owns and controls all commerce. The United States as a private corporation that controls all commerce through the UCC. I also have the stance that using state/public money is theft. As it is the product of confiscation.
Maybe I am long winded. The state as a parasite is the issue.
ibrahim Swindon It’s been proven time and time again, the private sector does a better job than any government program. I’d love to debate this with you, unfortunately I don’t have the patience for typing. One day maybe we could meet. With that said, the government does have its place, but don’t give them too much credit, you do more for us than them😉
Michael Bennett Preach it brother
This reminds me of that old biblical story when two women are fighting over who the rightful mother is to a baby is and the first solution brought to the table is “cut the baby in half and share it” but the actual mother is like wtf no don’t do that and that’s how they figured out the real mother.
Same. But according to the story, Solomon was wise enough to know that the real mother would step forward before the infant was harmed. If only these town officials had even a fraction of Solomon's wisdom. :)
Photios The moral of the story was mainly about sacrificial love of a mother and A wise and fair king . It's a great biblical story
@@gueritajfs I realize that. That's why I'm pointing out that resolving this property dispute by splitting the building is the "Dumb and Dumber" modern day counterpart to this biblical story without any of the wisdom, fairness and sacrificial love.
It's a good thing these town officials weren't the authorities in that story.
😏
@@rocketraccoon1976 yeah no shit!🤣
Why didn’t they just sell the building owner that tiny strip of property? What’s wrong with people, so crazy!
It's the city's building. They offered to buy the property. He said no. Then they tried to remove the building, since they messed and he wouldn't sell, but he wouldn't let them come onto his property to do it.
It’s not a public building. It’s property damage
Should never have been built on someone else's property!!!! Well done farmer.
I got the same type of problem, the township allowed the fire company to build a fence and blocked my ability to get in or out to the back of my property. I ended up filing a lawsuit and after a few years, the fence was taken down. the fire company needs my property to build a new fire company and I am standing in the way of their progress. so they cause trouble. this is just one example of the crap they have pulled.
Wow people like u that stand in the way of progres make me sick.
Why do u even need ur own property in 2021?? Just move into an apartment or something.
@@KrolKaz if your lucky, you will pay it off and have no mortgage payment and only have to pay the taxes each year. it's as close to living free as possible, however, if you want to make someone else rich pay rent.
@@gino007able i too know what its like to have a propery "in the way of progress". they dont want people like us with property around any more, they just want us living in tiny little boxes
Too bad you can't let them build it and charge them rent to use your land
@@silkroad1201 I would sell it to them but they want to steal it. I got a plan and know who to sell it to next year, lol
If I understand correctly, the town offered to buy the property, he said no. So they went to tear down the building, and he said no. So, what else were they supposed to do?
were they trying to bill him for the demolition?
Not build on his land.
they supposedly caused damage he tried to get them to fix.
So what damages did the farmer suffer from the shed being 6 feet on his property? Good for the township for doing what they did!
failgovernment. if it was the other way around that farmer would probably be in jail.
The city tried to bully there way by taking his land hoping he wouldnt notice and he’s after revenge and so be it!
Township wanted tear it down, Farmer refused to allow them on his property to remove it. Sounds like both sides being hard headed
@@firstsgt279 Bingo!
Looks like he has the makins' of a good chicken shed theah! Ayuh!!
@@firstsgt279 Also sounds like they didn't want to pay for the damages and that was why he didn't let them on the property.
@@charlesalexanderable And for all I know between the land he couldn't use and the legal fees he has had to pay because of their mistake that might be a valid price tag.
When King Solomon handles your property line dispute.
King Solomon was more intelligent then the Township officials.
Exactly, my thoughts
Thanks
*_Biblical Results - GUARANTEED!_*
AHAHAHAA LOLLL
"Problem solved, we're done."
...
Don't try & steal someone's private land. This is local government acting criminally.
If the township council can pull an expensive ego move like this...then it’s time to call in the independent auditors to check the books.
Exactly.
They tried other options 1st but the farmer refused them all. They offered to remove the whole building, farmer won't let the workers on his land. They offered to buy the land at market value but the farmer said no and countered with a 2x market price as a firm lowest he will take. This was a last resort option by the township.
@@thanoshadtherightidea8724 No not last resort, they didn't use the court system. The township should be liable to pay for damages.
Thanosehadthewrongidea you are wrong the county officials owe him due to Damages they caused when adding on to the existing building they destroyed one of their own drainage systems flooding the farmers field that they refused to compensate for and there's no telling how much damage they would have caused while removing said addition the farmer also had to pay out of his own pocket for additional drainage tiles on his own property to stop the county's Fuckup so why don't you get the story straight and do some research before giving all these stupid comments to people questioning the Dispute or siding with the farmer over the worthless overreaching Government that has become too big for it's own ass.
Not to mention all the property taxes he's paid for land that is his yet is being occupied by a government structure. They owe him a lot of money.
I love how the reporters knocked on the door... no answer? Just go around back 😂
They're reporters, trespassing laws dont apply to them. Actually, no laws apply to them
They knocked when the back half is wide open 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
L🤣L
If you want to get things done you need to send in the A-Team and not the I-Team. “ I pitty the fool”!
IKR
Would like to know what the town's offer was, and what the farmer claimed as damages. Hard to tell who was being unreasonable.
You must be the only person that is questioning this. Do you see what they did to that building?
Do you see half the building left by the government? Are you really asking who is unreasonable here?
Not really, they would have to offer over market value and the fact that they offered to move the structure (which would cost WAY more than the cost of the 2ft strip of land) should give you an idea as to how much he must have been demanding as 'damages'
@Danny DNA Exactly! I don't understand why this news crew didn't understand this and most of the commentators on here! Good Lord! It's on the farmer. He is being stubborn, not anyone else, they tried!
So you seriously think it is REASONABLE for the goverent to build something on your land??????
@Danny DNA Removing it alone does jot compensate him for the dates of the building being put there in the first place. Until those damages are paid, nothing moves.
that is a really wierd situation, sounds personal somehow
I suspect they placed that bldg there to hit a nerve. Its called "grudge building".
public servants still think there above the law ! if anyone else did this they would be in jail.
All that homeowners got to do is take a bulldozer push their building back on their side along with her f****** fence and its promise off
This looks like someone got fed up dealing with this issue, and decided to just put an end to it in the most easy, legal way possible.
@Robin Kidwell
I wish I was one or the other. I wouldn't have to work two Essential full-time jobs. Thanks to PayPal and access to the internet, I have my CV-19 survival kit of masks, hand-sanitizer, gloves, and all the raw ingredients to make more sanitizer. The anti-bacterial wipes I got from the local supermarket, and the Home Depot by my nightshift job.
@Robin Kidwell
*Yawn*
Your trolling is genuinely pathetic. And what is it even based on? I insulted no one who is part of this property line dispute. If you're that upset by it, go troll someone who cares. Next time, put a bit of creativity and effort into it. It's genuinely sad that you have nothing better to do with your life than try to troll random strangers on UA-cam. I'm done with you. Whoever you are in Life, clearly you're not someone worth bothering with.
Robin Kidwell are you done? Stupid argument between strangers over absolutely nothing. Pathetic, empty life looking for ways to be insulting.
@Robin Kidwell Debbbb's right. You're a dick.
@Robin Kidwell lol
Township officials can be some of the stupidest people ever, just sit in on local government meetings.
To be honest, why would any intelligent person capable of making a successful life for themselves, ever want to be a township official? Henceforth, we're left with idiotic control freaks to fill the void.
And people want bigger government... Smh
sue the township for occupancy trespass.
@Danny DNA the "occupancy" is the presence of their property, not their employees. The remains of the building is occupying his property, without authorization. That is occupancy trespass. He should be awarded actual damages for his inability to use his property, the cost of removing the county's property and any site rehabilitation costs, and perhaps punitive damages.
So: for the rest of the story. In addition to improperly siting this building in 2011, the township also damaged a drain tile in such away the the township's drain field for its septic system at this site now illegally drains into the county drain and causes the drain to flood this field. The farmer was trying to leverage selling this strip of land to the township with getting the township to finally repair the damage they had done to the county drain. The situation is actually mote idiotic than depicted by Fox new. My source of this information was to Google the situation and find a source other than Fox to try and find a source I felt I could trust.
The township should repair what they destroyed, because if it had been the other way around, they would have fined him into the poor house until he had dug up every particle of damaged soil and replaced it, which is what you have to do when sewage has been dumped into land like this.
Thank you so much for clearing this up for me! I knew there was more to the story! The county will always try to screw the farmer or the taxpayer! Its the only way they know to operate! Bite the hand that you steal from is their way! Either bite it or take the whole hand! I really don't blame the farmer in this! I wouldn't trust them with a blade of grass! Believe me, I know first hand...Gotta let them think they won! 🙏❤💪🇺🇸😀
Were you able to find out if the farmer sued the township for damages? Sounds like having a court decide would have been the proper course of action instead of playing silly games with property lines.
Brand, this was not a sewer or sewage tile. It was a drainage tile, something that is used frequently to avoid ponding in crop fields.
The county or state should be going after the township if that's actually true.
another lawyer and judge laughing all the way to the bank while real people pay !!!
Damn straights😅😅🤣🤣
what are you talking about?
Ridiculous indeed. Those county officials should be fired for their lack of problem solving skills. Who in their right mind would think that applying the Solomon's solution would be the proper thing to do.
They tried buying the land or removing the building.he refused both offers so they did this so the mistake wouldn't happen again.
Another example of incompetent people in a so called office that are so unprofessional!
Just another farmer trying to bilk...."the government".....
Brad Hoger They built on “his” land ! They need to make it good not him.
@@ctb2814 .......according to the story..."The Government"......offered to remove the building.......Greedy farmer seems to be trying to extort the tax payers for more what reasonable...
@Tom Slak ...look another knuckle dragger......
Easy money. Sue the town for the EXTRA TAXES youve been paying. Easy peasy lemon squeezy
Let's face it, government has never been guilty of doing anything that made sense!!!!
So. Basically they are admitting they were wrong. And THIS is the solution.... they screwed over their taxpayers.....he has a MUCH larger claim than he did before.....
I'll tell you what's next eminent domain and they're just going to take it from you
We are 2020 ...what a shame for humans.
Don't worry sir the township will get even with you at the 1st available chance.... Arrogant local government people don't like to be Outdone
That’s just spiteful & foolish by arrogant town leaders
It’s the King Solomon method, applied to real estate
Well not exactly but close . Kind Solomon was wise and at the very end justice and truth and love prevailed . But in this case the town idiot decided to actually go trough with the cutting . Maybe he was fed up with both this men's BS lol
just wait tell he gets cited for having that partial building on his land
How does leaving a piece of the building on the property solve the issue?? 🤦 This makes absolutely zero sense. 🤦
He didn’t allow them to get rid of the part on his property so they did the right thing and chopped it and put a fence. He’ll have to deal with the part left on his side
"I stopped them from removing the building" then "Idk what to do there is part of the building still on my property" After he stopped them from removing it LOL
Haha so true. And what's the big deal when the building is on his property 3 feet. Why does he even care? Seems like he made a problem when it didn't have to go this far
@@An11inchPenis There is such a thing as adverse possession. Building on and maintaining a property will eventually lead to being able to claim that property as yours. It takes decades but it happens.
Why didnt he let them remove it? Isnt that what he was bitchqing about?
@@tjd2326 Bc he wanted to get paid
@@Tb0n3 They offered to buy it and he refused because they would not pay him the amount of money he wanted for 'damages'. Im not sure how he could claim damages if they were willing to buy the land, how is he being damaged by them buying the land. I can see making them remove it and pay damages or make them buy the land but not both. He just wanted more money and thought they would cave....nope.
Did i hear this right? The building belonged to the township, they tried to remove it, and he stopped them? Why did he stop them after he brought up the issue and they tried to remedy it by taking it down?
He wanted them to repair the damages to his drainage and leech field which they caused when they built it.
@@delafe So his drainage field went all the way up to his property line?
Idaho Made actually, it was damage to the county drainage tile that lead to the county field which is now flooding his field.
@@delafe Ohhhhh ok, I get it now. Thank you
Should have just paid for those few feet of land
They could have just moved the building.
Its a pole barn, a chainsaw and a crane would make it easy.
Oh yeah... and then the next few feet, and the next few feet... no big deal right!? I'm sure you would appreciate it if your neighbors did that until your back door opened up to a fence right!?
This.
I'd bet that the city tried that. I'm guessing the guy tried to squeeze them for half a million $ for 1500 square feet of land. The city called the guy's bluff. The only reason the wall is still standing is the guy wouldn't let the city crew on his property to tear it down.
@@noyopacific , "called the guys bluff"? Some of you act like the city is entitled to build wherever the hell they feel like, say "oopsie daisy", and get a price they like. Maybe this guy was not interested in selling or having a screwey property line, and since he owns it (wrap your head around that fact) he can say no.
If a citizen build a building and part of it was on the township's property they wouldn't let them split it on the property line and call it a day. WTH?
Simple solution to me: Farmer demos the part of the building on his property, throws the debris on the other side of the fence, since it is after all the town's materials, and moves on with his life. The town built the fence.....the town wrecked their own building. Get rid of that sliver on your side of the fence and forget about it. As for the townspeople, they should consider electing officials that are actually educated.
Ashland is such a hellhole. I cant even drive through on rt 20 without getting pulled over while following every traffic law. Ill drive an extra hr or two just to avoid a ticket from them.
I hate tyrant crap like that.
If he just let a crew in to fix it, it would've been solved immediately after it was discovered. It's an accident that can be fixed. I think the guy wants "pain and suffering" money or something.
Apparently, the first time around, when they built the building they caused damages to the water cycle in that area and caused his fields to flood. As a result, before they deal with this mistake he wants them to fix the first problem they caused as they can claim the building is gone so they're not responsible for anything else.
Hey, thanks for respecting the deaf and making captions available.
The farmer didn't want them to tear it down but doesn't want the building on his property. Sorry buddy, you can't have it both ways.
Yaash he didn’t say he didn’t want them to take it down.
Casa. The story said he won't let their workers on his property to remove it.
Vote every one of em out...
The farmer wants a million dollar for the littel piece of land the Gov't had accidentally used.
No possible solution could ever pacified him, but a huge sum of dollar.
Greedy farmer.
Oh yes he's greedy because he wants compensation from the government who tried to steal his property 🙄 you know how fucking idiotic you sound right now?
It looks like a city fed up to me. The city needs to pay to get rid of the guy's trash, too.
From the thumbnail you think that the government ruined some guy’s private building because they thought it was slightly on public land. But it sounds like he caught them building a couple feet onto his land, what I’m getting is that he doesn’t want crews on his property to tare down the small portion of building because he wants a settlement for the mistake instead of the problem being fixed. They could’ve just settled on an above market offer for the extra slice of acreage, built a fence, and kept the building intact. But everybody has to get one over on each other. He probably just wants a nice payout so he can demolish it for free with his tractor and keep his old property lines
I'm sure the farmer can get that tore down for a couple cases of beer or a 1/2 ounce of weed.
I would choose the weed
Looks to me like the county already had the weed.
@@nope10 Underrated comment.
Gimme a 12-pack of Dr. Pepper or a box of pistol ammo at pre-panic prices and I'll do it.
The town would fine HIM for demo without a permit.
Don't they have any building setbacks from property lines to prevent this stuff
Another example of farmers land getting messed with
They offered to tear it down, so why did he refuse? He wanted to be paid more for damages? Realistically, what damages have been done by a 5'x30' piece of a building on the edge of his land?
Obviously cutting the building like this is unreasonable, but it sounds like the farmer may have been expecting to laugh all the way to the bank on a dispute that really hadn't effected him all that much.
Without more information though, it's impossible to say who is in the right here.
K D how many years have you farmed?? I’m betting zero by your comment.... there is considerable damage to the ground, crops, his own financial gain of not being able to farm that area, not to mention if he has animals graze...
K D - see answer by cdjhyoung above explaining the damage done by field being flooded by sewage (raw I expect).
they offered to tear down the entire building. it's not like it's real money, right? Just tax money.
@@furians601 I'm guessing that building occupied 1500 square feet of the farmers land. If it were the best corn land in the country and produced 300 bushels an acre that patch of dirt could have produced almost $40 a year before cultural costs. Farmer Dick probably would have been willing to let it go, for half a million $. City called his bluff and now he's a-singing poor-poor pitiful me.
@@noyopacific it is stated in quite a few responses that the township ruined drainage tiles when they built the building and that's causing his land to flood. The township refused to fix or adequately compensate for the damage, hence his reluctance at their offers. Can't farm or graze flooded land. Also, did the township not get the proper survey done and building permits before they put up that building ? If they had, they wouldn't have built on his land and ruined the drainage tiles.
This is straight out of madeas diary of a mad black woman. “Which half of the couch you want? This half pr that half?
Why did the farmer stop the town to tear down the building? That strikes me this farmer is unreasonable...
But they were willing to remove the building, so what is he whining about? And how could it stop him using that field?
I am a surveyor, and I see this happen a lot, its VERY upsetting to see two neighbors disputing this when there should be agreements and a good relationship with between one another.
Never ever build permanent structures, including fences, without a survey first!
Fornicate thyself.... if its built on someone else property most know they just hope in the future know one knows
@@queenbee3647 you see the story about construction workers building a 600k home on the wrong plot of land? Sometimes even that isn’t enough.
@@socketyellow3 You're correct, but professional surveyors make these kinds of serious errors at a much lower rate than property owners who start building without bothering to locate the boundary lines first. Besides, if you get a professional survey done and they make a mistake, then you can hold them legally liable for damages caused by building on someone's property which their survey indicated is on your land. But if you didn't get the survey done first, then you're the one that's out of luck.
When authorities get this stupid and petty and have so much time on their hands they should all be fired and dismissed never to hold an office with government again. Absolutely rediculous, no surprise?
I hope the citizens of this town hold their local government accountable in the next election by voting these guys OUT of office!!
Just more elected officials who forget who they work for.
They need to fire all those involved in damaging that property,so wrong on so many levels!!!!
Leave it to one reporter, this was put together like a school presentation
What do you expect from Fox News?
@@wdfktv8555 This isn't Fox News, it's a local Fox affiliate.
I think the township tried several things, and got fed up!!! That’s hilarious!
I hope he doesn’t let up and sues the fuck out of them.
That is a pretty elegant way to deal with it.
"I want this building removed from my property. But I also don't want you to work on my property to remove this building."
"Oh no, who could have seen this coming?"
Nobody with two brain cells to rub together, the township did this out of ego not wanting to be in the wrong.
@Danny DNA It's not a resolution. It did not solve the issue, it made a new one. They were so unwilling to just pay him for the land that they went out of their way to be childish about it. That's not a resolution.
If I were the farmer, I'd demo the stuff on my property and toss if all back over the fence.
And cut my hand on the sharp tin and then sue them. What a bunch of stupid Democrat Fucks
he just stopped them too late they already had the roof down really he just needs to build 1 wall buy some new rafters and metal building for next to nothing its an ag building no permits needed
That might actually get you arrested. Vandalism, disorderly conduct, littering, and possibly criminal mischief or even a hate crime.
What sort of dumb shit are you saying. They settled in court. The piece of building they left behind after cutting is his now. He can trash it if he wants and they would need to prove he was the one who dumped it back on their side.
And hate crime? Are you that dumb? @@brianhaflin9799
Are you kidding me. What self-respecting contractor even took that job?
a jack
If the farmer won't let them onto his land to remove the structure.. Then this is the option.. Everyone needs to grow up
Township shouldn't have illegally built on his property libtard.
I love how when its the town's problem its as simple as "let them on the property and remove it". Meanwhile you have to file 42 documents of paperwork to legally paint your front door 😆😆
This kinda of tyranny needs to be dealt with