Maybe someone can advise me

[Anonymous Poster]

Raptor, there are three things that I don't think any of the others mentioned. Maybe one of them will be of some use.

1. You didn't say how long ago you bought your place. If the purchase was recent and the seller knew of the ATV/bike track plans, he/she would probably have had a duty to disclose them to you. The same probably would hold true for any real estate agent involved in the transaction.

If a seller has a duty to disclose and doesn't, then the buyer may be able to sue for damages.

2. Unless the land the track is on is unzoned, it would require a zoning change and all that entails. Rural land tends to be zoned agricultural. An ATV/bike track on ag land would probably be nonconforming.

3. Activities like you have described, and as large as you say it will be, may be subject to state regulations. There may be evironmental requirements that must be met. State permits may be required. If so, has any of this been done?

You might try and find out if you have a lever here somewhere.

Disclosures and disclaimers:

The above is based on my general experiences in several states, none of which is Oklahoma.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (but make me an interesting offer, and I'll give it a twirl).

SnowRidge

 

[RanchMan]

Rancar

Thanks for the compliment! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Like Mike was saying, issues like this are what zoning is supposed to take care of. Although I don't really like the concept of zoning per se, it exists in a majority of places, and as long as the buyer agrees to the conditions of the sale (e.g. the zoning/easements/right-of-ways/etc.), then if they decide they don't like the restrictions later on, well, that's their tough luck. (They have no room to complain -- they made their bed, now they got to sleep in it.)

Where I start to have a real problem with zoning is when a bunch of neighbors (often newbies to the area /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif) come in and "gang up" on someone (often someone who has been in the area for years) in an attempt to change the zoning/restrictions on SOMEONE ELSE'S property.

I've seen it happen multiple times - most often where some poor fellow sets up a business out in the middle of Timbuck-Two a dozen years earlier and some subdivision sprouts up around him overnight. All of the sudden “majority rule” comes in to play and he has to sell out due to pressure (in the form of lawsuits most of the time.) Not only does it often completely kill his business, but it often empties his pockets due to him trying to comply with new restrictions imposed on him or fight back in court. Just plain wrong, no matter which way you slice it.

Laws are intended to protect society, but more importantly, intended to protect individuals. A lot of times zoning laws serve to protect the masses at the expense of the individual. Like I said, a lot of places have zoning, but it isn’t required by any means. Some folks may like Houston, some people may hate it, but there’s no denying that it can be considered a “successful” city (~540 square miles/2.5 million people) - and it doesn’t have any zoning (it’s been voted down by the citizenry multiple times over the years.) There are definitely ordinances in place - but overall, Houston is very “pro” property rights - far more than a lot of other cities around where local government feels the “need” to take control in telling individuals what they can/can’t do with their land.

If someone wants to live in a zoned area - that’s fine - I don’t have a problem with that, it’s their choice. I just think it’s unfortunate because zoning is just a legalized way of your neighbors telling you what you can or can’t do with your property, which goes against my principles.

 

[rancar]

Another fine post Ranchman. Boy....are you a sharp one. Just a couple comments that feed into your line of thinking.

<font color="blue">"...Where I start to have a real problem with zoning is when a bunch of neighbors (often newbies to the area ) come in and "gang up" on someone (often someone who has been in the area for years) in an attempt to change the zoning/restrictions on SOMEONE ELSE'S property...</font>

I have similar problem that may be developing in my area, but primarily associated with our local right to farm law. Countryside is slowly developing with new folks coming in and buying up their 5-10 acre parcels. We have a situation nearby where a local chicken farm has a composting operation. On certain days in the summer when the wind blows just right the stench drifts several miles and becomes overwhelming. I'm used to this.....and in fact almost relish it as it reminds me of the barnyard 'smells' that a place in the country should have. But, newcomers somehow can't seem to cope. Neighbor of mine came over one day and was looking to generate some support to start a class action lawsuit against this chicken operation. I quickly showed him off the property.

<font color="blue">"...Some folks may like Houston, some people may hate it, but there’s no denying that it can be considered a “successful” city (~540 square miles/2.5 million people) - and it doesn’t have any zoning (it’s been voted down by the citizenry multiple times over the years.)..."</font>

I'm an urban planner by training and am somewhat familiar with Houston as we studied it a bit in planning school. You are correct in that it doesn't have zoning but what it does have unfortunately as a result is some of the worst traffic congestion of any major urban area in America. Lack of zoning translated into urban sprawl conditions resulting in inefficient transportation networks that can't optimally handle current traffic loads. The city's HOV lanes have helped somewhat but traffic has been a persistent problem. Houston though is a very interesting case study on zoning issues or lack thereof and its resultant impact on land use development.

....Bob

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Ranchman,

I am replying to your post before reading the rest of the thread...

While I can agree with you about each using his land how he likes, I can also expect that the other guy should use his land in a way that does not infringe on me.

I used to LOVE motorcycles...never even had a car until after I got married...BUT those motocrossers are REALLY noisy. If they could stop their noise at the property line, then fine. But they can't, and so they are using the other guys property without permission to dissapate that noise pollution. [wish I could spell better... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif]

What if someone decided to dump hazadous waste on their property and it ran onto yours...would this be OK?

To each his own as long as it is not infringing on the neighbors!

There was a thread here a while back about a neighbor that had a shooting range set up, and shot in the direction of the neighbor's house...That guy said that was OK because he and his friends "never missed." Would you feel satisfied with that situation if you were on the end the guns were pointed at?

I basically agree with you but in this case the noise of the motocross track is something I would not want to live with. And those people probably don't care about the distress the noise might cause thier neighbors.

So why should the poster care what distress a bunch of pig dung [not the preferred term] causes them? Noise goes one way, smell goes the other. Fair is fair.

Just like you Ranchman, this thread struck a nerve. In my case, it is the wonder of why people can not consider their neighbors before doing things, that causes me to want to cry out... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Just outside of Austin there is a sign that was put up years ago where a subdivision was being built near a farm. It read something like this: NOTICE: THIS IS A DAIRY FARM AND HAS BEEN FOR OVER FORTY YEARS. OCCASIONALLY, THERE WILL BE FOUL ODORS EMITTED FROM THIS FARM.
The sign was placed where anyone moving into the subdivision would have to see it. It is still there. The farm is too.
Kyle

 

[RanchMan]

Thanks again Rancar -

<font color="blue">zoning but what it does have unfortunately as a result is some of the worst traffic congestion of any major urban area in America. </font>

I won't disagree that Houston has really bad traffic (I lived there for a number of years), however, I'm not as convinced as you that the zoning (or lack thereof) is the major culprit. Perhaps it is a factor, but the main reason?

I don't have studies to back me up, but I have experience. I've spent a LOT of time in major cities across the U.S. - including, but not limited to such zoned cities as Boston, Chicago and L.A.. "Good" traffic in these zoned cities? Nope. I can't say why it is sooooo bad in these other places, but it is.

May zoning contribute in some way? Perhaps. Perhaps L.A. would have substantially worse traffic if there was no zoning in place - or perhaps it would simply remain at its existing nightmarish level. Of course this is an impossible thing to prove one way or the other because even if you could wave a “magic wand” and removed all existing zoning, it would take years for entropy to take place within the newly “de-zoned” area, by which time other factors would have make an impact (population changes, changes in the local economy, changes in available funds for road construction/enhancements, etc.)

How a number of variables (including zoning) come together paint the picture as to what traffic patterns would/should be. To me, areas such as this are “fuzzy science,” in that while some mathematical models may be relatively accurate in predicting traffic patterns, they’re just that - models. Since there is more than one model out there, it suggests to me that various modelers weigh the variables differently (including zoning). Unfortunately there is no “perfect equation” (such as 1+2=3) when it comes to predicting traffic patterns. (If you come up with the "perfect" traffic equation, you'll be a VERY rich man! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif ) (BTW, as you probably know, there is a degree of "pseudo-zoning" in Houston in that residential areas generally congregate to a degree, the same with retail, etc. all without the imposition of zoning.)

Again, I’m not saying zoning doesn’t potentially lead to some problems for society (e.g. traffic - which nobody likes). How much? I don't really know. Regardless of how big an impact it makes, is getting rid of traffic worth squashing individual property rights? Not in my book. I personally don’t agree with concept of sacrificing rights for convenience.

 

[RanchMan]

Henro -

My reply takes some of your statements out of order (without changing meaning) - mainly just because it helps my post "flow" better - so please bear with me...

<font color="blue">in this case the noise of the motocross track is something I would not want to live with.</font>

I concur - I even told Raptor I'm not fond of cycles. Believe me when I understand not wanting those folks as neighbors.

<font color="blue">And those people probably don't care about the distress the noise might cause their neighbors. </font>

Perhaps - perhaps not. I have not got the impression that Raptor has spoken with them. (Raptor clarify?) Where you assume they are inconsiderate "jerky" people, I make no assumption. Let me offer a different perspective.

Perhaps the entire reason they set up a place where <font color="red">"The county road is little more than a cow trail"</font> was because they were trying to avoid impacting people. Don't know about your neck of the woods, but are you suggesting a dirt bike/atv track should be set up in a populated/city setting??? /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Let's see, how many people would be hacked off then! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Again, I have ***no*** idea how populated it is down this "cow trail" road, but it sounds like it's pretty unpopulated, and if Raptor is always in Missouri (assumption), do you expect the cycle folks to go to the county registrar and contact every farm/ranch owner within a radius of XX miles to ask if its "OK?" Doesn't matter if they are jerks or the nicest folks in the world, they don't owe Raptor anything.

<font color="blue">JIn my case, it is the wonder of why people can not consider their neighbors before doing things </font>

I do not know how much time Raptor spends on his place in Oklahoma, but since he lives in Missouri, it doesn't really strike me as odd if he wasn't contacted to get "permission." Would it have been "neighborly" for them to give Raptor a buzz on the telephone? Yes. Do they owe him a phone call and require his permission to proceed? Absolutely not.

<font color="blue">I can also expect that the other guy should use his land in a way that does not infringe on me. </font>

I understand where you are coming from on this point, but not sure it is so “clear cut” as you seem to imply. The definition of "infringement” is where this whole thing gets slippery. Is having “quiet property” a right? Let’s turn the tables for a minute. Let’s say there was no cycle track but an old retired couple that lived on that property. What if Raptor decided he wanted to start a chicken farm (he likes birds, after all.) What if his neighbor was adverse to hearing the roosters crow first thing in the morning (I personally hate that sound myself.) Should Raptor be FORCED to shut down his operation for “sound pollution?” Should he have checked with the neighbors to see if it was “OK” before he set everything up? (Yes, I neglected the whole smell thing.) What if he raised cattle instead and they hated the sound of “MOOOooooo” - which carries A loooooooong way. Same in principle (annoying & unwanted sound by the neighbors - just because it isn’t mechanical doesn’t mean they necessarily dislike it any less.)

A retort could simply be to say "Those old folks should expect to hear chickens and cows in a rural setting!" Perhaps - but perhaps none of the other landowners had chickens or cows when they purchased. (Again, these are just hypothetical examples, so how many chickens or cows are running ‘round near Raptor’s place are irrelevant.)

<font color="blue">What if someone decided to dump hazadous waste on their property and it ran onto yours...would this be OK? </font>

You’re making a bit of a leap here - I never advocated that the cycle folks physically hurt Raptor’s property. As a matter of fact, in my very first paragraph of my last post, I said if they cycle folks trespassed or did some other illegal activity (having toxic waste run across some else's place is illegal - even in Oklahoma), it constituted a "whole different ball game."

That being said, if someone wants to put a hazardous dump on their property next to mine, they meet all the existing laws, don't contaminate the water supply, prevent runoff/spills, etc., then as much as I may dislike it I don't have ANY RIGHT to tell them what to do. I may not be happy, but that's tough for me. Again, it’s a matter of principle to me.

This kindof reminds me of the whole smoking ordinance debate that has been going on in Dallas recently. Basically, no smoking at all in restaurants. Non-smokers say they have the “right” to clean air. Of course, even though the restaurants are privately owned, they must comply with the new law. Doesn’t a restaurant owner have the right to allow smoking on property he owns (smoking is a legal - if not an unhealthy activity after all)? Please DON’T go in to the whole “smoker” vs. “non-smoker” debate here - I just brought it up as an example of government stepping in against the property rights of owners. (Kindof funny I would side with the restaurant owners who just want the right to choose whether to allow or not allow smoking in their establishments considering I can’t stand cigarette smoke! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif I’m nothing else if not consistent! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

<font color="blue">There was a thread here a while back about a neighbor that had a shooting range set up, and shot in the direction of the neighbor's house...That guy said that was OK because he and his friends "never missed." Would you feel satisfied with that situation if you were on the end the guns were pointed at?</font>

I won’t re-open that thread, but this is an entirely specious comparison. Give me one example, JUST ONE, where someone died from hearing a dirt bike on someone else’s property. Yes they are loud, but loud enough to cause death on someone else’s property??? No, I think the example you brought up is nothing what-so-ever like the situation Raptor is facing.

<font color="blue">So why should the poster care what distress a bunch of pig dung [not the preferred term] causes them? Noise goes one way, smell goes the other. Fair is fair.</font>

I’ll stand by my earlier post regarding this aspect.

 

[rancar]

Bill....

<font color="blue">"...I can agree with you about each using his land how he likes, I can also expect that the other guy should use his land in a way that does not infringe on me...In my case, it is the wonder of why people can not consider their neighbors before doing things, that causes me to want to cry out..."</font>

There are issues that you bring up and Ranchman identifies that may be two separate issues altogether. There are property rights issues that must be distinguished from nuisance issues that you are citing. There are common law nuisances, public nuisances, private nuisances, nuisances associated with non-conforming uses, urban renewal, zoning, and when there are violations of zoning ordinances.

I believe one has to distinguish between the rights a property owner has and the rights they legimately have to use their land as provided for under the law and when the boundary is crossed when that use of land becomes a private or public nuisance. This is an area that's resulted in litigious actions far too numerous to list here.....but, the point I'm making is Ranchman is right and so are you. However, to continue this dialogue where we can all learn something we have to be specific in discussing property rights issues or nuisance issues and when they interrelate distinguishing between the two.....not a very easy task sometimes. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

...Bob

 

[Chuck52]

Since some uses are already strictly limited by existing laws, such as the example of a toxic waste dump, the real point seems to me to be where you strike a balance between the rights of property owners to do as they want and the rights of adjacent property owners. Water rights is another of those areas where existing laws often limit freedom of action of land owners. In a recent Missouri Conservationist, which I'll now have to dig out, an example was cited where a creek crossed two properties. On the downstream end, the owner was trying to maintain the creek in a state such that fish and aquatic plants and animals could thrive, while the upstream neighbor found great pleasure in riding his 4 wheeler back and forth across the stream. As I recall, the law was on the side of the mud-happy individual. I would bet that is not the case in all states, regardless of zoning or lack there of.

As parcels of land get smaller, neighbor interactions increase. I can't say that I like the idea, but it seems as if the old saying about good fences making good neighbors is now becoming good laws make good neighbors. There may simply be too many of us to expect that an unenforced Golden Rule will work.

Chuck

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Morning Bill,

Let's look at the information we have available.

<font color="blue">The county road is little more than a cow trail, and that's not much of an exageration. The plan is (was) to move there in three years. Here's my dilemia, a couple of guys have bought the place directly across the dirt road from me, and have opened a motocross/ATV race track, expecting 3-5 THOUSAND people there each week-end.</font>

It would be nice if there was a little more information about the situation. If the businessmen are legitimate and have plans to improve access so their customers aren't a burden on the local road department and the local tax payers for road maintenance? Do they have plans to use natural and engineered methods to minimize the noise, dust, and fume pollution upon their neighbors?

From the post I read that we have some enthusiasts that have bought some property in the country where it's cheaper and there is less chance of problems with the neighbors. If it was for their own personal use then I'd have to agree with the neighbors learning to live with it.

But if it is as it sounds, a business for profit at the expense of the neighbors, then I stand by my original post. I know it sounds mean spirited and somewhat unAmerican to use a pre--emptive strike.

North of me about twenty five thirty miles are three examples of businesses attempting to move in and affect the quality of life of existing residents.

This area is becoming a predominately five to ten plus acre ranchettes not unlike a lot of TBN'ers. One of the businesses facing opposition is a race track for cars and motorcycles. Another is a feed lot. And the last is one we see everywhere, concrete plant.

If I had committed to a quarter of million dollar investment into my retirement home and then found out a corporation was purchasing four hundred acres for the purpose of a feed lot I would be concerned, very concerned.

When their enterprise is going to have a serious negative impact upon not only my investment, property prices, but on my quality of life, no outdoor events when the wind is in the wrong direction I believe community concerns replace property rights.

When a company wants to put in a concrete plant and they have a history of not meeting clean air regulations in other locations, again, I would be concerned.

Race tracks can be designed where they are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the neighborhood. But if the operators aren't interested in investing in a professional program then I would be concerned.

I will be first in line to support say a situation like the dairy who is being surrounded by urban sprawl. But by the same token if it's shown that dairy has contributed to the deterioration of the quality of water over the years or they have polluted then they should pay for the clean up.

McKinney Texas used to have a scrap yard by the courthouse. Years ago I've went there to find scrap I wanted for a project. Awhile back the pollution cops closed the place down. The businessmen who had profitted all those years walked away and left the city with the land and the extremely large bill of cleaning up. This included removing and replacing streets paved with pavement made from scrap from the batteries this business recycled /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

Put me on the side that says a deed isn't a right to ignore the interests of the community.