I don't see why the police would intervene
when Dennewitz is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have
a good adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your
rights of ownership. I'd suggest the following process:

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

Yes, the trust has bought 4 parcels like this to date. One was a road
that we sold to the residents who live on the road for a $2700 profit.

Yes, we have been called abusive extortionists. We just saw a good
investment, bought it (them). Now we own the property and do not want
people to use it for free. We offered to lease the land to the people
who live along Bigelow for $5 per month each. In out book, that is not
extortion.

Yes, we suspect that the County Authorities oppose us owning the land
and wanting to use it, but, remember, the County is who sold us this
parcel.

Dick Adams <rdadams@panix.com> wrote:

The property is not zoned for a shed. The shed is in violation
of the Pasco County Code or Ordinances.

Zoning Department experience deleted)

And you expected a Zoning Department to actually do something?

At the very least, the "818 Land Trust" would want to be sure THEY
are not liable for the zoning violation. If they send a letter to
the zoning department that they attempted to remove the sheds, but
were blocked by law enforcement, that should help defend them from
being accused of the zoning violation.

OTOH, a zoning violation for a shed? What kind of place is this?

What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
take the land from you by emminent domain.

Maybe "818 Land Trust" could offer to sell it back to the county.
But asking 1.5 million for the whole thing is just way off into
absurdity. If I were one of the adjacent land owners, I'd just back
off the land and tell the OP where to stuff it (after _maybe_ giving
him an offer that was 10% over what he paid the county,
proportioned for the part directly behind mine, valid for 30 days).

What I really love is that the County sold you the land at a
tax deed sale and now objects to you trying to make a profit
from it. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they did not think
of selling the land piecemeal to the homeowners at the prices
you are asking. Afterall it's 'strategy du jour' for elected
and appointed public officials to commit extortion against
homeowners. Do not be surprised when the County attempts to
take the land from you by emminent domain.

Maybe "818 Land Trust" could offer to sell it back to the county.
But asking 1.5 million for the whole thing is just way off into
absurdity. If I were one of the adjacent land owners, I'd just back
off the land and tell the OP where to stuff it (after _maybe_ giving
him an offer that was 10% over what he paid the county,
proportioned for the part directly behind mine, valid for 30 days).

Is there enough money involved to justify a PR campaign
against the County for selling off these parcels in the
first place. "Why did they sell it if they didn't expect
it to be used?"

Maybe they were not aware at the time of sale of the intention
to sell it at such a high price.

I can understand high prices where there is also a high risk that
it would not be sold. If I were an adjacent property owner, I'd
act to ensure that there is indeed a high risk that it would not
be sold.

I'd also hunt down the developer who originally sectioned
it off to find out why that was done (but it might be
something benign like an intent to build an alley that
was never followed through). I'd also explore my original
deed and land history to see if anyone made mistakes.

Cy Pres <c.pres@yahoo.com> wrote:

... I don't see why the police would intervene when Dennewitz
is clearly in possession of the land and seems to have a good
adverse possession claim against whatever previously owned the
property.

Adverse possession requires continuous and open usage for x
number of years. In Florida, it is seven years so his adverse
possession claim may not be good.

The offer was $500 for the whole parcel. Right or wrong in anyones
opinion, its our land and, as printed in the St. Pete Times, for now
we want 1.5 million for it.

I can understand high prices where there is also a high risk that it would
not be sold. If I were an adjacent property owner, I'd act to ensure that
there is indeed a high risk that it would not be sold.

Legal matters partially aside, I don't think your company is as adept
at spotting "good investments" as you believe. So far, the profits
both you and the articles mention are nothing compared to the expenses
you're going to encounter when someone(s) stands up to fight you in
court. Investment profitability should incorporate ALL the reasonably
expected risks/expenses and legal fees should have been an obvious one.

I know that things like this are often prohibited in covenants. But
it seems odd that zoning would disallow it. Aside from the uppity
neighborhoods that tend to restrict everything through covenants, it
is a common thing to have a shed out-building for storing things like
gasoline for the lawn mower. I've also heard of very small towns that
make zoning rules much like covenants. Is this what we have here?

Dick Adams <rdadams@panix.com> wrote:

| It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning
| Department to take action against the squatter as opposed to
| protecting themselves from inheriting a zoning violation.
| According to the OP, the Zoning Department took the position that
| they would take no action until the dispute was resolved.

What I would want to be sure if, if I was the owner of the land,
is to be sure I am not the one fined for having the shed on the
property in violation of zoning.

In misc.legal.moderated John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your
rights of ownership. I'd suggest the following process:

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

In article <j4ml94d126gelot1olqa702cv46r31nf5t@4ax.com>,
prabbit2@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
What I think you need to do is act on your own and assert your
rights of ownership. I'd suggest the following process:

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating that the
item is on your property, and the date by which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat from a rental
place and move the shed to a different part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be some sort of adverse
possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you came up with this
bright idea -- That adverse possession might take precedence over a tax lien
sale by the sovereign government.

The bottom line, you walk in to court, saying that the property is
worth 1.5 million (not what you paid for it) and you want these people
off your land.

| The Parcel is 580' by 21'.

Of what use is a narrow strip of land like that? Are you an owner or

prabbit2@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

What I think you need to do is act on your own and
assert your rights of ownership. I'd suggest the
following process:

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating
that the item is on your property, and the date by
which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat
from a rental place and move the shed to a different
part of the property.

That can get the person arrested. There might even be
some sort of adverse possession issue going on here.

I *REALLY* want to hear your explanation for how you
came up with this bright idea -- That adverse possession
might take precedence over a tax lien sale by the
sovereign government.

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
Dick Adams <rdadams@panix.com> wrote:

It was my interpretation that the OP wanted to the Zoning
Department to take action against the squatter as opposed to
protecting themselves from inheriting a zoning violation.
According to the OP, the Zoning Department took the position
that they would take no action until the dispute was resolved.

What I would want to be sure if, if I was the owner of the land,
is to be sure I am not the one fined for having the shed on the
property in violation of zoning.

I'm not a zoning expert, but my guess is that if there's
a violation and it's on property you own, it's your
responsibility.

Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
prabbit2@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

What I think you need to do is act on your own and
assert your rights of ownership. I'd suggest the
following process:

I'd suggest that you quit giving the person bad advice.

1) tag each item you want moved with a letter stating
that the item is on your property, and the date by
which it must be moved.

2) on that date, start moving stuff. Hire a bobcat
from a rental place and move the shed to a different
part of the property.

That is really not an intelligent tactic. Doing so
without a court order can get you into serious legal
problems.

If there was an adverse possession issue going on, the
burden is upon the person claiming adverse possession to
bring a legal action against the owner of the property.
So if there was an adverse possession issue, the owner
would have been served notice.