Wow, this is the weldor of the [last] century

Did you note that they REFUSED to let him connect to the sewer line, and would not let him run his business without it? Also, they closed off the road to his property, and would not let him build another road?

It sure sounds like they went WAY out of their way to screw him over for good... But we never find out the true facts after such an incident.

I caught both facts , and I think you're right . They went out of their way to make his property useless for his intended purpose . Makes me wonder who owns it now ...betcha a quarter it's the concrete plant owner .

I did not quite understand what transpired.

Did he sell the property to Docheff?

Was his property a property that was disadvantaged by the existing lot belonging to Docheff?

Does it look like that Docheff bought out the city zoning commission?

Sounds just like the Oregon Dept. of Transportation. There was a recent newspaper story of how they have screwed several local businesses by giving them assurances in writing they would still have access to their businesses if they would sell a bit of property to ODOT for highway changes. ODOT went ahead and closed off access anyway.

Paul

I read this a bit differently. Heemeyer seemed to be in neverending fights with just about everybody in town, and the town may well have been trying to drive him away.

I've seen this happen in Mass.

You can't fight City Hall.

Joe Gwinn

Here's another approach (I've often thought about doing this...)

That is also possible.

My reading is that Dorcheff already owned the adjacent property. In '92, Heemeyer agreed to sell his property to them and then reneged. If you check footnote #5, you will see that there was also talk of getting legalized gambling at the same time. Heemeyer got greedy and the property deal fell through.

Heemeyer had been using their property as a driveway all this time. The new plant would block that access The city required him to get a sewer connection. The nearest point for a sewer connection was on Dorcheff's land. I don't know what negotiations might have occurred concerning that right of way, but Neemeyer seems to have alienated them long before the sewer became an issue.

Heemeyer's solution to the problem is evident.

Paul K. Dickman

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that uf Heemeyer had been using the concrete company's property as a driveway, he had a pretty solid case for adverse posession.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that uf Heemeyer had been using the concrete company's property as a driveway, he had a pretty solid case for adverse posession.

Paul K. Dickman

But not nearly as cool.

snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com...

And the bulldozer was probably cheaper than a lawyer.

Agreed (about the lawyer). But if he had used a lawyer instead of a bulldozer, we'd have been deprived of all this entertainment ;-)

The reason I brought up adverse posession is because we had a "situation" with a neighbor several years ago who had his driveway repaved, extending a couple of feet on our side of the property line. We were advised to "encourage" him to remove it, even though it really made no difference to us, because it could screw things up when the properties were sold, by way of adverse posession. In other words, it could f*ck up the title.

Paul, thanks, I agree with this analysis, great explanation.

Agreed (about the lawyer). But if he had used a lawyer instead of a bulldozer, we'd have been deprived of all this entertainment ;-)

The reason I brought up adverse posession is because we had a "situation" with a neighbor several years ago who had his driveway repaved, extending a couple of feet on our side of the property line. We were advised to "encourage" him to remove it, even though it really made no difference to us, because it could screw things up when the properties were sold, by way of adverse posession. In other words, it could f*ck up the title.

You were right, adverse possession does come into it.

But Colorado law requires either reasonable necessity, prior agreement, or continued illegal use for 18 years

Easements by Prescription

As distinct interests in property, easements-similar to ownership of land may be acquired through adverse possession or use. As with claims for adverse possession for fee ownership, claims for prescriptive easements require a showing of continued open, notorious and adverse use of the easement for the statutory period of eighteen years

Heemeyer was only there for 12 years.

Paul K. Dickman