Interested Reader wrote on Nov 12, 2007 8:51 AM:
" This is a very serious situation, one that should indeed land in the hands of an attorney who specializing in these matters. Lake Neshonoc land owners, you need to unite and hire a man that I just heard speak at a seminar last week. He deals with WATER LAW in WISCONSIN. Do a search on the web for "Madison water law lawyer". I don't think I can list his name here because it might be considered an "advertisement". He could be of great help to you all! It is very unfortunate that the County has not called you all together to Educate, Inform and Work with you to resolve this instead of Mandating solutions. Very very sad! "
Old_Fogey wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:56 PM:
" Their land should have to be re-assessed as if it were not lakefront property. Furthermore, the assemsnts should be required to be rolled back to day one. With that should come the tax refunds, complete with interest. The county commissioners might be a little more flexible on price if they had to have it that way.
"
Common-cents wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:27 PM:
" Any price is a good price, the good lords not making anymore waterfront property. The good and the bad cut on both sides, but the land is our land and I'm not giving mine away for nothing and I'm not going to ask you for the rent the last decade or more. Pay and pay fast or the people will ask that a chain link fence be installed on the shoreline. "
Mack wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:03 PM:
" Jostad sounds like the smart one and knows what the property is worth and realizes it is a cheap way to clear up any ownership issues for some pretty nice waterfront. Be careful landowners, or you might end up like the La Crosse pilots who complained about $35/mo hangars large and secure enough to house an airplane. "
newt wrote on Nov 7, 2007 4:51 PM:
" As I said,the Tribune could do a great public service by providing some information on land issues i.e. eminent domain and adverse possession, as well as title insurance and the value and security that a survery does or does not provide. These landowners cannot claim adverse possession against the county. Even if they could, the price of the most expensive parcel is cheap compared to what a lawsuit would cost. Come on Marc and Dan - let's provide the public with some solid information on these topics. "
broke tax payer wrote on Nov 7, 2007 1:12 PM:
" Mr Jostad should do his home work. The property on the other(south) side of the lake, some of it owned all the way to the shoreline is assesed at between 64cents, and a buck and a quarter per square foot according to the county records for 2007.Not the 4.88 pr sq ft he's gonna pay He shouldn't be so quick to kneel down in front of the county board altar with his check book in hand, considering the fact they're tryin to reap a windfall from something that was screwed up 60 years ago by the county. "
notme wrote on Nov 7, 2007 12:04 PM:
" First, ALL these properties should have their assessments significantly reduced, as they are NOT waterfront. Second, if the deed documents are wrong, then the title companies NEED TO PAY all over paid back taxes, etc. that's why you buy title insurance. Third, the county offering the property at fair market value is the correct thing to do. Fourth, those, who have maintained or improved the property for a number of years most likely, have an adverse possession claim. In the end, I'd say the courts are going to be VERY BUSY, as each owner will file a lawsuit against the county for adverse possession, and a second against the title insurance company, and a third against the assessor. In the mean time, with all this lakefront property "OFF THE BOOKS," I would expect huge tax increases for the rest of the municipality. "
B wrote on Nov 7, 2007 11:37 AM:
" As a taxpayer in La Crosse County, the County better make these people pay market value for this land - that is their obligation to every other taxpayer of this County. Maybe these people did pay taxes as if they owned waterfront property, but then again, they were enjoying the use of the County's land and the waterfront for that period of time too. If they want to go back and have their taxes adjusted for the past - then I think it would be fair for them to also pay rent to the County for having their docks and other things on the County's property for all those years. If they choose to not buy this land, then their assessments should go down accordingly - but as for the past, they enjoyed using the waterfront and they paid for it - let it be! "
Anon writer wrote on Nov 7, 2007 9:52 AM:
" At the time the property was last sold, a title had to be issued which showed specific descriptions and measurements of the lots. If these were in error, perhaps the title company should pony up the funds to pay for this. If they were sold 'waterfront' property and the land was taxed as such, someone needs to pay for the error made, but not these property owners. "
crank wrote on Nov 7, 2007 8:29 AM:
" I guess if the current owners are willing to pay the county, let them pay.
However, I agree with Newt on the issue adverse possession. There is plenty of evidence in the form of tax documents to support a claim. If they want to pay an attorney, they might end up spending less than they would pay the county to buy the land.
"
fatbastard wrote on Nov 7, 2007 7:53 AM:
" No tax credits in store here? "
Nikki Beaverhausen wrote on Nov 7, 2007 6:43 AM:
" So I need someone to explain to me how it is that these property owners have been assessed as waterfront, paying taxes on waterfront and now if they purchase this land they will significantly increase the value of their property because it will be waterfront. What? Ok, let's just accept that they have to pay because the government always wins, that shouldn't increase their value which has been overassessed all this time. How about if they decide to pass? Must the government reimburse them for overpayments and reassess at a lower, nonwaterfront rate? "
newt wrote on Nov 7, 2007 4:43 AM:
" This story makes it clear that the public is in serious need of some information and education on eminent domain and adverse possession. How about some real information and reporting by the Tribune writers? Information is power - or is that why we don't see these type of stories? "
Ken wrote on Nov 7, 2007 3:04 AM:
" A "surveying quirk"? The county has to bring in taxes any way it can. "
Mike A wrote on Nov 7, 2007 1:18 AM:
" Yep don't you understand a error by the Our Goverment doesn't mean there are going to correct it--It's easier for them to TAX US MORE
"
BoBo wrote on Nov 7, 2007 1:18 AM:
" Now I would think these people have a law suit of some type here. They bought these properties under false pretences and were charge taxes for all these years for something they didn't own? Shame shame shame. Maybe they can afford it, but it sets a precidence for future scams by the county and cities. Yeah, you get all this... Then years down the road, Sorry, we lied. All this is actually ours. If you want it, you can buy it from us now. Whats saying they won't pull it again in the future? I can see them lowering or even draining the lake later on so it has 20 feet of new shoreline and doing it again. I say make them keep their "unbuildable" land and also maintain it. "
Advertisement
