In the challenging real estate market that the entire country is facing, many developers and real estate purchasers are looking for less conventional ways to finance their projects. Please see the link below to an article that describes several ways to finance projects with what I call "Real Estate Securities."
Effective, July 8, 2008, the Washington Department of Ecology has adopted an emergency rule regulating and restricting the use of so-called “exempt” wells for domestic water supply within Upper Kittitas County. Ecology’s emergency rule institutes a partial withdrawal and restriction on use of ground water via exempt wells in the upper portion of the County in an effort to minimize the potential for interference with hydrologically connected flows in the Yakima River. The emergency rule adoption follows up on the recent Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) entered into between Ecology and Kittitas County regarding use of exempt wells for domestic supply. The MOU was entered into in response to a 2007 private party petition by a group known as Aqua Permanente to Ecology, requesting that Ecology withdraw all unappropriated ground water in Kittitas County from further appropriation pending further study of the effect of exempt wells on senior rights and on the Yakima River. The MOU and emergency rule have been pursued by Ecology in an effort to avoid such a drastic result. The implementation of the emergency rule will occur in part through the County land use permitting process. The emergency rule, and a proposal for a permanent rule-making on the issue by Ecology, will complicate residential construction within rural Kittitas County, and is potentially controversial as to the legal basis for the regulations. The text of the emergency rule and additional information on the rule implementation prepared by Ecology is available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cro/kittitas_wp.html.
If you are interested in learning creative ways to structure your transactions through the use of entities, you should read the article below:
Legislation was passed in 2007 regarding Condo's and Homeowner Associations in Oregon. If you deal in those areas, you will find interesting the articles linked below:
www.dwtrealestatelawnw.com/DJC Reprint Legal Ease 5.24.07(2).pdf
www.dwtrealestatelawnw.com/DJC Reprint Legal Ease 5.25.07(1).pdf
In a decision that is certain to cause a few ripples in city and county planning departments, Division I of the Court of Appeals held that a King County Ordinance which limits clearing on property zoned rural area residential to a maximum of 50 percent, depending on the size of the parcel, violates RCW 82.02.020. Citizens' Alliance For Property Rights v. Ron Sims, ___Wn.App.___ (June 4, 2008). Finding parallels in the City of Camas' 30 percent open space set-aside for residential subdivision development struck down by the Washington State Supreme Court in Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 752, 49 P.3d 867 (2002), the Court of Appeals had no trouble holding that the clearing limits in the King County ordinance imposed an in kind indirect "tax, fee, or charge" on development prohibited by RCW 82.02.020. In so holding, the Court rejected County arguments that RCW 82.02.020 did not apply because the clearing limits were adopted pursuant to mandatory Growth Management Act requirements that require protection of critical areas. The Court found that the clearing limits adopted by King County were not required by the Growth Management Act. The Court also rejected County attempts to bring the clearing ordinance within the exception to RCW 82.02.020 for development restrictions that are "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat." The Court found that the King County clearing limits impose "a uniform requirement for cleared area on each lot, unrelated to any evaluation of the demonstrated impact of proposed development." The variation in clearing restrictions was based on lot size, not development, and thus was not proportionally related to proposed development, a necessary element to satisfy the statutory exception to RCW 82.020.020.
A copy of the Court's opinion can be found at:
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.