Cimarron Hills - Not part of the city? (Colorado Springs: mineral rights, for sale)

[lurtsman]

When I google Colorado Springs and click the picture it appears that Cimarron Hills has a little box around it indicating that it is not part of the city. What am I seeing?

I noticed that in the "Gray Fox" area several houses are for sale for what would appear to be vastly less than the cost to build them. Does anyone know what is happening there? Huge HOA fees? City not sending police protection? Some problem with the land?

I'm completely mystified by this situation. I was doing a search on the cheapest properties and noticed these houses were vastly nicer than the other houses at the same price. One I could discount as a weird seller, but I see six of them up for incredibly low prices. It would appear something is fundamentally wrong.

Thank you

[719inhere]

Cimarron Hills, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cimarron Hills is a CDP, so they don't have their own government and are served by the city of Colorado Springs. If you click on the link for Cimarron Hills, and than go to the CDP link right at the start of the article, it explains what it is. It's done for statistical purposes. It's basically like an unincorperated part of Colorado Springs, just with a different name, considering the limits for it are all surrounded by Colorado Springs city limits.

[otowi]

It does mean lower sales tax for a store in that area, though.

[Maynerd]

Do some additional research. I believe this unincorporated area is part of the Cherokee Water District, and there have been grumblings the last few years about excessive payments for water. Similarly, it's covered by its own Fire Department, independent of CSFD, and I'm sure there are fees for this coverage, too.

Again, I'm not sure on the specifics, but if I was you, I'd be asking some questions about water, sewer, fire, and the like.

[Jcelmer]

Regarding the 'Grayfox' homes: If you check out the website for that area, (antelope ranch homes), you will see that they are an 'affordable community' with a LAND LEASE program.

Meaning, you own the building itself, but not the land it is on.

The houses are priced very attractively, and I was drawn to them myself because of this - but the uncertainty attached to not owning the land itself will likely steer my search elsewhere. Your land lease is in place of some other fees (I don't believe they even have an HOA there, but I could be wrong), and initially lasts for 30 years. You can sell the property at any time, as if it were your own land, but what concerns ME is what happens after 30 years. We had a similar situation in the great lakes region of Canada a few years back. Land was indian owned in a popular beach community. Once the initial leases were up (back in 1990 or so), the lease went from $500, to $5000....

Many people had to walk away from their cottages, as it was either pay, or hike.

Otherwise the homes SEEM very nice!

[Mike from back east]

That "land lease" thing sounds like the "ground rent" we had back in the Baltimore area, details here. We didn't consider it a bad deal to pay $95/year for ground rent, but out here it would worry me relative to knowing who owns the mineral rights on the land and the slim chance your home could be taken some day by some oil company who wants to drill on it. That may not be a valid fear, but until we get a local realtor on here who can really speak to the practice of land lease, it will remain my fear.

Back in Baltimore, many ground rents were owned by old-line religious colleges and organizations who bought land for a few hundred dollars an acre, over a hundred years ago, and have been charging ground rent every year since then.

[Marcy1210]

Land lease sounds like what they have in Hawaii. There is "fee simple" and "leasehold". If you buy "fee simple" you own your home and the land under it. If you buy "leasehold" you own your home, but you lease the land under it. The leases typically run 55 or 60 years, with the first 30 years of rent at fixed rate. After that, the rents may be adjusted and the lease often includes a clause saying the property reverts back to the landowner when the contract ends. Then, with the new owner, the lease starts anew, so theoretically, the landowner is an owner in infinity with the rights passed along inheritance lines. In the past few years, though, landowners have been selling their land, especially to condo developers and getting out from under the leasehold.

[lurtsman]

Thank you! Great information.

No chance in **** I'm buying a house without the land under it . That's sounds like a way for stupid people to lose their money. I'll go read the link now to learn about how the area is handled.