Rolling Glen Ranch Development

[AQHA]

I read in the paper the other day that it has gone bankrupt. Sounds like there is a fight between the county and the guy who is doing it.

I don't know who is at fault but they have been fighting and threatening court for some time now. The problem the guy is having is he can't afford to get this thing in high gear because all his resources are going into fighting the county. County is upset over back taxes.

[rangerider]

I work in the construction field and have spent some time in there. Nice views, but you gotta like the wind and in the winter add the cold. If you have the option of staying inside when it's tough out, okay. But had I a house in there, it would be dug into the side of a hill and super-insulated. And if I was going to keep critters around, there would have to be considerable shelter available. I've had water freeze in insulated containers so fast it was almost unbelievable. Lots of days, working outside is uncomfortable at best - and I do have a considerable background to draw on in that regard.

Right now the developer is having problems. Don't know the exact details, but we won't do work there anymore until the issues are resolved.

Don't mean to step on anyone's choice of a spot, just my perception and $.02 worth....

[Reziac]

Montana’s Largest Planned Development Bankrupt | Development | New West Network
and
Bozeman Montana Local News

Broadwater County Commissioners required Steve and Susie Cavanaugh to pay for the road improvements surrounding the development as a condition to approval. With an outstanding bill of $258,399, the commissioners rescinded subdivision approval in February 2008, and barred Rolling Glen from selling or transferring lots or homes

Planned to be a 2599-lot subdivision ??!! given average families (call it an average of 4.5 people per household), that would have been 12,000 people (including approx. 7000 kids), and the biggest "city" in Broadwater county!!

And where on earth did all these people expect to work? You can't just flood the job market like that, unless you want everyone's pay to drop to minimum wage. Or did they expect to have their own little mall economy way out there in the middle of nowhere??

And that's over 1700 acres permanently taken out of crop production ...

Anyway, I agree with the county... if a developer want to create a subdivision, they better be willing to pay for everything it needs (roads, water, sewer, and this is big enough that it would need at least two large schools, maybe three -- or did they expect Three Forks to gracefully triple in size and absorb all those future kids at its own expense??) and if they don't pay, they don't get to keep playing. And no fair making other taxpayers cough up what it costs to make your project profitable or even livable.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Montana’s Largest Planned Development Bankrupt | Development | New West Network
and
Bozeman Montana Local News

Broadwater County Commissioners required Steve and Susie Cavanaugh to pay for the road improvements surrounding the development as a condition to approval. With an outstanding bill of $258,399, the commissioners rescinded subdivision approval in February 2008, and barred Rolling Glen from selling or transferring lots or homes

Planned to be a 2599-lot subdivision ??!! given average families (call it an average of 4.5 people per household), that would have been 12,000 people (including approx. 7000 kids), and the biggest "city" in Broadwater county!!

And where on earth did all these people expect to work? You can't just flood the job market like that, unless you want everyone's pay to drop to minimum wage. Or did they expect to have their own little mall economy way out there in the middle of nowhere??

And that's over 1700 acres permanently taken out of crop production ...

Anyway, I agree with the county... if a developer want to create a subdivision, they better be willing to pay for everything it needs (roads, water, sewer, and this is big enough that it would need at least two large schools, maybe three -- or did they expect Three Forks to gracefully triple in size and absorb all those future kids at its own expense??) and if they don't pay, they don't get to keep playing. And no fair making other taxpayers cough up what it costs to make your project profitable or even livable.

Quite right! What would've happened if the county had let it go on is the current residents of the subdivision would have been told at some point in the future "your builder went belly up so you'll have to pay for the promoised improvements with an SID bond or they would've forced the whole county to pay, in either case it's wrong!
If I lived there I'd keep my eyes and ears open for the oppertunity to cheaply buy more lots around me and add them to my existing lot via reverse subdivision. Heck you may be able to end up with a ranch out of the deal...

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by jimj

Quite right! What would've happened if the county had let it go on is the current residents of the subdivision would have been told at some point in the future "your builder went belly up so you'll have to pay for the promoised improvements with an SID bond or they would've forced the whole county to pay, in either case it's wrong!
If I lived there I'd keep my eyes and ears open for the oppertunity to cheaply buy more lots around me and add them to my existing lot via reverse subdivision. Heck you may be able to end up with a ranch out of the deal...

If the developer can't get stuck with it, as would be right and fitting -- I'd rather ding the subdivision residents than the whole rest of the county -- nothing is more unfair than being made to pay for someone else's mistakes, or worse, mistakes you never had anything to do with (having not bought in the area at all).

One can hope that this experience will make at least one county view future grand developments with a jaundiced and conservative eye.

As to "reverse subdivision"... what about the covenants that are surely on the lots? I'd guess, given the small size of the lots, that they're intensely anti-livestock, and perhaps anti-farming. Covenants can be tough or impossible to get rid of.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Reziac

If the developer can't get stuck with it, as would be right and fitting -- I'd rather ding the subdivision residents than the whole rest of the county -- nothing is more unfair than being made to pay for someone else's mistakes, or worse, mistakes you never had anything to do with (having not bought in the area at all).

One can hope that this experience will make at least one county view future grand developments with a jaundiced and conservative eye.

As to "reverse subdivision"... what about the covenants that are surely on the lots? I'd guess, given the small size of the lots, that they're intensely anti-livestock, and perhaps anti-farming. Covenants can be tough or impossible to get rid of.

They may or may not get it from the subdivision depending on many things and from what I've seen so far counties have no problem spreading the pain to everyone in the county their mess or not. As for covenants, all it takes to change 'em is a vote of the HOA which the builder (generally) is the majority stake holder and would probably do whatever it took to get their butts out of the fire and make something.