Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not think that a single house was built or even under construction in either of the two projects mentioned. You cannot build a house without utilities at the site and roads constructed -- that is the phase one construction that is mentioned.
Someone else will pick up this land and hold it for a while (until financing gets better) and eventual construction will be done. Check back in 10 years.
I cannot speak as to whether any residential housing was actually constructed, however, the comment about not being able to build a house without utilities at the site and roads constructed is simply not true. This type of stuff does happen and quite frequently. Texas adopted anti-colonia statutes because of it. The anti-colonia statutes were originally targeted for counties along the Texas-Mexico border. However, some of the anti-colonia statutes have been extended further into the state because of these types of issues. Travis County and Hay County became subject to subchapter E of the Texas Local Government Code §232, Subchapter E (i.e., 232.101, et seq.) in 2001. This is one of the weakest colonia prevention provision sections and it only "empowers" the county to adopt certain rules. Utilities other than water and sewer can actually be prohibited from being provided to the property until a determination that adequate water and sewer is or will be provided has been made. (232.029, if adopted by county) These places skirt the adequate water issue in order to get other utilities connected to the subdivision. The developer may only have to provide a statement identifying the water utility and claiming that it can provide adequate water for the subdivision in order to "meet" this requirement. Instead of actually doing due diligence, the counties counter with their own plat statements on the plats. Of course, most prospective homeowners never see the plat. The water problems hit a few years later as the subdivision is being "phased" in.
Even with the anti-colonia statutes, there are different levels of protection. On the Texas border, there is the greatest protection. Interior counties have less or none. Most of the time, the developer at best has to bond out the roads but not any utilities (e.g., water, electricity, gas, cable, telephone, etc.) Although the county won't let you move into a home that doesn't have running water, this does not mean that you cannot get stuck during construction with a house that has no utilities. It also doesn't prevent you from losing utilities afterwards due to failure of the developer.
The cozy relationship between commissioner's court and developers allows for the developer to avoid actually having to install utilities prior to subdivision approval. Typically, the developer will only have to provide financial assurance in the form of a bond or letter of credit. Of course sometimes those documents aren't worth the paper they're written on. In any event, the financial assurance is often only for roads and not any other infrastructure.
Before foisting the failure completely on the developers, however, you have to look at your own county/city for its part in the failure. The municipalities expect these places to pay for all their own infrastructure costs - while taxing them at the same rate as places that are provided with municipal water and utilities. The huge infrastructure cost is problematic for many developments. When the development fails, the municipality's response to the individual residents is to turn its back and claim it's a private matter between the developer and the residents - the residents are expected to continue paying taxes however despite the receipt of zero services from the municipality. If the development succeeds, the utilities are often privatized and the residents have no idea what they are going to be in store for with respect to price, quality, adequacy, or other terms of service for those utilities.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-13-2009 at 03:55 PM..
I cannot speak as to whether any residential housing was actually constructed, however, the comment about not being able to build a house without utilities at the site and roads constructed is simply not true. This type of stuff does happen and quite frequently. Texas adopted anti-colonia statutes because of it. The anti-colonia statutes were originally targeted for counties along the Texas-Mexico border. However, some of the anti-colonia statutes have been extended further into the state because of these types of issues. Travis County and Hay County became subject to subchapter E of the Texas Local Government Code §232, Subchapter E (i.e., 232.101, et seq.) in 2001. This is one of the weakest colonia prevention provision sections and it only "empowers" the county to adopt certain rules. Utilities other than water and sewer can actually be prohibited from being provided to the property until a determination that adequate water and sewer is or will be provided has been made. (232.029, if adopted by county) These places skirt the adequate water issue in order to get other utilities connected to the subdivision. The developer may only have to provide a statement identifying the water utility and claiming that it can provide adequate water for the subdivision in order to "meet" this requirement. Instead of actually doing due diligence, the counties counter with their own plat statements on the plats. Of course, most prospective homeowners never see the plat. The water problems hit a few years later as the subdivision is being "phased" in.
Even with the anti-colonia statutes, there are different levels of protection. On the Texas border, there is the greatest protection. Interior counties have less or none. Most of the time, the developer at best has to bond out the roads but not any utilities (e.g., water, electricity, gas, cable, telephone, etc.) Although the county won't let you move into a home that doesn't have running water, this does not mean that you cannot get stuck during construction with a house that has no utilities. It also doesn't prevent you from losing utilities afterwards due to failure of the developer.
The cozy relationship between commissioner's court and developers allows for the developer to avoid actually having to install utilities prior to subdivision approval. Typically, the developer will only have to provide financial assurance in the form of a bond or letter of credit. Of course sometimes those documents aren't worth the paper they're written on. In any event, the financial assurance is often only for roads and not any other infrastructure.
Before foisting the failure completely on the developers, however, you have to look at your own county/city for its part in the failure. The municipalities expect these places to pay for all their own infrastructure costs - while taxing them at the same rate as places that are provided with municipal water and utilities. The huge infrastructure cost is problematic for many developments. When the development fails, the municipality's response to the individual residents is to turn its back and claim it's a private matter between the developer and the residents - the residents are expected to continue paying taxes however despite the receipt of zero services from the municipality. If the development succeeds, the utilities are often privatized and the residents have no idea what they are going to be in store for with respect to price, quality, adequacy, or other terms of service for those utilities.
Very heavy reply..I'll have to go over this several times to understand it completely....my interpretation of this is the colonia statutes are grey areas of the law, easily skirted due to poor definition and enforcement..
in other words, consumer/buyer protection and interest is nil, and the developers have close to carte blanche to build at will, as they obviously have as little interest as possible in providing out of pocket, or dealing with involved paperwork...if they can build it cheaper and faster, and sell it cheaper and faster, all builders will.....law of the jungle...simple as that.
Very heavy reply..I'll have to go over this several times to understand it completely....my interpretation of this is the colonia statutes are grey areas of the law, easily skirted due to poor definition and enforcement..
in other words, consumer/buyer protection and interest is nil, and the developers have close to carte blanche to build at will, as they obviously have as little interest as possible in providing out of pocket, or dealing with involved paperwork...if they can build it cheaper and faster, and sell it cheaper and faster, all builders will.....law of the jungle...simple as that.
Sorry for the length. Easily skirted is correct. Also there is no penalty from a regulatory standpoint for misrepresentations. Instead of protecting the resident tax payers, the counties and municipalities have simply stooped to placing consumer warnings on the same plats that have the worthless assurances of water from the developer or his affiliate water utility.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-13-2009 at 06:06 PM..
Ah yes! Good for you for bring up those very important points. Those very issues were in the back of my mind as I was writing my earlier posts but I was tired and didn't have the energy to provide all the nuance, just a bare outline.
It is not as much of a risk in Travis County (although there are colonias here and it makes me spitting mad) and with high-end projects like the ones intended for the foreclosed land but there certainly is a risk of inadequate utilities or a whole host of problems with new subdivisions, particularly further and further out where the only government authority/protection is the county.
I would say "buyer beware" when you start looking outside the city limits. Within a city limit you are more protected due to all the regulations and permits.
I've seen developers buy hunks of land outside the city limits and do some preliminary work on a subdivision and then try to "sell" it to the city to get brought in under annexation and then have the city assume some debt for a MUD or have the city chip in for a wastewater plant. I'm thinking of what went on regarding Pflugerville and some of the subdivision growth outside the city limits. That might have worked well a few years ago when they couldn't build homes quick enough..but it's slowed down bigtime now.
Definitely buyer beware when looking at new subdivisions and the "promises" the developer is telling you about future utilities. And if you want outside the city limits..just get some acreage and do septic and private water (Manville) like I did.
Hopefully this may enlighten a few folks thinking of buying in the outskirts, especially out west...
I don't think the cities or other municipal entities provide much protection at all. The cities and counties actually rely upon these things as revenue sources. They are a tax base from which the cities/counties derive tax revenue while providing no services. These are all HOA subdivisions. The existence of the HOA is the first "buyer beware" red flag.
Even if the subdivision doesn't publicly fail, the homeowners are all exposed to the dark side of private governance from which the city will not offer any protection and actually promotes if not mandates. If you think the city offers some type of protection look at the condominium fiasco in Austin. The city was pushing condominiums - not because they are actually a "good idea" but rather because they represent a very high density tax base. Think about the tax dollars per square foot of footprint downtown. The city only provides some services to the edge of the footprint. The city could care less about what the residents in the condominium are subjected to. The city wanted it to look pretty on the outside (i.e., the flytrap) but otherwise it was just a huge tax base for the city to take money from to pay for services elsewhere. The city is relying upon ever-more creative ways of taxing based upon artificial values without having to provide services commensurate with the tax.
Mueller is another very public example of how the city is relying upon the creation of a second class of citizens that they can tax but otherwise have little accountability to. The taxes will be disproportionate to the services provided.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
