New subdivision developments

[Richard Eade]

Was the decision of the three-judge panel unanimous? It could be setting a VERY far-reaching precedent.

Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that “in perpetuity” means 21 years, and that that is all the original contract can be in force for. (This is not even a full generation, anymore.)

There are many contracts that include ‘in perpetuity” clauses. For example, when you buy a grave plot, part of the price is to fund the requirement by the cemetery owner to maintain the grounds in perpetuity. If these contracts now follow the new precedent, then we are going to have a lot of unmaintained graveyards around.

This was a bad decision and goes against the intention of the original contract. When Clublink bought the land, they knew of the existing contract and agreed to abide by it. They were able to buy the land cheaply, because it could – according to the contract – NEVER be developed. They have since paid lower property taxes on land that was open space.

Am I invested in keeping the land as a golf course? No. I do not play golf, and have no interest in golf.

Should we be in-filling APPROPRIATE areas with housing? Yes.

Should this ruling be sustained? NO!

I may not be interested in golf, but I very much believe in the rule of law, and contracts being binding. It is wrong for this panel of three judges to make the ruling that changes the original intent of a mutually agreed upon contract, and change the legal definition of “in perpetuity” to be 21 years.