Offline
as you explained it, the developer wants your property so he can assemble with a larger parcel(s) and achieve a higher density of re-development. With that backdrop, restrictive covenants that are contrary to that purpose will provide you with even MORE leverage. Such as:
- property may not be further subdivided
- property may not be assembled with any other parcels to create a larger parcel
- property may not be utilized for any purposes other than the current use as a detached single-family residence
- currently existing improvements may not be razed, nor demolished, and must be maintained to a "habitable" standard
- in the event of demolition by natural event, or unforseen events, or "acts of god", the property must be rebuilt in its former configuration on its former "footprint"
These are just some suggestions to consider. Speak to your attorney about what you're trying to do, and WHY. Use them all, and possibly some others your attorney may conjure up. Your property will be less attractive to the developer once he knows about these covenants. He may still be interested, but you raised the bar for him to clear.
Side benefit....IF your state allows private property owners to use eminent domain for purposes of "economic benefit" for the constituency (raising the tax base often qualifies), you will still be subject to those proceedings. Eminent domain will require you to be compensated "fair market value" for your property......no less, and certainly no more. I know you're holding out for a premium....but you won't get it IF THE DEVELOPER can (and chooses to) invoke private eminent proceedings (key word in that phrase is IF). If your state doesn't allow for that, there's less to worry about, and you're no worse off. But plan for that scenario...place the covenants, and re-deed the property to yourself for $1.00.
If the developer keeps coming at you, you now have the lever to get paid that premium you're holding out for, because he won't be able to develop the property to the standard he wants to, as long as your covenants prevent him from doing so. And the law will be on YOUR side for that fight. At that point, his path of least resistance will be to pay Sonic to remove those covenants, as long as Sonic is alive to remove them. It's a dark thought....but I don't know what you're up against.....it's not out of the question that if Sonic were to meet an untimely demise, perhaps his heirs would be much easier to deal with than Sonic? I've seen farmers REFUSE to sell their farms to developers, but upon their death, the heirs have struck a deal before the funeral check cleared the bank! Restrictive covenants are in perpetuity (as long as they're legal)....so if Sonic were to pass away (or even disappear) before those covenants were removed, the developer has a very real problem on his hands that dealing with the heirs will not resolve.
If you follow through, 1 of 2 scenarios will unfold for you:
- the first scenario is, the developer will lose interest in your property because you took away the very thing he was most interested in (higher density due to threshold of larger land area). just recognize that, if the developer abandons plans for your property, there likely won't be a 2nd bite at the apple.
- the 2nd scenario is that the developer is still interested, but now you have TWO transactions to get paid for. The sale of your house, and the removal of restrictive covenants.
Again, I say good luck to you sir!
