City demands homeowner buy $60,000 worth of 'sidewalks to nowhere'

All she wanted was to add a bedroom and bathroom to the small home she's occupied for 40 years.

But to do that, the city is demanding that Linda Cameron build $60,000 of "sidewalks to nowhere" and other "improvements to a nearby street."

The dispute has been moved to federal court, where the Institute for Justice is defending her property rights.

"No one should have to pay $60,000 in fees just to add a second bedroom and bathroom," said Paul Avelar, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. "The city is holding Linda's property hostage until she can pay the ransom to improve the city street."

TRENDING: Mail-in elections already encountering problems, serious accusations of fraud

IJ said Cameron is a victim of "impact fees" meant to "recoup the impact development has on public infrastructure."

"For instance, if a developer wanted to build a 100-home subdivision, a city or county could recoup the cost of installing sewer lines or widening adjoining streets to accommodate an increase in traffic," IJ said. "But by law, impact fees can only be charged when there is an actual impact on public infrastructure. Adding a second bedroom to a small home will have absolutely no impact on Richland’s streets or sidewalks."

According to IJ, a local builder helped Cameron develop a plan to renovate her one-bedroom, one-bath home.

The project moved along until the city threw her a curve.

"Richland's Public Works Department said she needed to renovate the public street behind her property – at an estimated cost of $60,000 – before it would issue a building permit. That meant widening 400 feet of street, building curbs and gutters, and adding sidewalks that don’t connect to any other sidewalks," IJ said. "She'd be effectively building sidewalks to nowhere."

The complaint in U.S. District Court in Eastern Washington seeks a court order halting the city from "applying any further unconstitutional condition" on Cameron's plans.

It also seeks lawyers' fees and $1 in damages.

"The sole reason for the city's denial of Linda's permit is her failure to comply with its condition that she cannot make the renovations to her home unless she also pays for unrelated renovations to the city's property – a street that her home renovation will not impact," the complaint says.

"If Fowler Street is suffering from some deficiency, that deficiency preexists Linda's planned home renovation and has nothing to do with Linda's planned home renovation."

The complaint alleges violations of both the U.S. and state constitutions.

IJ said impact-fee abuse is a nationwide problem.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that 40% of counties and 60% of communities with populations over 25,000 impose such fees.

"Some municipalities have even forced property owners to improve land far from their own property to supposedly offset the impact," IJ said. "And cases like Linda’s show that cities are not targeting just big developers."

IJ Attorney Patrick Jaicomo said Richland's "arbitrary impact fee policy treats ordinary homeowners like Linda and others as if they were major developers, but of course that’s not the case."

"Rather than encouraging improvements, by imposing outrageously high impact fees on homeowners, Richland’s policy strongly discourages property owners from improving homes in the city."