Letter: Consider who is responsible for Franklin County doughnut hole kerfuffle

May 24, 2013 

In 1993, we purchased a lot in the doughnut hole, knowing that the area had been designated a part of the city of Pasco growth area. If one did not discover this during pre-purchase considerations, who is responsible?

We also knew that to get water, we would be required to give a power of attorney to the city of Pasco regarding annexation. Considering alternatives, this seemed a reasonable consideration even though the covenant on the property continued to bind any future owners. If one did not discover this before purchase, or if the title insurance was not examined for exclusions, who is responsible?

I do have a modicum of sympathy for those who owned property in this area prior to the Urban Growth Area designation and objected to Franklin County commissioners. But lawful change occurs.

For the others, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes, the only alternative is to move on.


Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service