Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#31

Post by wl »

deadmetheny wrote: post #8
smrtinsert wrote: post #3

Boo-hoo. That couple deserves the social karma coming to them.

For what, buying land that legally went up for sale when a laughably low tax went unpaid for 40 years ? If this had happened anywhere else to people other than the ultra-rich, nobody would care and they'd be allowed to own it. This is nothing more than a demonstration of America being ruled by the whims of oligarchy rather than law.

Defective service is defective service. The tax bill was being being returned every year and the city made no meaningful attempt to contact the property owner before auctioning off the property.

The same result would have happened with anyone who could afford an attorney to pursue rescission of the sale.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#32

Post by harryh »

nsxwolf wrote: post #12

It's not clear to me what they get out of owning the street (or is it just sidewalks?), and what the homeowners lose by not owning it.

Previously only owners of the surrounding houses could use the street. The new owners could have opened the street up for public use harming the privacy of the house owners. The plan of the new owners, if they had won, was to sell the street back to the house owners at a markup so that they could get their privacy back.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#34

Post by harryh »

ryanackley wrote: post #22
overcast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you own land, and a street is on it. It's private, yes?

No. In most places I have lived in the USA, streets are not only public property but they regulate what can be placed within so many feet of the side of the road. So basically, they restrict your land use next to a road, even if you own the property. This is so they can add a sidewalk or expand the road at some point in the future.

Yes, most streets are public and maintained by local government. But anyone who owns sufficient land can build a private street on it. A piece of land doesn't magically become public just because you lay down some asphalt and start driving on it.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#35

Post by geebee »

harryh wrote: post #25

I'm sympathetic to the idea that rich people are being treated differently here. That's almost certainly the case. It's also, of course, always fun to see a bunch of rich folks get some kind of comeuppance. But, to me, it's also pretty clear that the original owners were in the right here. You shouldn't be able to lose something worth $90,000 because of a small administrative oversight without some kind of notice fro…

This was a situation where a speculator saw an opportunity to get rich off an oversight, and it didn't work out. Hard to be too sorrowful about that.

Wouldn't mind seeing more of a penalty for the rich landowners, though.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#36

Post by harryh »

ryanackley wrote: post #10

I hope the couple win this case. It's totally a question of privilege. The notice being sent to the deceased bookkeeper is the adult equivalent of the dog ate your homework. People who are out of work or live on a fixed income (i.e. more legitimate excuses for not paying your property taxes) lose their homes to tax auctions all the time.

There is a difference between losing your property because you can't afford the taxes and losing it because you didn't know that taxes needed to be paid and the state didn't bother to tell you.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#37

Post by phil21 »

harryh wrote: post #25

I'm sympathetic to the idea that rich people are being treated differently here. That's almost certainly the case. It's also, of course, always fun to see a bunch of rich folks get some kind of comeuppance. But, to me, it's also pretty clear that the original owners were in the right here. You shouldn't be able to lose something worth $90,000 because of a small administrative oversight without some kind of notice fro…

> The world shouldn't work that way for anyone, rich or poor.

But it does. These types of "investors" exist in all markets, and they are about the real estate equvilant of shady debt collectors.

They buy properties that have delinquent taxes and once the city sells you it there are "no backsies" - the homeowner/whomever needs to now deal with the "investors" that bought the property from under them.

It's extremely common that those who owe those back taxes had no idea - or at least they claim so. That's never a defense I've seen hold up.

The problem is that the rich aren't paying the piper this time, and then changing the way things work. They are simply saying "eh, obviously that's wrong! fix it!" while completely ignoring the thousands of people affected in exactly the same manner each year.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#38

Post by thrill »

dpflan wrote: post #24
hodgesrm wrote: post #11

The transaction was fully legal and similar to hundreds of others in the area where investors buy properties with delinquent taxes. I would have more sympathy for SF and the families on the street if they were actually working to change the screwed-up bureaucracy that allowed this sale to happen. However, this seems to be a case where money talks. There's nothing to prevent it from happening again or to protect San F…

This is interesting; the couple bought the street which has a privacy gate - do they own the gate too? Is is possible that they owned the street but could not legally access it (by not owning the gate)? Does that affect the case/transaction? I'm not familiar enough with the details. > Overhead View: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Fran... > Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-…

Most places disallow disallowing access to property you own.

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#39

Post by [deleted] »

geebee wrote: post #27
tomnipotent wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly predatory real estate schemers How are they predatory? They purchased a parcel of land on a government-approved website through a vetted legal process and followed all the rules.

Patent trolls generally follow all laws. There are all kinds of legal ways to make money that I find extremely distasteful.

[deleted]

Re: Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back

#40

Post by sidlls »

dpflan wrote: post #24
hodgesrm wrote: post #11

The transaction was fully legal and similar to hundreds of others in the area where investors buy properties with delinquent taxes. I would have more sympathy for SF and the families on the street if they were actually working to change the screwed-up bureaucracy that allowed this sale to happen. However, this seems to be a case where money talks. There's nothing to prevent it from happening again or to protect San F…

This is interesting; the couple bought the street which has a privacy gate - do they own the gate too? Is is possible that they owned the street but could not legally access it (by not owning the gate)? Does that affect the case/transaction? I'm not familiar enough with the details. > Overhead View: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Fran... > Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-…

I don't what the specific details are in this case, but there may be an easement. Generally property owners are entitled to access their real property. For example, if an owner purchases a plot of land that has no access except by crossing another property there is an "easement by necessity" for the former owner to cross the property of the latter to access his property.

Whether the sidewalk owners can enforce it is another matter. (See also Kosla's jackassery around denying water access.)

Post reply on HN