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

41–50 of 92 posts

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

#41

Post by Steeeve »

iaw wrote: post #14

I don't have much personal sympathy for anyone involved in this story. From a principled standpoint however, this appears to be a violation of property rights. It is highly unlikely that 'normal' people would've been able to reverse the transaction the way these residents did which makes me root for the clearly predatory real estate schemers. There's no moral party here it's just a question of what type of society yo…

I also lack sympathy.

But... I actually am a fan of the ability to reverse the transaction.

I'm absolutely sure that having people who are politically connected in the neighborhood was part of making that happen, and I'm just as sure that it would have been impossible for most people in the same situation.

But now that it has happened, people who lose their property via tax liens have something to point to in a last ditch effort to save their property. And given that these transactions are more dangerous today than they were yesterday, perhaps the prices that the auctions bring will be lower - meaning that maybe once in a while a regular joe will be able to pop in and get a deal.

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

#42

Post by quicklyfrozen »

harryh wrote: post #36
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.

The point is that there really isn't a difference for most of us. I've had a town send a tax bill to the wrong address, but there was still no way out of the penalty that accrued. We only discovered the problem when we realized we hadn't seen a tax bill in quite a while (it was still being sent to a previous owner).

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

#43

Post by iaw »

Steeeve wrote: post #41
iaw wrote: post #14

I don't have much personal sympathy for anyone involved in this story. From a principled standpoint however, this appears to be a violation of property rights. It is highly unlikely that 'normal' people would've been able to reverse the transaction the way these residents did which makes me root for the clearly predatory real estate schemers. There's no moral party here it's just a question of what type of society yo…

I also lack sympathy. But... I actually am a fan of the ability to reverse the transaction. I'm absolutely sure that having people who are politically connected in the neighborhood was part of making that happen, and I'm just as sure that it would have been impossible for most people in the same situation. But now that it has happened, people who lose their property via tax liens have something to point to in a last…

That is another outcome that I'd be okay with. If this procedure weren't a one-off but a new standard then that would probably be a higher net benefit to society.

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

#44

Post by harryh »

quicklyfrozen wrote: post #42
harryh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that there really isn't a difference for most of us. I've had a town send a tax bill to the wrong address, but there was still no way out of the penalty that accrued. We only discovered the problem when we realized we hadn't seen a tax bill in quite a while (it was still being sent to a previous owner).

I'm fine with penalties and late fees for people that don't pay on time because they didn't handle the paperwork properly. I'm not fine with their property being confiscated with no warning.

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

#47

Post by tom_mellior »

overcast wrote: post #6
tom_mellior wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really shocking is that a "private street" is a thing.

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

Yes. I'm not objecting to the concept of putting asphalt on land you own.

What I find weird is the concept of "the only access to your own home is someone else's private street".

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

#48

Post by icebraining »

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.

So what you're saying is that most places where you lived had privately owned sidewalks.

What's so surprising about private roads, then?

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

#49

Post by mikeash »

geebee wrote: post #21
mikeash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of karma do the decades-delinquent homeowners deserve?

I'm ok with some karma for the deliquent homeowners, but I see no reason why this should turn into a giant cash prize for a private citizen. I have noticed that people who support the buyers tend to point out the problem with wealthy and powerful people getting special treatment. I'm against that, but it doesn't remove my distaste for making money this way.

What did the buyers do that’s so awful? As far as I know, they were going to charge a reasonable rate for parking to cover maintenance and their $90,000 purchase price. It’s not like they were going to start charging a toll or something. They wouldn’t be legally able to anyway. Nobody was being forced to pay the buyers anything, they just had the option of paying to park.

What would you say should have happened here? I don’t see what else you could do with this land if you bought it. If the city didn’t auction it off, then why would anyone ever pay their taxes again?

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

#50

Post by geebee »

mikeash wrote: post #49
geebee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ok with some karma for the deliquent homeowners, but I see no reason why this should turn into a giant cash prize for a private citizen. I have noticed that people who support the buyers tend to point out the problem with wealthy and powerful people getting special treatment. I'm against that, but it doesn't remove my distaste for making money this way.

What did the buyers do that’s so awful? As far as I know, they were going to charge a reasonable rate for parking to cover maintenance and their $90,000 purchase price. It’s not like they were going to start charging a toll or something. They wouldn’t be legally able to anyway. Nobody was being forced to pay the buyers anything, they just had the option of paying to park. What would you say should have happened here?…

It's clear that we disagree about the nature of this tax bill, why it wasn't paid, and whether it's appropriate for the government auction off private property under these circumstances.

The strongest argument I've read here on HN is that if the wealthy and powerful don't experience the injustice of their own laws, they won't change them - and that less connected and wealthy residents would not have gotten a similar rescue from government.

Post reply on HN