41–50 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it rather antisocial not to sell for public building? I don't understand why everybody sides with the holdouts. Also I feel sorry for everybody who lives next to a highway.
Isn't it rather antisocial to pave over someone's home?
I am talking about projects for public benefit. Some things have to be built somewhere, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone showed up at your house and told you that you had to leave, would you?
Personally, it would depend on why they want me to move. If it's so they can build something of huge public benefit and have sound reasoning for why it needs to go through my house, and I'm compensated suitably, then yes of course I would leave. Doing otherwise would be selfish. But if they don't fulfill all of those requirements, I would probably still move if they increased the compensation offering enough.
My father (commercial real estate developer) has great stories about persuading people to not be the holdout. The most common objection is that they're older and moving is a major hassle, and the most usual way for resolving it is paying way above "going rates" for the property. Interestingly, property owners theoretically can collude against a developer by sharing knowledge that the last person to settle has the bes…
I remember a holdout situation in my old home town that was resolved... differently. The developer offered way above market rates to the last holdout, who still refused. A few weeks later, while the holdout was out shopping, the developer had a "miscommunication" with a construction subcontractor, who drove a bulldozer through the building. Obviously, the homeowner sued the developer, but wound up only winning the no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it rather antisocial to pave over someone's home?
Not if you pay them accordingly. Moving is not that big a deal. I am talking about projects for public benefit. Some things have to be built somewhere, after all.
And so it came to be, that money was the measure of everything.
I hate to border on strawman-building, but... what if I told you that you have to renounce your laptop, your telephone number, all your social media accounts, all your pictures, everything you've ever hold dear, right now, "for the good of the community"? Of course I'll pay you "accordingly" (up to a point, i.e. just enough to replace them). Would you take it?
For a lot of old people, relinquishing their homes means losing memories and likely being uprooted from the community they belong to, which is what they really care about. They don't care too much about their bank accounts, because they are aware that their time is short and what really matters for them is the connections they can still make, the history they can pass on.
That sort of thing doesn't have a price tag.
My father (commercial real estate developer) has great stories about persuading people to not be the holdout. The most common objection is that they're older and moving is a major hassle, and the most usual way for resolving it is paying way above "going rates" for the property. Interestingly, property owners theoretically can collude against a developer by sharing knowledge that the last person to settle has the bes…
I remember a holdout situation in my old home town that was resolved... differently. The developer offered way above market rates to the last holdout, who still refused. A few weeks later, while the holdout was out shopping, the developer had a "miscommunication" with a construction subcontractor, who drove a bulldozer through the building. Obviously, the homeowner sued the developer, but wound up only winning the no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a holdout situation in my old home town that was resolved... differently. The developer offered way above market rates to the last holdout, who still refused. A few weeks later, while the holdout was out shopping, the developer had a "miscommunication" with a construction subcontractor, who drove a bulldozer through the building. Obviously, the homeowner sued the developer, but wound up only winning the no…
The homeowner likely got some money from the building insurance as well. So in a way, insurance paid for the property developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The homeowner likely got some money from the building insurance as well. So in a way, insurance paid for the property developer.
Can't the insurance sue the developer to recoup their costs? Seems like it should.
It has been said that naming things is fundamental to our abstract thinking. The ability to not only group some concepts together, but to give a single label to this group that is further composable, enables us to do more complex, more advanced things with those concepts.
To present a very clear example:
> In China, (...) they call their holdout houses “nail houses.”
Finally I know what words to type into Google Images to find pictures of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a holdout situation in my old home town that was resolved... differently. The developer offered way above market rates to the last holdout, who still refused. A few weeks later, while the holdout was out shopping, the developer had a "miscommunication" with a construction subcontractor, who drove a bulldozer through the building. Obviously, the homeowner sued the developer, but wound up only winning the no…
Sometimes the law seems incomprehensible. How is it that you can knock down somebody's house on purpose so you can essentially steal their land and all you have to do is pay for the house?
Stories like this sometimes just break my heart. When you are at a certain age, money just doesn't matter any longer. Although the world can't just sit here and stop development and wait for people to move on. I am always so torn on how to feel about these types of situations.
See this documentary: http://english.cntv.cn/2014/07/19/VIDE1405753920238884.shtml