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

51–60 of 92 posts

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

#51

Post by harryh »

phil21 wrote: post #37
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 co…

Why is your solution to the problem making sure that everyone gets screwed rather than no one gets screwed?

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

#52

Post by vkou »

pkaye wrote: post #18
vkou wrote: post #2

What's really shocking is that the tax bill for a private street in one of the hottest property markets in the world is $14/year.

It might be that being a private street, the residents are responsible for maintaining it. Like paving the road, sidewalks, sewer repair. Those things can be a substantial expense for an individual.

When I own a private house, I'm responsible for maintaining it. The government's not going to fix my roof when it leaks.

My tax bill, however, is still a bit higher then $14/year, for acres of land in the middle of a land-strapped metro area.

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

#53

Post by geebee »

tom_mellior wrote: post #47
overcast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I think it was owned by something similar to a HOA. Because the HOA didn't pay a minuscule property tax bill, the private street went up for auction, and a private citizen purchased it. That private citizen now has the ability to charge the residents for use of the street, including the right to park in front of houses.

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

#54

Post by mikeash »

geebee wrote: post #50
mikeash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’ll ask again, what do you think should have happened here? Auctioning off delinquent property isn’t great, but I have trouble coming up with something better.

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

#55

Post by geebee »

mikeash wrote: post #54
geebee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’ll ask again, what do you think should have happened here? Auctioning off delinquent property isn’t great, but I have trouble coming up with something better.

So, what should have happened here? Not this.

OK, ok, you're asking, what should have happened, not what shouldn't have happened. I can't say it's a totally unfair question. It probably would be worth thinking this through.

But overall, I don't really feel like I need to propose a new a system for collecting minuscule delinquent property tax bills that doesn't involve selling off massively valuable property at auction to point out that this is a really bad and completely unnecessary outcome. Guess that's so obvious to me that I just don't feel inclined to engage with the question.

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

#56

Post by michaelchisari »

EtDybNuvCu wrote: post #13
michaelchisari wrote: post #9

This is the biggest takeaway for me: The couple didn't know what Presidio Terrace was when they bought it

They are, as the article explains, real-estate investors who do not always examine properties before purchasing them. The couple knew that Presidio Terrace was in a nice neighborhood and seemed to be very well-priced, and they also were bidding in many auctions, so that they probably would not have cared about precisely which properties they acquired.

I already understood their motivation and situation. But I still find it concerning.

Maybe it's the bitcoin effect, but when people start investing in things they don't know anything about, that sets off my alarm.

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

#57

Post by clamprecht »

harryh wrote: post #28
clamprecht wrote: post #17

I see this like I see a bug bounty. The bug is the fact that they were able to buy the property at all under those circumstances. Their bounty "reward" should be that they can keep the property that they rightfully bought. And now the public is aware of this problem ("bug") and can move to prevent it from happening in the future.

A bug bounty os a program run voluntarily by the owners of a service. This is more like exploiting a security hole and then claiming a moral right to your gains.

They're claiming a legal right.

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

#58

Post by mikeash »

geebee wrote: post #55
mikeash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll ask again, what do you think should have happened here? Auctioning off delinquent property isn’t great, but I have trouble coming up with something better.

So, what should have happened here? Not this. OK, ok, you're asking, what should have happened, not what shouldn't have happened. I can't say it's a totally unfair question. It probably would be worth thinking this through. But overall, I don't really feel like I need to propose a new a system for collecting minuscule delinquent property tax bills that doesn't involve selling off massively valuable property at auctio…

I think you do, at least if you want to convincingly argue that this shouldn’t have happened. The existence of a better way is decidedly non-obvious.

It’s not as if there’s a bunch of standard alternatives they could have used. Traditionally, taxation is enforced by garnishing wages, forcibly withdrawing money from accounts, seizing property, or putting people in jail. None of these were possible here except for seizing property. The only alternative I see is to just let delinquents get away with not paying taxes forever, which defeats the whole purpose of taxes.

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

#59

Post by harryh »

clamprecht wrote: post #57
harryh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bug bounty os a program run voluntarily by the owners of a service. This is more like exploiting a security hole and then claiming a moral right to your gains.

They're claiming a legal right.

Use whatever adjective you want, the comparison still doesn't make any sense due to the involuntary nature of the situation.

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

#60

Post by ryanackley »

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.

They told them based on the most recent address of the contact on record. Why should it be the responsibility of the tax collector to make sure this is up-to-date and accurate?
Post reply on HN