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

61–70 of 92 posts

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

#61

Post by ryanackley »

harryh wrote: post #34
ryanackley wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP seemed to be asserting that owning a house implied owning the road in front of it.

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

#62

Post by ryanackley »

icebraining wrote: post #48
ryanackley wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nothing. My only point was most roads are public.

I was referring to public side walks on the right of way not private ones.

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

#63

Post by harryh »

ryanackley wrote: post #60
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.

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?

Because the government exists to serve the people, not to rigidly enforce laws like a mindless automaton no matter the consequences.

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

#64

Post by torstenvl »

ryanackley wrote: post #60
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.

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?

Because it's always the responsibility of the tax collector? Because the government is the least cost avoider?

I used to work for a title search company that contracted with counties within that state to handle tax foreclosure. In order to foreclose on property for delinquent taxes, certified mail had to be sent to the most recent known address, the delinquency had to be published in a local paper, and a notice had to be posted on the property itself. I believe this is more-or-less the norm.

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

#65

Post by pkaye »

vkou wrote: post #52
pkaye wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure the situation is the same for these people.

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

#66

Post by ryanackley »

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…

I don't think it's a comeuppance. More of a lack of empathy.

If you didn't receive a tax bill for your house one year. Would you just figure that you didn't owe taxes that year? Probably not, there is a minimum level of adult responsibility required to own property. Part of that is paying your taxes.

It being mailed to the wrong address is irrelevant. The HOA most likely had officers that didn't get the address changed at some point. Doesn't matter that it was 17 years ago.

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

#67

Post by ryanackley »

harryh wrote: post #63
ryanackley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the government exists to serve the people, not to rigidly enforce laws like a mindless automaton no matter the consequences.

I agree but what are the extenuating circumstances in this case? Was the person responsible off serving in the Armed Forces so they didn't get the notice?

Nope, actually it sounds like someone forgot to change their address seventeen years ago. How hard is this to take care of? Or hey, even for someone in the HOA to notice they haven't been getting a tax bill for the last 17 years.

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

#68

Post by ryanackley »

torstenvl wrote: post #64
ryanackley wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's always the responsibility of the tax collector? Because the government is the least cost avoider? I used to work for a title search company that contracted with counties within that state to handle tax foreclosure. In order to foreclose on property for delinquent taxes, certified mail had to be sent to the most recent known address, the delinquency had to be published in a local paper, and a notice had t…

I don't think it's the norm because it doesn't sound like most of these things happened in this case.

Also, I've participated as a bidder in one auction where I live in FL. There was no notice posted on the property. I don't know if the other things happened.

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

#69

Post by harryh »

ryanackley wrote: post #67
harryh wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government exists to serve the people, not to rigidly enforce laws like a mindless automaton no matter the consequences.

I agree but what are the extenuating circumstances in this case? Was the person responsible off serving in the Armed Forces so they didn't get the notice? Nope, actually it sounds like someone forgot to change their address seventeen years ago. How hard is this to take care of? Or hey, even for someone in the HOA to notice they haven't been getting a tax bill for the last 17 years.

The extenuating circumstance is that it's obvious to anyone that this was a clerical mistake not an inability or unwillingness to pay the bill.

People shouldn't forfeit their property without warning because of clerical mistakes.

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

#70

Post by ryanackley »

harryh wrote: post #69
ryanackley wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but what are the extenuating circumstances in this case? Was the person responsible off serving in the Armed Forces so they didn't get the notice? Nope, actually it sounds like someone forgot to change their address seventeen years ago. How hard is this to take care of? Or hey, even for someone in the HOA to notice they haven't been getting a tax bill for the last 17 years.

The extenuating circumstance is that it's obvious to anyone that this was a clerical mistake not an inability or unwillingness to pay the bill. People shouldn't forfeit their property without warning because of clerical mistakes.

Sorry I don't agree. The situation was one of the HOA's own making. The tax collector didn't make the mistake, the HOA did. That's how life works for most people. There are consequences for making mistakes.

Also, with regard to there being "no warning". Why wouldn't there be an assumption by the HOA that they owed taxes even though they weren't receiving a bill?

Post reply on HN