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

71–80 of 92 posts

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

#71

Post by torstenvl »

ryanackley wrote: post #68
torstenvl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By the time it goes to auction it's already been foreclosed on.

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

#72

Post by harryh »

ryanackley wrote: post #70
harryh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can obviously believe whatever you want, but if you think that the consequences of failing to properly file a change of address form and then forgetting about a $14 annual bill should be that dire, that's pretty extreme.

What do you think the penalty for littering should be? The death penalty?

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

#73

Post by fredophile »

harryh wrote: post #51
phil21 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Probably because it's better than "everyone that isn't rich gets screwed" which is the current situation.

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

#74

Post by icebraining »

ryanackley wrote: post #62
icebraining wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If people have to live space on their private land for sidewalks, then when the city does build the sidewalks they are building privately-owned sidewalks.

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

#75

Post by chrismcb »

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…

But... They were given notice. Notice was sent to the record on file. What more do you want the government to do?

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by ajurna »

harryh wrote: post #72
ryanackley wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can obviously believe whatever you want, but if you think that the consequences of failing to properly file a change of address form and then forgetting about a $14 annual bill should be that dire, that's pretty extreme. What do you think the penalty for littering should be? The death penalty?

The article did say it was a $14 Million Dollar tax bill.

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

#79

Post by rendall »

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.

With respect, this is not an argument, but a non-sequitur. I agree with you that legality and morality do not always align. However, if a legally binding transaction can be overturned simply because powerful people complain, then there is no such thing as a legally binding transaction.

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

#80

Post by rendall »

michaelchisari wrote: post #56
EtDybNuvCu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What alarm bells, out of curiosity?

There is always risk in investment and investing in property sight-unseen is perhaps very risky, but they felt like it was worth it to them. As the article said, sometimes you can sell off their investment for a profit. Other times, evidently, you can annoy the politically powerful.

Post reply on HN