9 ms·
Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back
- vkou 9y agoWhat'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.
- tom_mellior 9y agoWhat's really shocking is that a "private street" is a thing.
- overcast 9y agoI mean, if you own land, and a street is on it. It's private, yes?
- antongribok 9y agoA private street is not necessarily something glamorous. I live in a small townhouse community and our HOA owns a small street. Why I say it's not glamorous is because we have to come up with ~$100,000 in the next 10-15 years to do major pavement replacement (not resurfacing or sealcoating), because this street is not maintained by the county. For a small townhouse community that has not been properly saving for major capital expenses like this, this is not fun.
- ryanackley 9y agoNo. 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.
- harryh 9y agoYes, 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.
- ryanackley 9y agoOP seemed to be asserting that owning a house implied owning the road in front of it.
- icebraining 9y agoSo what you're saying is that most places where you lived had privately owned sidewalks. What's so surprising about private roads, then?
- ryanackley 9y agoNothing. My only point was most roads are public. I was referring to public side walks on the right of way not private ones.
- icebraining 9y agoIf 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.
- ryanackley 9y agoThe difference between public roads/sidewalks and private ones is called "public right of way". Google it. Chances are if you own property along a public street, you own the land to the middle of the street but for all practical purposes, it's controlled by the local government. You have to allow people to travel across your land. This includes sidewalks within the right of way area and they usually are within the right of way.
- tom_mellior 9y agoYes. 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".
- geebee 9y agoI 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.
- geezerjay 9y agoIs it that shocking that people may own real estate sold by the state?
- pkaye 9y agoIt 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.
- vkou 9y agoWhen 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.
- pkaye 9y agoI'm sure the situation is the same for these people.
- harryh 9y agoProposition 13 does indeed suck.
- smrtinsert 9y agoBoo-hoo. That couple deserves the social karma coming to them.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 9y agoWhat sort of karma do the decades-delinquent homeowners deserve?
- geebee 9y agoI'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.
- mikeash 9y agoWhat 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?
- geebee 9y agoIt'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.
- michaelchisari 9y agoThis is the biggest takeaway for me: The couple didn't know what Presidio Terrace was when they bought it
- EtDybNuvCu 9y agoThey 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.
- ProAm 9y agoAnd there were others bidding on it as well, it wasnt a secret these people just happen to win the auction.
- michaelchisari 9y agoI 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.
- rendall 9y agoWhat 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.
- ryanackley 9y agoI 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.
- harryh 9y agoThere 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.
- quicklyfrozen 9y agoThe 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).
- harryh 9y agoI'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.
- ryanackley 9y agoThey 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?
- harryh 9y agoBecause the government exists to serve the people, not to rigidly enforce laws like a mindless automaton no matter the consequences.
- hodgesrm 9y agoThe transaction was fully legal and similar to hundreds of others in the area where investors buy properties with delinquent taxes. I would have more sympathy for SF and the families on the street if they were actually working to change the screwed-up bureaucracy that allowed this sale to happen. However, this seems to be a case where money talks. There's nothing to prevent it from happening again or to protect San Franciscans who don't have an in with the board of supes. (Disclaimer: I work with Tina and can vouch for her character. The character assassination and racist comments leveled against her and her husband in other forums are dismaying.)
- dpflan 9y agoThis is interesting; the couple bought the street which has a privacy gate - do they own the gate too? Is is possible that they owned the street but could not legally access it (by not owning the gate)? Does that affect the case/transaction? I'm not familiar enough with the details. > Overhead View: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Francisco,+CA+94118/@37.7882787,-122.4619208,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8085872529f38af7:0x3b56539fd1e59445!8m2!3d37.7882626!4d-122.460805 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Fran... > Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-122.4593631,3a,75y,274.28h,86.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIE5-G3Z755ULATstmYZjkw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIE5-G3Z755ULATstmYZjkw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.3647666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-122.4593631,3a,75y,2...
- thrill 9y agoMost places disallow disallowing access to property you own.
- sidlls 9y agoI don't what the specific details are in this case, but there may be an easement. Generally property owners are entitled to access their real property. For example, if an owner purchases a plot of land that has no access except by crossing another property there is an "easement by necessity" for the former owner to cross the property of the latter to access his property. Whether the sidewalk owners can enforce it is another matter. (See also Kosla's jackassery around denying water access.)
- nsxwolf 9y agoIt's not clear to me what they get out of owning the street (or is it just sidewalks?), and what the homeowners lose by not owning it.
- sidlls 9y agoThey could charge for parking, for example.
- harryh 9y agoPreviously only owners of the surrounding houses could use the street. The new owners could have opened the street up for public use harming the privacy of the house owners. The plan of the new owners, if they had won, was to sell the street back to the house owners at a markup so that they could get their privacy back.
- iaw 9y agoI 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 you want to live in. I'd rather have the laws apply uniformly regardless of wealth and political influence which led me to my decision.
- tomnipotent 9y ago> 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.
- geebee 9y agoPatent trolls generally follow all laws. There are all kinds of legal ways to make money that I find extremely distasteful.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rendall 9y agoWith 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.
- Steeeve 9y agoI 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.
- nasalgoat 9y agoAs predicted. This isn't much of a surprise, really - there is too much money on the side of the homeowners to allow someone outside to own a piece of their area.
- clamprecht 9y agoI 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.
- harryh 9y agoA 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.
- clamprecht 9y agoThey're claiming a legal right.
- harryh 9y agoUse whatever adjective you want, the comparison still doesn't make any sense due to the involuntary nature of the situation.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- harryh 9y agoI'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 from the government about what is going on. The world shouldn't work that way for anyone, rich or poor.
- geebee 9y agoThis was a situation where a speculator saw an opportunity to get rich off an oversight, and it didn't work out. Hard to be too sorrowful about that. Wouldn't mind seeing more of a penalty for the rich landowners, though.
- phil21 9y ago> 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 common that those who owe those back taxes had no idea - or at least they claim so. That's never a defense I've seen hold up. The problem is that the rich aren't paying the piper this time, and then changing the way things work. They are simply saying "eh, obviously that's wrong! fix it!" while completely ignoring the thousands of people affected in exactly the same manner each year.
- harryh 9y agoWhy is your solution to the problem making sure that everyone gets screwed rather than no one gets screwed?
- fredophile 9y agoProbably because it's better than "everyone that isn't rich gets screwed" which is the current situation.
- jotm 9y agoForced to sell it back. This isn't the USSR.
- Cyberdog 9y agoA bureaucracy-induced property ownership spat between two groups of affluent people in a state that has defined limousine liberalism and a city which has personified it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cannonedhamster 9y agoThis is unequal application of the law. If this were an unoccupied house and the bill was sent to the person on file for nearly 40 years, there would be no way out of the foreclosure for poor people. The fact is that the buyers followed the law and the wealthy did not. The wealthy once again got a free ride from the system while working to put others in debt. This is what's broken in our system. The wealthy have the money and should have purchased the land back. Instead they used money to buy political favor. The rich probably paid more in legal expenses than just buying the land back. This is spite and exertion of power, money, and influence, plain and simple. If the rules don't apply equally to everyone, then why do they apply to anyone?