3 ms·
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted; this really isn't that simple an issue and there's good points on both sides. While I think the police response here
by magduf 7y ago
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted; this really isn't that simple an issue and there's good points on both sides. While I think the police response here was utterly ridiculous, I would like to know why the homeowner supposedly needs so much money just to rebuild the house. Houses aren't valued by how much it costs to rebuild them; they're valued on how much you can get someone to buy them for, and an appraisal value is based on how much the land is worth (location, location, location!!) plus the rebuild cost. Insurance value is generally based only on rebuild value. Most of the value of this particular house should have been the land alone, and the police ineptitude didn't change the value of the land. The only additional cost is really the cost of demolition, which shouldn't be that much: bulldozers aren't that expensive to run for a day. What's more, the house's foundation is most likely in usable shape, and that's a significant minority of the total rebuild cost. Homeowner's insurance isn't supposed to pay you enough to build a house twice as big as your current one.
- lonelappde 7y agoI don't know, if I'm househunting the neighborhood where houses get invaded by shoplifters and then blown up is devalued in my eyes.
- magduf 7y agoA one-time event shouldn't affect the house values in a neighborhood significantly. If this were a pattern, then the house's value should have already been impacted before this. I don't think this house's owner would even be required to disclose to potential buyers that this event happened. However, if the suspect had been killed in the house by the police, this would probably be different, so it's good that didn't happen. A lot of people won't buy a house that someone died in.