4 ms·

The house is on the Stanford campus, and is under Stanford’s control. It can only be sold to Stanford employees, so it limits the value.

by jibe 4y ago

cdolan 4y ago
I think you make a great point and I agree, but to play devils advocate for a second... Do we think Stanford is lacking in people willing to live there? I bet it may even increase the chance (so long as the HOA is not all that bad!)
- mattheww 4y ago
  You're right, the thing limiting the value is not demand - there are more than enough faculty and high-level staff that want to live there. The thing limiting the value is the other restrictions that Stanford imposes on these houses - namely they essentially control the price the houses sell for because they all have to be financed through a Stanford-controlled lending program.
bee_rider 4y ago
It seems weird that they could us a property constrained like that to secure a bail.
- quonn 4y ago
  Why not? Many houses can be constrained by a HOA, state law etc. It‘s value and market value can presumably still be determined, so I would assume it can be used.
- strangattractor 4y ago
  I suppose Stanford could buy it back for the agreed to price thus providing them cash. Seems they don't need it however.
- ksherlock 4y ago
  $250 million bail secured by a $1.8 million house and that's the weird part?
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    There’s actually nothing at all weird about that.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Only because federal courts are consistently weird about it! :-p From an objective, outside perspective, it's definitely weird to say, "Put up $X to assure us you'll actually appear for trial. Oh, you're putting up .01X? Okay, we're cool." Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail. The full X is never actually used for anything beyond "look at us, we're a serious court, taking this flight risk seriously". (To pre-empt a thoroughly well-tread response from the previous threads: Yes, I know, in SBF's case, the parents are on the hook for the rest of the X, so X is, in a sense, "used". But their net worth is nowhere near X -- more like .04X -- so that just pushes the farce ratio down to .96X, which, while better than .99X, is still pretty darn close to X.) My earlier comments about this absurdity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868
      - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
        It’s a silly game they play, but the fact that it’s common means there’s nothing weird about it happening here.
        SilasX 4y ago
        That's exactly the distinction I was making in the first two paragraphs, about "weird" relative to existing practice vs "weird" relative to the outside world's standards for reasonable behavior.
      - 4y ago

The house is on the Stanford campus, and is under Stanford’s control. It can only be sold to Stanford employees, so it limits the value.

by jibe 4y ago

The house is on the Stanford campus, and is under Stanford’s control. It can only be sold to Stanford employees, so it limits the value.

cdolan 4y ago

I think you make a great point and I agree, but to play devils advocate for a second... Do we think Stanford is lacking in people willing to live there? I bet it may even increase the chance (so long as the HOA is not all that bad!)

mattheww 4y ago
You're right, the thing limiting the value is not demand - there are more than enough faculty and high-level staff that want to live there. The thing limiting the value is the other restrictions that Stanford imposes on these houses - namely they essentially control the price the houses sell for because they all have to be financed through a Stanford-controlled lending program.

bee_rider 4y ago

It seems weird that they could us a property constrained like that to secure a bail.

quonn 4y ago
Why not? Many houses can be constrained by a HOA, state law etc. It‘s value and market value can presumably still be determined, so I would assume it can be used.
strangattractor 4y ago
I suppose Stanford could buy it back for the agreed to price thus providing them cash. Seems they don't need it however.
ksherlock 4y ago
$250 million bail secured by a $1.8 million house and that's the weird part?
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  There’s actually nothing at all weird about that.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Only because federal courts are consistently weird about it! :-p From an objective, outside perspective, it's definitely weird to say, "Put up $X to assure us you'll actually appear for trial. Oh, you're putting up .01X? Okay, we're cool." Like, even accepting the validity/logic of the cash bail system, they should just be honest and call it .01X bail. The full X is never actually used for anything beyond "look at us, we're a serious court, taking this flight risk seriously". (To pre-empt a thoroughly well-tread response from the previous threads: Yes, I know, in SBF's case, the parents are on the hook for the rest of the X, so X is, in a sense, "used". But their net worth is nowhere near X -- more like .04X -- so that just pushes the farce ratio down to .96X, which, while better than .99X, is still pretty darn close to X.) My earlier comments about this absurdity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34810830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34599868
    - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
      It’s a silly game they play, but the fact that it’s common means there’s nothing weird about it happening here.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        That's exactly the distinction I was making in the first two paragraphs, about "weird" relative to existing practice vs "weird" relative to the outside world's standards for reasonable behavior.
    - 4y ago