3 ms·

I don't see how the demolition price has any relevance at all in determining the insanity of what's going on in this case, even if it was free, they're still wi

by dusted 2y ago

I don't see how the demolition price has any relevance at all in determining the insanity of what's going on in this case, even if it was free, they're still without a building they purchased, and thus the situation is still insane.. Even if they were offered $2k on top of it being free, it's _STILL_ insane, because it's property they bought in good faith and any circumstance where they have paid for something and then being ordered to demolish it, is insane. And frankly, putting the focus on the price they quote makes your comment read more like "Oh, it's not actually that insane, they can get out of it cheaper". No.. It's still insane.

coldtea 2y ago
>because it's property they bought in good faith and any circumstance where they have paid for something and then being ordered to demolish it, is insane. That part is actually very reasonable: the buyer having "good faith" means nothing if what you bought was illegally acquired from the seller, or had illegal constructs, or was built without a license, and in many other cases... You can very easily buy something, and then be ordered to demolish it or part of it, or pay extra to the state to get proper licenses you didn't know it lacked, and many other things besides. It can even be taken away from you in its entirety. So, yes, you can trivially buy something in good faith, and still have it confiscated / be orderer to pay to repair it / or whatever. Not that different to buying a bridge in Brookly "in good faith". Despite your good faith purchase, it wont really be yours, and you'll have to get your money back from the seller, and that's if they catch him or even find him. And if he spent them and has no personal wealth, you wont get anything back, even if the court orders him to pay you. Buyers beware, as they say.
jjk166 2y ago
It's relevant because they claim that's the reason they didn't do it.

by dusted 2y ago

coldtea 2y ago

>because it's property they bought in good faith and any circumstance where they have paid for something and then being ordered to demolish it, is insane. That part is actually very reasonable: the buyer having "good faith" means nothing if what you bought was illegally acquired from the seller, or had illegal constructs, or was built without a license, and in many other cases... You can very easily buy something, and then be ordered to demolish it or part of it, or pay extra to the state to get proper licenses you didn't know it lacked, and many other things besides. It can even be taken away from you in its entirety. So, yes, you can trivially buy something in good faith, and still have it confiscated / be orderer to pay to repair it / or whatever. Not that different to buying a bridge in Brookly "in good faith". Despite your good faith purchase, it wont really be yours, and you'll have to get your money back from the seller, and that's if they catch him or even find him. And if he spent them and has no personal wealth, you wont get anything back, even if the court orders him to pay you. Buyers beware, as they say.

jjk166 2y ago

It's relevant because they claim that's the reason they didn't do it.