5 ms·

DC cancels tax lien sales

92 points by growupkids 13y ago

noonespecial 13y ago
Witness, if you will, a perfect example of the fourth estate performing its function. The article that brought about this result was a modern masterpiece of journalism. Now ask yourself what would have happened if those in power had a bunch of warrantless "dirt" on these particular journalists and decided that they'd really rather just keep the gravy train rolling. We all have something to hide and something to fear.
- crazygringo 13y ago
  Can we please not bring the NSA into every single comment thread on HN? It is completely unrelated to this story. Let's just agree that the journalism is great.
  - noonespecial 13y ago
    We kind of have to. Journalism is under siege(1). The rise of the unashamed surveillance state makes it much worse. There's been a sort of "journalism is dead, who cares" kind of attitude floating around. It isn't. I do. We need to think about what we're about to lose. (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detai...
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Perfect... bring up the NSA every thirty seconds, until everyone is utterly sick of hearing it and automatically ignores anything related to the NSA... we can't thank you enough noonespecial, you are doing God's work.
      - obituary_latte 13y ago
        What a shit attitude. Try taking into consideration that people feel helpless. People are desperate to try and change things. People may be acting - not in concert mind you - to affect some change. Try to respect that these people you lament are at least fucking trying. If all else fails, stfu.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        If all else fails, stfu. Who was it who has the shit attitude?
        obituary_latte 13y ago
        Touche. It appears I have a shit attitude towards stifling expression on such an important issue.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        Though I should not be surprised, you misrepresent me. There's nothing wrong with covering the issue. It's just not helpful at best, and actively harmful at worst, to try to inject the issue into every possible place. We are intelligent adults; we are more than capable of thinking about more than just one issue. It isn't like there are many people left who haven't heard about it, and even if there were, the front page of HN has consistently contained several articles covering the NSA specifically for a number of weeks now.
        obituary_latte 13y ago
        As I'm not surprised you condescend me by insulting my ability to interpret your post, I guess. My point is: why inhibit it no matter the context? Perhaps this is a new user who isn't privy to the daily dealings of hn? Maybe they aren't aware that their effort might be better spent on a less-informed forum? Why immediately dismiss and discourage their input?
        13y ago
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Shivetya 13y ago
      Lets be honest, the press for the most part vacated the fourth estate in 2008 and still far too many of them like their new home. We need to not only protect those who report the news, whether they are traditional news people or new style, bloggers, from the government but at the same time we may need to find ways to prevent political parties from co-opting the media. Far too many are way to cozy with political groups and fail to realize when they voluntarily give up their freedoms.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        In 2008? Guess you weren't around in 2003?
  - graeme 13y ago
    It's a point not everyone considers. A lot of people have a comical view of what an unfree society looks like. They imagine oppression at every turn. In reality, it's usually subdued pressure or tacit awareness that someone above you can make things go badly and you have no recourse. I'm not sure the comments will stop, unless there's a policy reversal.
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    Every thread that discusses whether it's reasonable to expect the government to do the right thing needs to cite the NSA disclosures. Sorry.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      No it doesn't. Tax liens in the DC city government have fuck all to do with surveillance carried out by the federal government, notwithstanding Congressional authority over the DC government. Would it be appropriate for me to bring up the failings of Union Carbide or TEPCO in any thread mentioning a corporation? After they're business corporations too, and all business corporations are engaged in trying to increase their capital value... ...the point being that 'government' is not a unitary entity. Furthermore, I don't think you're the arbiter of how HN discussions need to go down - so while you're entitled to talk about why you personally find a topic worthy of repeated discussion, trying to frame your individual opinion as a matter of objective fact is a rather cheap rhetorical trick unless you're speaking on pg's behalf.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        Furthermore, I don't think you're the arbiter of how HN discussions need to go down Sorry, I forgot that position was taken. (he says, without a trace of apparent irony)
  - nugget 13y ago
    Reasonable expectations of privacy underpin a huge number of functions of modern free society including journalism as noted above. NSA actions have called all of them into question. We need more comments an analysis on that front, not less.
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    It is literally a story that changed everything. Everything we knew about journalism now has to be done with the confirmation that certain things some fringe groups suspected the government could be doing are actually being done. Hence everything to debate about journalism has to be updated.
- westicle 13y ago
  Personally I didn't think the article was particularly clear, informative or well-written. It was emotive and brought attention to a terrible situation. But on objective measures of quality journalism, I see better articles daily in tabloid newspapers. If the article wasn't so emotionally effective (and we didn't agree with its point of view) it might be more obvious that it was full of half-truths, weasel words and confusing narration.
  - haimez 13y ago
    You forget, emotional effectiveness IS effectiveness. Not the only kind, but in this world it's probably the more important kind. Certainly the easiest to achieve.
    - westicle 13y ago
      Oh I totally agree - the article was effective. But I think there is a distinction between objectively high-quality journalism and convincing writing. Most writing intended to be convincing (see marketing copy, political rhetoric etc) steers well clear of the facts or twists them so as to be unreliable. That doesn't make it any less convincing. It is easy to notice when you disagree with the writer's point, but I don't think having a noble purpose automatically makes a piece of writing a "masterpiece".
kqr2 13y ago
Prior thread on Left With Nothing (the article which spurred this reform) for reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 DC should also do a thorough analysis as to why the government failed and how to prevent such failures in the future. They should follow the 5 Why's process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
- malandrew 13y ago
  Unfortunately, my experience is that with government they just paper over the first why without ever getting to the fifth because the first why is visible to voters and will help them get re-elected. Fixing the fifth why would be so far removed that voters wouldn't notice and the effects probably wouldn't even be felt until the next person was in office.
8ig8 13y ago
This is an example of why I fear the disappearance of _news_. Investigative reporting is expensive. As newspapers wither, who will do this important work? This investigation lasted 10 months. It was speculative. It might not yield any worthwhile information. Who will do this risky reporting in 5 years. HuffPo will just sit back and wait to regurgitate the fair use.
dnautics 13y ago
the creation of an ombudsperson is a well-intentioned idea, but the words of the mayor are still troubling: "from this point forward, no District residents whose property has been sold at a tax-lien sale will be at risk of losing their homes through this process if they have extraordinary circumstances that warrant a re-examination of their cases." So, now we have to trust the city to be able to decide if your situation is "extraordinary"?? Isn't this backwards, this process should not be the default, it should be the extraordinary. There's also very little admission that there's anything questionable with the way they were doing things, and that everything is (for the most part) going to continue, move on along, nothing to see here. Even if you were to concede that there is nothing wrong with the idea of taking someone's home for tax truancy, the question remains, why weren't the homeowners at least compensated for the value of their place less the value of the lien? Radio static on the other end.
robomartin 13y ago
It needs to go farther than that. Nation-wide. In the US it is a myth that you own your home or land. This is true even if you've labored for thirty years and paid off your mortgage in full wothout ever being late even one day in the span of those thirty years. How is that possible? Simple: Property and other taxes. How is it ever right that the govenrment can take away your property? Property taxes in particular almost ensure that you are always on the edge of a precipice that can lead to the loss of your home. If, for any reason whatsoever, you can't pay your property taxes your home is gone. Poof! It is my opinion that property taxes in the US ought to be eliminated. The obvious issue of how to pay for whatever is supported through property taxes is immaterial to the central argument here, that is: a person ought to be able to own their home and truly be "free and clear". If a property is encumbered with taxes you never really own it. It's an illusion. Property taxes also have other ugly effects. For example, during the real estate boom cities found themselves with vastly more revenue than in the past. As often happens in these situations governments spent the money and made deals predicated upon the idea that the ride would never end. This, of course, was not true and whole cities have gone bankrupt as the result of their transgressions. With revenue locked to a stabilized metric (some kind of a ten year average of something, for example) this would not have happened. Property taxes are the devil.
dark_void 13y ago
I bought my house 10 years ago, and moved out of my house 4 years ago and kept it as a rental. One day 2 years ago, I received a notice that a homestead lien was placed on the house. Apparently the city had decided that I had never lived in the house at all. They placed a lien, with no explanation, no warning, and no avenue for appeal or even discussion. The lien, with interest and penalties, was about $10,000. The first thing I did was to contact an attorney. Of the 6 attorneys I found in the area who dealt with such matters, 4 of them agreed to speak to me but all 4 had represented the county in the past, and therefore could not represent me. The other two simply refused to make an appointment with me. Presumably they have bigger fish to fry and are not interested in my case. The lien still sits on the house, accumulating interest daily. I'm just thankful that they have not foreclosed yet and that it's a rental and not my main house. It's an impossible situation even for people with reasonable means but the poor and elderly are completely at their mercy.

92 points by growupkids 13y ago

Witness, if you will, a perfect example of the fourth estate performing its function. The article that brought about this result was a modern masterpiece of journalism. Now ask yourself what would have happened if those in power had a bunch of warrantless "dirt" on these particular journalists and decided that they'd really rather just keep the gravy train rolling. We all have something to hide and something to fear.

crazygringo 13y ago
Can we please not bring the NSA into every single comment thread on HN? It is completely unrelated to this story. Let's just agree that the journalism is great.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  We kind of have to. Journalism is under siege(1). The rise of the unashamed surveillance state makes it much worse. There's been a sort of "journalism is dead, who cares" kind of attitude floating around. It isn't. I do. We need to think about what we're about to lose. (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detai...
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Perfect... bring up the NSA every thirty seconds, until everyone is utterly sick of hearing it and automatically ignores anything related to the NSA... we can't thank you enough noonespecial, you are doing God's work.
    - obituary_latte 13y ago
      What a shit attitude. Try taking into consideration that people feel helpless. People are desperate to try and change things. People may be acting - not in concert mind you - to affect some change. Try to respect that these people you lament are at least fucking trying. If all else fails, stfu.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        If all else fails, stfu. Who was it who has the shit attitude?
        obituary_latte 13y ago
        Touche. It appears I have a shit attitude towards stifling expression on such an important issue.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        Though I should not be surprised, you misrepresent me. There's nothing wrong with covering the issue. It's just not helpful at best, and actively harmful at worst, to try to inject the issue into every possible place. We are intelligent adults; we are more than capable of thinking about more than just one issue. It isn't like there are many people left who haven't heard about it, and even if there were, the front page of HN has consistently contained several articles covering the NSA specifically for a number of weeks now.
        obituary_latte 13y ago
        As I'm not surprised you condescend me by insulting my ability to interpret your post, I guess. My point is: why inhibit it no matter the context? Perhaps this is a new user who isn't privy to the daily dealings of hn? Maybe they aren't aware that their effort might be better spent on a less-informed forum? Why immediately dismiss and discourage their input?
        13y ago
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    Lets be honest, the press for the most part vacated the fourth estate in 2008 and still far too many of them like their new home. We need to not only protect those who report the news, whether they are traditional news people or new style, bloggers, from the government but at the same time we may need to find ways to prevent political parties from co-opting the media. Far too many are way to cozy with political groups and fail to realize when they voluntarily give up their freedoms.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      In 2008? Guess you weren't around in 2003?
- graeme 13y ago
  It's a point not everyone considers. A lot of people have a comical view of what an unfree society looks like. They imagine oppression at every turn. In reality, it's usually subdued pressure or tacit awareness that someone above you can make things go badly and you have no recourse. I'm not sure the comments will stop, unless there's a policy reversal.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  Every thread that discusses whether it's reasonable to expect the government to do the right thing needs to cite the NSA disclosures. Sorry.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    No it doesn't. Tax liens in the DC city government have fuck all to do with surveillance carried out by the federal government, notwithstanding Congressional authority over the DC government. Would it be appropriate for me to bring up the failings of Union Carbide or TEPCO in any thread mentioning a corporation? After they're business corporations too, and all business corporations are engaged in trying to increase their capital value... ...the point being that 'government' is not a unitary entity. Furthermore, I don't think you're the arbiter of how HN discussions need to go down - so while you're entitled to talk about why you personally find a topic worthy of repeated discussion, trying to frame your individual opinion as a matter of objective fact is a rather cheap rhetorical trick unless you're speaking on pg's behalf.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Furthermore, I don't think you're the arbiter of how HN discussions need to go down Sorry, I forgot that position was taken. (he says, without a trace of apparent irony)
- nugget 13y ago
  Reasonable expectations of privacy underpin a huge number of functions of modern free society including journalism as noted above. NSA actions have called all of them into question. We need more comments an analysis on that front, not less.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  It is literally a story that changed everything. Everything we knew about journalism now has to be done with the confirmation that certain things some fringe groups suspected the government could be doing are actually being done. Hence everything to debate about journalism has to be updated.
westicle 13y ago
Personally I didn't think the article was particularly clear, informative or well-written. It was emotive and brought attention to a terrible situation. But on objective measures of quality journalism, I see better articles daily in tabloid newspapers. If the article wasn't so emotionally effective (and we didn't agree with its point of view) it might be more obvious that it was full of half-truths, weasel words and confusing narration.
- haimez 13y ago
  You forget, emotional effectiveness IS effectiveness. Not the only kind, but in this world it's probably the more important kind. Certainly the easiest to achieve.
  - westicle 13y ago
    Oh I totally agree - the article was effective. But I think there is a distinction between objectively high-quality journalism and convincing writing. Most writing intended to be convincing (see marketing copy, political rhetoric etc) steers well clear of the facts or twists them so as to be unreliable. That doesn't make it any less convincing. It is easy to notice when you disagree with the writer's point, but I don't think having a noble purpose automatically makes a piece of writing a "masterpiece".

kqr2 13y ago

Prior thread on Left With Nothing (the article which spurred this reform) for reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476 DC should also do a thorough analysis as to why the government failed and how to prevent such failures in the future. They should follow the 5 Why's process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys

malandrew 13y ago
Unfortunately, my experience is that with government they just paper over the first why without ever getting to the fifth because the first why is visible to voters and will help them get re-elected. Fixing the fifth why would be so far removed that voters wouldn't notice and the effects probably wouldn't even be felt until the next person was in office.

8ig8 13y ago

This is an example of why I fear the disappearance of _news_. Investigative reporting is expensive. As newspapers wither, who will do this important work? This investigation lasted 10 months. It was speculative. It might not yield any worthwhile information. Who will do this risky reporting in 5 years. HuffPo will just sit back and wait to regurgitate the fair use.

dnautics 13y ago

the creation of an ombudsperson is a well-intentioned idea, but the words of the mayor are still troubling: "from this point forward, no District residents whose property has been sold at a tax-lien sale will be at risk of losing their homes through this process if they have extraordinary circumstances that warrant a re-examination of their cases." So, now we have to trust the city to be able to decide if your situation is "extraordinary"?? Isn't this backwards, this process should not be the default, it should be the extraordinary. There's also very little admission that there's anything questionable with the way they were doing things, and that everything is (for the most part) going to continue, move on along, nothing to see here. Even if you were to concede that there is nothing wrong with the idea of taking someone's home for tax truancy, the question remains, why weren't the homeowners at least compensated for the value of their place less the value of the lien? Radio static on the other end.

robomartin 13y ago

It needs to go farther than that. Nation-wide. In the US it is a myth that you own your home or land. This is true even if you've labored for thirty years and paid off your mortgage in full wothout ever being late even one day in the span of those thirty years. How is that possible? Simple: Property and other taxes. How is it ever right that the govenrment can take away your property? Property taxes in particular almost ensure that you are always on the edge of a precipice that can lead to the loss of your home. If, for any reason whatsoever, you can't pay your property taxes your home is gone. Poof! It is my opinion that property taxes in the US ought to be eliminated. The obvious issue of how to pay for whatever is supported through property taxes is immaterial to the central argument here, that is: a person ought to be able to own their home and truly be "free and clear". If a property is encumbered with taxes you never really own it. It's an illusion. Property taxes also have other ugly effects. For example, during the real estate boom cities found themselves with vastly more revenue than in the past. As often happens in these situations governments spent the money and made deals predicated upon the idea that the ride would never end. This, of course, was not true and whole cities have gone bankrupt as the result of their transgressions. With revenue locked to a stabilized metric (some kind of a ten year average of something, for example) this would not have happened. Property taxes are the devil.

dark_void 13y ago

I bought my house 10 years ago, and moved out of my house 4 years ago and kept it as a rental. One day 2 years ago, I received a notice that a homestead lien was placed on the house. Apparently the city had decided that I had never lived in the house at all. They placed a lien, with no explanation, no warning, and no avenue for appeal or even discussion. The lien, with interest and penalties, was about $10,000. The first thing I did was to contact an attorney. Of the 6 attorneys I found in the area who dealt with such matters, 4 of them agreed to speak to me but all 4 had represented the county in the past, and therefore could not represent me. The other two simply refused to make an appointment with me. Presumably they have bigger fish to fry and are not interested in my case. The lien still sits on the house, accumulating interest daily. I'm just thankful that they have not foreclosed yet and that it's a rental and not my main house. It's an impossible situation even for people with reasonable means but the poor and elderly are completely at their mercy.