7 ms·

What's the property law in the US? If you own a house, don't you also own the parcel where it's built? How can a city destroy a house that has an owner, or is b

What's the property law in the US? If you own a house, don't you also own the parcel where it's built? How can a city destroy a house that has an owner, or is built on a private land?

otterley 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance
Pxtl 12y ago
Same reason a city can crush your car if you use it improperly. Your property is a responsibility because it does not exist in isolation. If you fail to live up to that responsibility, the city must take over the responsibilities. That may include destroying a fundamentally unsafe and unusable structure that exists on your property. If you can build a house in an impermeable bubble located in low Earth orbit, I'll agree you can do whatever you want within that bubble. As long as your property shares the same landscape and air and ecosystem as my property, I care what you do with yours. Ever lived next to a dilapidated home?
- lafar6502 12y ago
  Well, this is so nice - instead of asking you to fix the building or demolish it on your own the city will bulldoze it for you and hire the lawyers in case you have some objections that need to be handled. But what's exactly that law - what's an 'improperly' used house? Can they demolish it if your heating isn't working? Leaking roof? Broken window?
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Housing codes determine what is acceptably "habitable" and what is not. The laws are also more strict when the residence is a rental property, as American society would like to discourage absentee or delinquent land-lords and help protect tenants from bad situations where your land-lord is supposed to be maintaining a property but instead tells you to "go live with a relative" when the heat is out.
    - cpwright 12y ago
      For demolition it shouldn't matter if it is a rental or not. If it would be habitable by an owner; then it shouldn't be demolished. The tenant may be evicted or he could be fined or something; which is fine, but he should still be allowed to attempt to market the house as a single family residence.
  - Mz 12y ago
    Normally, this is done only in really extreme cases in the U.S. Part of the point of the article is that one city experimented with doing this much more aggressively than is the norm. "Takings" law is generally very conservative. In other words, the government can take your property, or a portion of it, for very compelling reasons. This usually happens in cases where, for example, a new highway is going through and they need to consolidate land to put the highway on. It is usually a very, very conservative process that errs as much as possible on the side of the homeowner. The article is about an anomalous situation where a city decided "hell, we have so many vacancies and so much blight, let's pursue takings much more aggressively" and, well, all hell is apparently breaking loose. Because, yeah, most folks react to that in much the same way you are reacting: What the bloody hell???!!! in essence.
    - lafar6502 12y ago
      I supposed private property is the foundation of american society, culture and laws. This is why i'm surprised it's so easy for state officials to violate it and so hard to defend your rights.
      - Mz 12y ago
        Yeah, well, you know, Americans are still human and, thus, when push comes to shove, the system only works right when good people are running it. To some extent, it doesn't matter what the actual rules are, if assholes are in charge, people get screwed even if the rules are awesome, and if good people are in charge, then, you know, the system tends to work okay even if it isn't the sharpest tool for the job. (shrug)
JackFr 12y ago
Within highly constrained circumstances, they can come and demolish the property. IANAL, but I believe the legal rationale is under the nuisance law -- that an abandoned building constitutes a nuisance to the community, like a pickle works or a paper mill, and either the owner must mitigate the nuisance, or suffer consequences. The point of the story is that the city appears to be abusing the law. A building with a legitimate Certificate of Occupancy is not dilapidated, and a building which is occupied is not abandoned.

What's the property law in the US? If you own a house, don't you also own the parcel where it's built? How can a city destroy a house that has an owner, or is built on a private land?

otterley 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance

Pxtl 12y ago

Same reason a city can crush your car if you use it improperly. Your property is a responsibility because it does not exist in isolation. If you fail to live up to that responsibility, the city must take over the responsibilities. That may include destroying a fundamentally unsafe and unusable structure that exists on your property. If you can build a house in an impermeable bubble located in low Earth orbit, I'll agree you can do whatever you want within that bubble. As long as your property shares the same landscape and air and ecosystem as my property, I care what you do with yours. Ever lived next to a dilapidated home?

lafar6502 12y ago
Well, this is so nice - instead of asking you to fix the building or demolish it on your own the city will bulldoze it for you and hire the lawyers in case you have some objections that need to be handled. But what's exactly that law - what's an 'improperly' used house? Can they demolish it if your heating isn't working? Leaking roof? Broken window?
- wavefunction 12y ago
  Housing codes determine what is acceptably "habitable" and what is not. The laws are also more strict when the residence is a rental property, as American society would like to discourage absentee or delinquent land-lords and help protect tenants from bad situations where your land-lord is supposed to be maintaining a property but instead tells you to "go live with a relative" when the heat is out.
  - cpwright 12y ago
    For demolition it shouldn't matter if it is a rental or not. If it would be habitable by an owner; then it shouldn't be demolished. The tenant may be evicted or he could be fined or something; which is fine, but he should still be allowed to attempt to market the house as a single family residence.
- Mz 12y ago
  Normally, this is done only in really extreme cases in the U.S. Part of the point of the article is that one city experimented with doing this much more aggressively than is the norm. "Takings" law is generally very conservative. In other words, the government can take your property, or a portion of it, for very compelling reasons. This usually happens in cases where, for example, a new highway is going through and they need to consolidate land to put the highway on. It is usually a very, very conservative process that errs as much as possible on the side of the homeowner. The article is about an anomalous situation where a city decided "hell, we have so many vacancies and so much blight, let's pursue takings much more aggressively" and, well, all hell is apparently breaking loose. Because, yeah, most folks react to that in much the same way you are reacting: What the bloody hell???!!! in essence.
  - lafar6502 12y ago
    I supposed private property is the foundation of american society, culture and laws. This is why i'm surprised it's so easy for state officials to violate it and so hard to defend your rights.
    - Mz 12y ago
      Yeah, well, you know, Americans are still human and, thus, when push comes to shove, the system only works right when good people are running it. To some extent, it doesn't matter what the actual rules are, if assholes are in charge, people get screwed even if the rules are awesome, and if good people are in charge, then, you know, the system tends to work okay even if it isn't the sharpest tool for the job. (shrug)

JackFr 12y ago

Within highly constrained circumstances, they can come and demolish the property. IANAL, but I believe the legal rationale is under the nuisance law -- that an abandoned building constitutes a nuisance to the community, like a pickle works or a paper mill, and either the owner must mitigate the nuisance, or suffer consequences. The point of the story is that the city appears to be abusing the law. A building with a legitimate Certificate of Occupancy is not dilapidated, and a building which is occupied is not abandoned.