The transaction was fully legal and similar to hundreds of others in the area where investors buy properties with delinquent taxes. I would have more sympathy for SF and the families on the street if they were actually working to change the screwed-up bureaucracy that allowed this sale to happen. However, this seems to be a case where money talks. There's nothing to prevent it from happening again or to protect San Franciscans who don't have an in with the board of supes.
(Disclaimer: I work with Tina and can vouch for her character. The character assassination and racist comments leveled against her and her husband in other forums are dismaying.)
This is interesting; the couple bought the street which has a privacy gate - do they own the gate too? Is is possible that they owned the street but could not legally access it (by not owning the gate)? Does that affect the case/transaction? I'm not familiar enough with the details.
I don't have much personal sympathy for anyone involved in this story.
From a principled standpoint however, this appears to be a violation of property rights. It is highly unlikely that 'normal' people would've been able to reverse the transaction the way these residents did which makes me root for the clearly predatory real estate schemers.
There's no moral party here it's just a question of what type of society you want to live in. I'd rather have the laws apply uniformly regardless of wealth and political influence which led me to my decision.
But... I actually am a fan of the ability to reverse the transaction.
I'm absolutely sure that having people who are politically connected in the neighborhood was part of making that happen, and I'm just as sure that it would have been impossible for most people in the same situation.
But now that it has happened, people who lose their property via tax liens have something to point to in a last ditch effort to save their property. And given that these transactions are more dangerous today than they were yesterday, perhaps the prices that the auctions bring will be lower - meaning that maybe once in a while a regular joe will be able to pop in and get a deal.
I hope the couple win this case. It's totally a question of privilege. The notice being sent to the deceased bookkeeper is the adult equivalent of the dog ate your homework.
People who are out of work or live on a fixed income (i.e. more legitimate excuses for not paying your property taxes) lose their homes to tax auctions all the time.
There is a difference between losing your property because you can't afford the taxes and losing it because you didn't know that taxes needed to be paid and the state didn't bother to tell you.
I see this like I see a bug bounty. The bug is the fact that they were able to buy the property at all under those circumstances. Their bounty "reward" should be that they can keep the property that they rightfully bought. And now the public is aware of this problem ("bug") and can move to prevent it from happening in the future.
Previously only owners of the surrounding houses could use the street. The new owners could have opened the street up for public use harming the privacy of the house owners. The plan of the new owners, if they had won, was to sell the street back to the house owners at a markup so that they could get their privacy back.
It might be that being a private street, the residents are responsible for maintaining it. Like paving the road, sidewalks, sewer repair. Those things can be a substantial expense for an individual.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that rich people are being treated differently here. That's almost certainly the case. It's also, of course, always fun to see a bunch of rich folks get some kind of comeuppance.
But, to me, it's also pretty clear that the original owners were in the right here. You shouldn't be able to lose something worth $90,000 because of a small administrative oversight without some kind of notice from the government about what is going on. The world shouldn't work that way for anyone, rich or poor.
> The world shouldn't work that way for anyone, rich or poor.
But it does. These types of "investors" exist in all markets, and they are about the real estate equvilant of shady debt collectors.
They buy properties that have delinquent taxes and once the city sells you it there are "no backsies" - the homeowner/whomever needs to now deal with the "investors" that bought the property from under them.
It's extremely common that those who owe those back taxes had no idea - or at least they claim so. That's never a defense I've seen hold up.
The problem is that the rich aren't paying the piper this time, and then changing the way things work. They are simply saying "eh, obviously that's wrong! fix it!" while completely ignoring the thousands of people affected in exactly the same manner each year.
I don't think it's a comeuppance. More of a lack of empathy.
If you didn't receive a tax bill for your house one year. Would you just figure that you didn't owe taxes that year? Probably not, there is a minimum level of adult responsibility required to own property. Part of that is paying your taxes.
It being mailed to the wrong address is irrelevant. The HOA most likely had officers that didn't get the address changed at some point. Doesn't matter that it was 17 years ago.
This is unequal application of the law. If this were an unoccupied house and the bill was sent to the person on file for nearly 40 years, there would be no way out of the foreclosure for poor people. The fact is that the buyers followed the law and the wealthy did not.
The wealthy once again got a free ride from the system while working to put others in debt. This is what's broken in our system. The wealthy have the money and should have purchased the land back. Instead they used money to buy political favor. The rich probably paid more in legal expenses than just buying the land back. This is spite and exertion of power, money, and influence, plain and simple. If the rules don't apply equally to everyone, then why do they apply to anyone?
They are, as the article explains, real-estate investors who do not always examine properties before purchasing them. The couple knew that Presidio Terrace was in a nice neighborhood and seemed to be very well-priced, and they also were bidding in many auctions, so that they probably would not have cared about precisely which properties they acquired.
As predicted. This isn't much of a surprise, really - there is too much money on the side of the homeowners to allow someone outside to own a piece of their area.
There was a process and the city followed it. Just because a group with wealth and power don't like that outcome doesn't mean it should be changed. They bought it fair and square and, to believe them because I have no reason not to, they didn't do ti with any sort of malice.
The suit against them by the homeowners seems entirely punitive and particularly harassing. Their issue is whether the city followed the process. If they are that concerned with fixing what is very obviously the screw up of an organization they fully own and run then they can pay to do so.
For what, buying land that legally went up for sale when a laughably low tax went unpaid for 40 years? If this had happened anywhere else to people other than the ultra-rich, nobody would care and they'd be allowed to own it. This is nothing more than a demonstration of America being ruled by the whims of oligarchy rather than law.
A bureaucracy-induced property ownership spat between two groups of affluent people in a state that has defined limousine liberalism and a city which has personified it.
hodgesrm|8 years ago
(Disclaimer: I work with Tina and can vouch for her character. The character assassination and racist comments leveled against her and her husband in other forums are dismaying.)
dpflan|8 years ago
> Overhead View: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Fran...
> Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-122.4593631,3a,75y,2...
iaw|8 years ago
From a principled standpoint however, this appears to be a violation of property rights. It is highly unlikely that 'normal' people would've been able to reverse the transaction the way these residents did which makes me root for the clearly predatory real estate schemers.
There's no moral party here it's just a question of what type of society you want to live in. I'd rather have the laws apply uniformly regardless of wealth and political influence which led me to my decision.
Steeeve|8 years ago
But... I actually am a fan of the ability to reverse the transaction.
I'm absolutely sure that having people who are politically connected in the neighborhood was part of making that happen, and I'm just as sure that it would have been impossible for most people in the same situation.
But now that it has happened, people who lose their property via tax liens have something to point to in a last ditch effort to save their property. And given that these transactions are more dangerous today than they were yesterday, perhaps the prices that the auctions bring will be lower - meaning that maybe once in a while a regular joe will be able to pop in and get a deal.
tomnipotent|8 years ago
How are they predatory? They purchased a parcel of land on a government-approved website through a vetted legal process and followed all the rules.
ryanackley|8 years ago
People who are out of work or live on a fixed income (i.e. more legitimate excuses for not paying your property taxes) lose their homes to tax auctions all the time.
harryh|8 years ago
clamprecht|8 years ago
harryh|8 years ago
This is more like exploiting a security hole and then claiming a moral right to your gains.
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
nsxwolf|8 years ago
harryh|8 years ago
sidlls|8 years ago
vkou|8 years ago
pkaye|8 years ago
harryh|8 years ago
tom_mellior|8 years ago
harryh|8 years ago
But, to me, it's also pretty clear that the original owners were in the right here. You shouldn't be able to lose something worth $90,000 because of a small administrative oversight without some kind of notice from the government about what is going on. The world shouldn't work that way for anyone, rich or poor.
phil21|8 years ago
But it does. These types of "investors" exist in all markets, and they are about the real estate equvilant of shady debt collectors.
They buy properties that have delinquent taxes and once the city sells you it there are "no backsies" - the homeowner/whomever needs to now deal with the "investors" that bought the property from under them.
It's extremely common that those who owe those back taxes had no idea - or at least they claim so. That's never a defense I've seen hold up.
The problem is that the rich aren't paying the piper this time, and then changing the way things work. They are simply saying "eh, obviously that's wrong! fix it!" while completely ignoring the thousands of people affected in exactly the same manner each year.
chrismcb|8 years ago
ryanackley|8 years ago
If you didn't receive a tax bill for your house one year. Would you just figure that you didn't owe taxes that year? Probably not, there is a minimum level of adult responsibility required to own property. Part of that is paying your taxes.
It being mailed to the wrong address is irrelevant. The HOA most likely had officers that didn't get the address changed at some point. Doesn't matter that it was 17 years ago.
geebee|8 years ago
Wouldn't mind seeing more of a penalty for the rich landowners, though.
cannonedhamster|8 years ago
The wealthy once again got a free ride from the system while working to put others in debt. This is what's broken in our system. The wealthy have the money and should have purchased the land back. Instead they used money to buy political favor. The rich probably paid more in legal expenses than just buying the land back. This is spite and exertion of power, money, and influence, plain and simple. If the rules don't apply equally to everyone, then why do they apply to anyone?
michaelchisari|8 years ago
The couple didn't know what Presidio Terrace was when they bought it
EtDybNuvCu|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
nasalgoat|8 years ago
jotm|8 years ago
smrtinsert|8 years ago
avs733|8 years ago
There was a process and the city followed it. Just because a group with wealth and power don't like that outcome doesn't mean it should be changed. They bought it fair and square and, to believe them because I have no reason not to, they didn't do ti with any sort of malice.
The suit against them by the homeowners seems entirely punitive and particularly harassing. Their issue is whether the city followed the process. If they are that concerned with fixing what is very obviously the screw up of an organization they fully own and run then they can pay to do so.
mikeash|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
deadmetheny|8 years ago
Cyberdog|8 years ago