
Couple that paid $90k for a private street in SF is forced to give it back - louhong
http://www.businessinsider.com/presidio-terrace-couple-speaks-out-against-homeowners-2018-2
======
hodgesrm
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.)

~~~
dpflan
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.

> Overhead View:
> [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Fran...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Presidio+Terrace,+San+Francisco,+CA+94118/@37.7882787,-122.4619208,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8085872529f38af7:0x3b56539fd1e59445!8m2!3d37.7882626!4d-122.460805)

> Street View:
> [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-122.4593631,3a,75y,2...](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.788234,-122.4593631,3a,75y,274.28h,86.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIE5-G3Z755ULATstmYZjkw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIE5-G3Z755ULATstmYZjkw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.3647666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

~~~
sidlls
I don't what the specific details are in this case, but there may be an
easement. Generally property owners are entitled to access their real
property. For example, if an owner purchases a plot of land that has no access
except by crossing another property there is an "easement by necessity" for
the former owner to cross the property of the latter to access his property.

Whether the sidewalk owners can enforce it is another matter. (See also
Kosla's jackassery around denying water access.)

------
iaw
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.

~~~
Steeeve
I also lack sympathy.

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.

~~~
iaw
That is another outcome that I'd be okay with. If this procedure weren't a
one-off but a new standard then that would probably be a higher net benefit to
society.

------
ryanackley
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.

~~~
harryh
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.

~~~
ryanackley
They told them based on the most recent address of the contact on record. Why
should it be the responsibility of the tax collector to make sure this is up-
to-date and accurate?

~~~
torstenvl
Because it's always the responsibility of the tax collector? Because the
government is the least cost avoider?

I used to work for a title search company that contracted with counties within
that state to handle tax foreclosure. In order to foreclose on property for
delinquent taxes, certified mail had to be sent to the most recent known
address, the delinquency had to be published in a local paper, and a notice
had to be posted on the property itself. I believe this is more-or-less the
norm.

~~~
ryanackley
I don't think it's the norm because it doesn't sound like most of these things
happened in this case.

Also, I've participated as a bidder in one auction where I live in FL. There
was no notice posted on the property. I don't know if the other things
happened.

~~~
torstenvl
By the time it goes to auction it's already been foreclosed on.

~~~
ryanackley
It's way different where I live. There is no foreclosure before the tax deed
auction.

------
clamprecht
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.

~~~
harryh
A bug bounty os a program run voluntarily by the owners of a service.

This is more like exploiting a security hole and then claiming a moral right
to your gains.

~~~
clamprecht
They're claiming a legal right.

~~~
harryh
Use whatever adjective you want, the comparison still doesn't make any sense
due to the involuntary nature of the situation.

------
nsxwolf
It's not clear to me what they get out of owning the street (or is it just
sidewalks?), and what the homeowners lose by not owning it.

~~~
harryh
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.

------
vkou
What's really shocking is that the tax bill for a private street in one of the
hottest property markets in the world is $14/year.

~~~
tom_mellior
What's really shocking is that a "private street" is a thing.

~~~
overcast
I mean, if you own land, and a street is on it. It's private, yes?

~~~
ryanackley
No. In most places I have lived in the USA, streets are not only public
property but they regulate what can be placed within so many feet of the side
of the road. So basically, they restrict your land use next to a road, even if
you own the property. This is so they can add a sidewalk or expand the road at
some point in the future.

~~~
harryh
Yes, most streets are public and maintained by local government. But anyone
who owns sufficient land can build a private street on it. A piece of land
doesn't magically become public just because you lay down some asphalt and
start driving on it.

~~~
ryanackley
OP seemed to be asserting that owning a house implied owning the road in front
of it.

------
harryh
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.

~~~
phil21
> 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.

~~~
harryh
Why is your solution to the problem making sure that everyone gets screwed
rather than no one gets screwed?

~~~
phil21
That's not the solution. That's the bit that gets a _real_ solution in place.

The current status quo is "you're screwed if you are not rich and/or
politically connected, but it's not a big deal if you know people" \- so
absolutely nothing will change.

You must make "important" people feel the same pain as the little people or
they will never care enough to take any amount of action.

------
cannonedhamster
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?

------
michaelchisari
This is the biggest takeaway for me:

 _The couple didn 't know what Presidio Terrace was when they bought it_

~~~
EtDybNuvCu
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.

~~~
michaelchisari
I already understood their motivation and situation. But I still find it
concerning.

Maybe it's the bitcoin effect, but when people start investing in things they
don't know anything about, that sets off my alarm.

~~~
rendall
What alarm bells, out of curiosity?

There is always risk in investment and investing in property sight-unseen is
perhaps very risky, but they felt like it was worth it to them. As the article
said, sometimes you can sell off their investment for a profit. Other times,
evidently, you can annoy the politically powerful.

------
nasalgoat
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.

------
jotm
Forced to _sell_ it back. This isn't the USSR.

------
smrtinsert
Boo-hoo. That couple deserves the social karma coming to them.

~~~
mikeash
What sort of karma do the decades-delinquent homeowners deserve?

~~~
geebee
I'm ok with some karma for the deliquent homeowners, but I see no reason why
this should turn into a giant cash prize for a private citizen.

I have noticed that people who support the buyers tend to point out the
problem with wealthy and powerful people getting special treatment. I'm
against that, but it doesn't remove my distaste for making money this way.

~~~
mikeash
What did the buyers do that’s so awful? As far as I know, they were going to
charge a reasonable rate for parking to cover maintenance and their $90,000
purchase price. It’s not like they were going to start charging a toll or
something. They wouldn’t be legally able to anyway. Nobody was being _forced_
to pay the buyers anything, they just had the option of paying to park.

What would you say should have happened here? I don’t see what else you could
do with this land if you bought it. If the city didn’t auction it off, then
why would anyone ever pay their taxes again?

~~~
geebee
It's clear that we disagree about the nature of this tax bill, why it wasn't
paid, and whether it's appropriate for the government auction off private
property under these circumstances.

The strongest argument I've read here on HN is that if the wealthy and
powerful don't experience the injustice of their own laws, they won't change
them - and that less connected and wealthy residents would not have gotten a
similar rescue from government.

~~~
mikeash
I’ll ask again, what do you think should have happened here? Auctioning off
delinquent property isn’t great, but I have trouble coming up with something
better.

~~~
geebee
So, what should have happened here? Not this.

OK, ok, you're asking, what should have happened, not what shouldn't have
happened. I can't say it's a totally unfair question. It probably would be
worth thinking this through.

But overall, I don't really feel like I need to propose a new a system for
collecting minuscule delinquent property tax bills that doesn't involve
selling off massively valuable property at auction to point out that this is a
really bad and completely unnecessary outcome. Guess that's so obvious to me
that I just don't feel inclined to engage with the question.

~~~
mikeash
I think you do, at least if you want to convincingly argue that this shouldn’t
have happened. The existence of a better way is decidedly non-obvious.

It’s not as if there’s a bunch of standard alternatives they could have used.
Traditionally, taxation is enforced by garnishing wages, forcibly withdrawing
money from accounts, seizing property, or putting people in jail. None of
these were possible here except for seizing property. The only alternative I
see is to just let delinquents get away with not paying taxes forever, which
defeats the whole purpose of taxes.

------
Cyberdog
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.

