Rich SF residents shock: Someone bought their street (San Francisco: real estate, leasing)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

I would not mind if Europeans were buying up property, but the bay is just a dumping ground for dirty money from China to get cleaned.

As opposed to dirty money from somewhere else?

Do you have any knowledge of how Japanese, legal citizens were sent to concentration camps right here in CA during WWII?

I grew up with hearing nasty comments about "Japs," etc.

We really need to stop looking at color and eye shape, and just look at the facts as if there is no race involved.

In this situation, it's not about race or immigration status, as anyone could have purchased this property who was legally allowed to do so.

It's about, did the City and County of San Francisco give proper notice to the owners of property they intended to sell at auction.

No matter what color these people are or immigration status, etc., I wouldn't like how they deliberately laid low until the SOL expired (or so they thought). No matter who you are, or where you come from, I would not have fond feelings for you if you did this. And I really believe that no matter what religion you might be, you'd know this was wrong.

[davidt1]

If I had bought this street, I would have sold it to Trump. LOL

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by davidt1

If I had bought this street, I would have sold it to Trump. LOL

LOL, then the check would have bounced and he'd file bankruptcy. But, hey, it was legal and it makes him smart.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

But, the issue keeps coming back to "notice." if a property owner does not know they are in default, nor that there is about to be a sale, nor that there has already been a sale - the clock can't start ticking for the statute of limitations.

People need to know that their property is up for confiscation, and the time frame to redeem it.

One of the things I really love about the law, is that everything boils down to what is "reasonable." If it doesn't sound like what's happening would be reasonable to a reasonable person, then it's probably not fair or in line with the law.

I'm not familiar with the controlling law here, but in delinquent property tax sales I am familiar with (in Texas), there is a redemption period, during which the person losing the property can fork up the unpaid tax amount plus additional fees, interest, etc for up to a year. But it only applies to homesteaded property or agricultural land.

The redemption period is a ticking clock that starts at the point of sale, not when they learned of the sale. It is presumed people know about their property and keep track of it. I think these property owners have no valid case.

The investors stated in one of the articles that they wanted to "own some property in San Francisco". Perhaps instead of wasting money on attorneys, the home owners can offer a swap of some kind, to help these lucky new owners trade up to something they can actually occupy or rent out.

It all goes back to what we learned in Kindergarden, "you snooze, you lose". Tough lesson.

Steve

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I'm not familiar with the controlling law here, but in delinquent property tax sales I am familiar with (in Texas), there is a redemption period, during which the person losing the property can fork up the unpaid tax amount plus additional fees, interest, etc for up to a year. But it only applies to homesteaded property or agricultural land.

The redemption period is a ticking clock that starts at the point of sale, not when they learned of the sale. It is presumed people know about their property and keep track of it. I think these property owners have no valid case.

The investors stated in one of the articles that they wanted to "own some property in San Francisco". Perhaps instead of wasting money on attorneys, the home owners can offer a swap of some kind, to help these lucky new owners trade up to something they can actually occupy or rent out.

It all goes back to what we learned in Kindergarden, "you snooze, you lose". Tough lesson.

Steve

But, the law says that someone needs to be aware they are in default. It's not allowed to assume anything. They need to make a reasonable effort to be sure the landowner knows their property is in default, and that there is a sale pending, and that they know they can redeem it if they pay the back taxes within X number of days.

The funny thing about the buyer saying he just wanted to own a piece of SF - the property owners only found out about the sale because this buyer approached them asking if they wanted to buy back their property.

So, basically, he's full of it.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Macrina

I have such a different response to this story. I can't help but wonder just how many tens of thousands of dollars the homeowners have paid into the Homeowners Association. Probably a lot, owing to where the properties are located. (Actually would love to know this amount!)

I think the current situation is due to an egregious lapse of the Homeowner's Association financial officer: and it's gone on for years. I want a lot more information before I do any jeering of the actual people who own lovely, expensive homes on that street. The majority of these people may be elderly and may have sacrificed dearly for many years to be able to have their homes on that street.

They have trusted the Assoc. to have been taking care of all the financial details: that's exactly what these associations are to do and I would expect heads to roll on that board. I would also expect a major lawsuit by the property owners against the Association. I'm guessing that first the street will have to be successfully purchased from the Crafty Couple.

And...I'm not so enamoured of this Crafty Couple. From what I read, their very purpose is rather to hold that street in a sort of ransom until the Homeowner's Association buys it back. Isn't this just too clever. In the picture provided in the article, do not their expressions seem quite smug?

The even funnier thing is this the second time they've had their street auctioned for not paying their taxes, so apparently they didn't learn anything the first time either.

As long as there was nothing wrong with the notifications for the 30 years they didn't pay their taxes, I have no problem with it. Of course they're screaming unfair now but this isn't the first time they forgot to pay their taxes for decades. I'd hate to think what would happen if I just forgot to pay mine for 30 years but then I'm not part of the privileged elite and the regular rules apply more regularly for me.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Malloric

The even funnier thing is this the second time they've had their street auctioned for not paying their taxes, so apparently they didn't learn anything the first time either.

As long as there was nothing wrong with the notifications for the 30 years they didn't pay their taxes, I have no problem with it. Of course they're screaming unfair now but this isn't the first time they forgot to pay their taxes for decades. I'd hate to think what would happen if I just forgot to pay mine for 30 years but then I'm not part of the privileged elite and the regular rules apply more regularly for me.

If you own a house in the Bay Area you are elite. You're richer than Joseph eichler or other famous millionaires.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Malloric

The even funnier thing is this the second time they've had their street auctioned for not paying their taxes, so apparently they didn't learn anything the first time either.

As long as there was nothing wrong with the notifications for the 30 years they didn't pay their taxes, I have no problem with it. Of course they're screaming unfair now but this isn't the first time they forgot to pay their taxes for decades. I'd hate to think what would happen if I just forgot to pay mine for 30 years but then I'm not part of the privileged elite and the regular rules apply more regularly for me.

Agreed. At what point are people forced to accept responsibility for the consequences of their choices and/or incompetence?

Seems like if one has enough resources, the blame can be shifted. If one has no resources, like the (dumb, irresponsible) couple who had their motorhome towed off the street, then they are screwed but receive non-monetary sympathy and also have an entire article written about them.

Many of us raise our kids to know "life isn't fair" and to ask, when something does seem unfair, "is this situation a result of something I did or failed to do?". If so, you look inside and don't blame others. If not, accept it, and move on with a lesson learned.

[leastprime]

IMO,
This couple, although Asian by ethnicity, is doing what any good capitalist American would do... Make money.
HOAs are basically socialistic in nature and not American.
If you ever have dealt with co-operatives or have been on a board of directors, HOAs are a pain for Democracy and Capitalism.
The home owners on this street are lucky. They now only have to get their HOA to do something (not likely) with just one entity who should have basically one purpose-Make good on their investment and keep it has a worthy income stream; Not having to deal with the City (lucky) but their interface and solution with the City was only with a clerk who is there only to collect a paycheck. But now that the situation is now known, the problem is now "political" for the current homeowners, their HOA, and the City's officials who make policy.

The owners of the street should now enforce "selectivity and exclusivity" and thus will enhance the cache of this neighborhood. Property values just went up for new buyers.
The American Way, all the Way. $$$

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by leastprime

IMO,
This couple, although Asian by ethnicity, is doing what any good capitalist American would do... Make money.

Odd phrasing....Is there any other way to be Asian?

Originally Posted by leastprime

HOAs are basically socialistic in nature and not American.

How so? Its just an association..no more socialistic than any other small unit of government, and certainly less so than the California legislature, for example.

Originally Posted by leastprime

If you ever have dealt with co-operatives or have been on a board of directors, HOAs are a pain for Democracy and Capitalism.

Huh? HOA's use democratic processes like voting. And I'm not sure why an HOA would be interested in capitalistic endeavors. They don't exist to turn a profit or sell anything, they're just they're to enforce the community rules and regulations for the benefit of all of the homeowners.

And what do you mean about co-ops? If you're referring to a housing co-op, its a corporation...how is that not capitalistic? If you mean some other kind of co-op...many of them are focused on capitalist efforts, like farmer's markets, or grower's associations.