Support NeoGAF

[Hierophant]

We shouldn't feel sympathy for them because they can always just move is what I read. Some people are house rich and cannot afford additional expenses. It doesn't matter how rich someone is, I am going to feel bad if they feel forced to move out of their home.

its 14 dollars a year dude, i don't care how much you make, if you live in that house you can afford 14 measly bucks a year

and they're not moving out, they're probably mobilising their armies of lawyers right now

 

[Marty Chinn]

Is that 1969 dollars? If so do you know how inflation works? That's like $638,000 in 2016 money (which doesn't even account for the value of the house now which is super inflated due to the area).

Heck, in 1969 the house you mention was almost 3 times the median purchase price of a house.

https://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf

I understand how inflation works and even if you take inflation into consideration, $600k doesn't buy you anything in SF, let alone most of the Bay Area. You can't compare the median price of a house in the US because there's a lot of places were houses are way cheaper and it brings down the median considerably. The fact is, if someone got in early in the Bay Area, they paid significantly less for a house than if they would now and it doesn't lead to them being rich. Assuming someone's filthy rich based on the current value of their house is a terribly inaccurate way to judge it.

*don't pay your taxes for literally 30 years*

"won't somebody please think of the rich people and their plight?"

greedy old fucks the lot of them like what the fuck 14 bucks a year i could afford that and i'm a broke ass student theres no excuse

So you picked up the $14 figure but failed to comprehend why this happened? They didn't deliberately skip out on the tax to avoid it.

 

[E92 M3]

*don't pay your taxes for literally 30 years*

"won't somebody please think of the rich people and their plight?"

greedy old fucks the lot of them like what the fuck 14 bucks a year i could afford that and i'm a broke ass student theres no excuse

It's like you didn't read the OP.

 

[GodofWine]

Does owning a street mean you have to pay for the upkeep of it?

 

[Hierophant]

Wow lmao my bad I didn't read that correctly cause I'm a dumb dumb

Though this does tie into my theory that HOAs sound like the devil, I rarely hear positive stories (I mean of course you only hear about the psycho ones) but still doesn't sound like a great time

 

[haimon]

In this thread I learned that by virtue of being wealthy you are a asshole who exploits everyone and if anything bad happens to you you deserve it.

 

[Teletraan1]

'They are rich therefore deserve feck all sympathy' is a bit flawed in that I know some really nice folk who have worked their absolute asses off over the years to get to what would probably qualify as rich.

Financial wealth status should not really disqualify people from empathy any more than financially poor people

Sympathy for what exactly? There is nothing in this transaction that is going to cause any sort of hardship to anyone but the HOA who will probably have to pay up to get the land back. This will have zero impact on these people's day to day lives. The people who bought the street aren't cartoon villains twirling their mustaches erecting toll booths.

 

[akileese]

*don't pay your taxes for literally 30 years*

"won't somebody please think of the rich people and their plight?"

greedy old fucks the lot of them like what the fuck 14 bucks a year i could afford that and i'm a broke ass student theres no excuse

The HOA didn't pay the taxes, not the residents themselves. If anything, they should sue their HOA since they probably fucked them out of the ability to park on their own street.

In this thread I learned that by virtue of being wealthy you are a asshole who exploits everyone and if anything bad happens to you you deserve it.

The irony of this thread is wealthy investors looking for property were the ones who bought the street.

 

[apieceofstrange]

This type of greed seeking activity runs rampant in the bay area and is part of the reason why housing prices are so inflated. Don't think it should be applauded just because it happened to work against wealthier people in this rare instance.

Also that article makes it seem like this was a win for the little guy, when in reality that couple have their own asset management firm and are already multi-millionaires. They could very well be just as wealthy as the people living in that neighborhood.

Yea, "let them fight" and all, but more often than not, this is the same type of behavior that forces less fortunate people out of their homes.

 

[HiiiLife]

Too funny

 

[Clockwork]

I understand how inflation works and even if you take inflation into consideration, $600k doesn't buy you anything in SF, let alone most of the Bay Area. You can't compare the median price of a house in the US because there's a lot of places were houses are way cheaper and it brings down the median considerably. The fact is, if someone got in early in the Bay Area, they paid significantly less for a house than if they would now and it doesn't lead to them being rich. Assuming someone's filthy rich based on the current value of their house is a terribly inaccurate way to judge it

3x the median value of a home in 1969. These people were not poor when they bought it.

 

[Syriel]

How would they pay a tax they weren't even aware of was being asked of them because it was being sent to a different address?

The bill was going to the wrong address.

An address that the HOA failed to update.

If you move and don't update your mailing address with a credit card company (or bank, or any other entity) you're not going to get a break on collection activities because you were negligent with the paperwork.

Most people in the Bay Area who have lived their lives here and own a house now have a house worth over a million. That doesn't make everyone in the Bay Area rich.

Also it seems kind of shitty to me for someone to look at someone who lived here all their lives and to tell them to STFU, uproot their lives and move because someone else came in and took advantage of a situation because you feel they are rich when they might not be.

That is the exact same argument used by rent control advocates who want to prohibit even OMI evictions.

In this case, the "situation" was caused by failure to pay property tax for three decades.

The City shouldn't treat it any differently than any other property owner who fails to pay tax.

I understand how inflation works and even if you take inflation into consideration, $600k doesn't buy you anything in SF, let alone most of the Bay Area. You can't compare the median price of a house in the US because there's a lot of places were houses are way cheaper and it brings down the median considerably. The fact is, if someone got in early in the Bay Area, they paid significantly less for a house than if they would now and it doesn't lead to them being rich. Assuming someone's filthy rich based on the current value of their house is a terribly inaccurate way to judge it.

So you picked up the $14 figure but failed to comprehend why this happened? They didn't deliberately skip out on the tax to avoid it.

Anyone who owns one of those homes is rich, no matter how you cut it. They may choose to live in those properties, but those same homes would easily bring in more than five figures a month on the rental market.

As for the tax, it didn't get paid because the homeowners were negligent. Plain and simple. That is on them.

The HOA didn't pay the taxes, not the residents themselves. If anything, they should sue their HOA since they probably fucked them out of the ability to park on their own street.

The HOA IS the residents.

Every HOA in CA is a non-profit corporation that is comprised of the property owners. Every one of them has the right to review all of the books. Any one of them could have raised the issue at any meeting.

All of the homeowners in this case share in the responsibility.

What's more important is the fact that this doesn't sound like it was just the streets. It sounds like it was all of the common areas. Which means the residents wouldn't have access to those areas anymore if the new owners don't want to provide access.

And even if the HOA does buy it all back, the property tax bill is no longer going to be assessed at $14/year. The base value will be set at whatever the last price paid for the property is, and taxes will be assessed on that.

Assuming that the investors take no profit and just sell it back for what they paid, that $14/year tax bill is going to be around $1,000/year. And if the investors sell for a profit, the tax bill will just go up.

 

[Enoch Root]

Does owning a street mean you have to pay for the upkeep of it?

Usually, yes. You have to hire paving companies to do repairs, plow companies in winter (if in a cold weather region). The city only does the public roads. Some places have what they call a 'road association'. It is like a HOA, you pay dues to it and the dues are supposed to cover paving/plowing etc.

 

[Marty Chinn]

3x the median value of a home in 1969. These people were not poor when they bought it.

Again, you're comparing the entire US instead of the local Bay Area market. I know for a fact that smaller homes were going for more than your median value in the early 70s, like 1972/73. I know for a fact, smaller homes were going for as much if not more within 7 or 8 years of 1969. Not a huge time frame for that type of price hike. I'm not saying they were poor, but I also don't think anything you can say can prove they are rich currently. Heck you yourself have pointed out what that calculates today after inflation and it doesn't stack up to someone being rich in today's market.

An address that the HOA failed to update.

If you move and don't update your mailing address with a credit card company (or bank, or any other entity) you're not going to get a break on collection activities because you were negligent with the paperwork.

That is the exact same argument used by rent control advocates who want to prohibit even OMI evictions.

In this case, the "situation" was caused by failure to pay property tax for three decades.

The City shouldn't treat it any differently than any other property owner who fails to pay tax.

I'm not saying the City should treat them differently. I'm saying this is a weird fluke that caused the events here to transpire and that it wasn't because someone was trying to skip out on paying taxes deliberately. I can easily see how this happens but at the same time understand no malice was intended. Nowhere did I say they deserved special treatment. Some people here are trying to crucify them for purposely skipping on paying taxes.

Anyone who owns one of those homes is rich, no matter how you cut it. They may choose to live in those properties, but those same homes would easily bring in more than five figures a month on the rental market.

There's a huge difference between house rich and cash rich though.

 

[JettDash]

These houses are worth $5-$17 million according to Zillow.

Any residents who can't afford what this will cost them, assuming there are any, should sell and move somewhere cheaper.

 

[nocturnalis]

Whoa, that's insane!
My college band's drummer lived in one of those houses and we built a rehearsal space in his parents house.

The neighbors were not very tolerant of inoffensive mid 2000's post-punk at 2pm on a Saturday. In fact, they were some of the rudest of the wealthy old-money I'd ever experienced while growing up in the bay.

Did your band suck?

 

[danm999]

We shouldn't feel sympathy for them because they can always just move is what I read. Some people are house rich and cannot afford additional expenses. It doesn't matter how rich someone is, I am going to feel bad if they feel forced to move out of their home.

You were given a list of possible alternatives to having to pay for parking, zoomed in on only the most radical and then pretended it was involuntarily being forced on them.

Nobody is forcing them to move.

Again perspective, after their homeowners association failed to pay taxes for decades they may have to pay for street parking. It's not a hardship disproportionate to the infraction.

 

[Syriel]

From today's SF Chronicle:

It turns out the Presidio Terrace homeowners who lost control of their own private street when a San Jose couple snapped it up at tax auction have been down this road before.

Last time, their beef was with the state.

San Francisco Assessor Carmen Chu tells us that her records show the Presidio Homeowners Association defaulted on its common-areas tax bill in the 1970s. Eventually, the state took possession of the common areas, and it wasn't until 1985 that the association regained the title to its swanky sidewalks.

The street and sidewalks' assessed value at the time was $221 — a figure Chu concedes was ”super low."

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/2nd-time-unpaid-taxes-have-come-back-to-bite-11743680.php

Having it happen once is negligence.

Having it happen twice, sorry, any sympathy is now gone.

You don't get to keep "forgetting" to pay your taxes, and then whine when you lose your property in a tax auction.

I'm not saying the City should treat them differently. I'm saying this is a weird fluke that caused the events here to transpire and that it wasn't because someone was trying to skip out on paying taxes deliberately. I can easily see how this happens but at the same time understand no malice was intended. Nowhere did I say they deserved special treatment. Some people here are trying to crucify them for purposely skipping on paying taxes.

There's a huge difference between house rich and cash rich though.

Based on today's news, it certainly seems like more than just a "weird fluke." After it happened once, you would think that the homeowners would make an extra effort to pay their taxes.

As for house rich, if you live in a house that is valued between $5-20 million, you're sitting pretty. Upkeep costs money, and if you can keep up a property at that price point, you're not poor by any sense of the word. Even at SF prices.

If someone doesn't want to pay for street parking, they can always build a garage on their property. But money isn't likely the issue here. The real fear is likely the prospect of the new owners telling the HOA that they have to legal right to block the road.

Horror, of horrors, the exclusive gated community would no longer be able to keep out the riff-raff if the owners allow the public access to said roads.

You were given a list of possible alternatives to having to pay for parking, zoomed in on only the most radical and then pretended it was involuntarily being forced on them.

Nobody is forcing them to move.

Again perspective, after their homeowners association failed to pay taxes for decades they may have to pay for street parking. It's not a hardship disproportionate to the infraction.

Pretty much my thoughts. They may have to pay for street parking. Or they may have to build a garage on their property.

But losing free parking isn't a hardship here. The vast majority of San Francisco (which doesn't have private, gated streets) doesn't have free parking.

 

[Glass Rebel]

This is the second time? 😂😂😂😂😂

How will people defend them now? Cape for rich people refusing to pay taxes like everyone else, brehs.

 

[Syriel]

This is the second time? 😂😂😂😂😂

How will people defend them now? Cape for rich people refusing to pay taxes like everyone else, brehs.

Yeah. I suspect this will not go over well at the Board of Supervisors meeting where they ask for the City to undo a sale that is ~2 years old. Especially since the same property was lost due to non-payment of taxes in the past.

Given the timeline, it sounds like they lost it due to non-payment of taxes, got it back in '85, and then promptly stopped paying taxes going forward.

If the homeowners want it back, they should make a purchase offer at market rates and buy it from the investors. And then pay their damn taxes going forward so this doesn't repeat in a decade or so.

 

[Zoe]

Considering the timeline, they probably fired the accountant after the first blunder but didn't update the address to the new one.