(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.)
> 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...
Whether the sidewalk owners can enforce it is another matter. (See also Kosla's jackassery around denying water access.)
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.
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.
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.
This is more like exploiting a security hole and then claiming a moral right to your gains.
My tax bill, however, is still a bit higher then $14/year, for acres of land in the middle of a land-strapped metro area.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't mind seeing more of a penalty for the rich landowners, though.
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?
The couple didn't know what Presidio Terrace was when they bought it
Maybe it's the bitcoin effect, but when people start investing in things they don't know anything about, that sets off my alarm.
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.
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.
The same result would have happened with anyone who could afford an attorney to pursue rescission of the sale.
