Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdgrrl
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=sdgrrl
Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?[/quote]I would imagine the evicting party would have to take liabilty for debt. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny though? I guess if that scenario is true it works as a bailout for the underwater owner.[/quote]
Hi Russell, I’m not discounting that idea, but it almost seems to be too good to be true. If people got wind of an eminent domain push for their property- what would stop people from refinancing quickly, keeping the money and having the pursuant pay off all their debts?
I really have no idea and look forward to hearing the correct way this would be handled.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=sdgrrl
Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?[/quote]I would imagine the evicting party would have to take liabilty for debt. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny though? I guess if that scenario is true it works as a bailout for the underwater owner.[/quote]
Hi Russell, I’m not discounting that idea, but it almost seems to be too good to be true. If people got wind of an eminent domain push for their property- what would stop people from refinancing quickly, keeping the money and having the pursuant pay off all their debts?
I really have no idea and look forward to hearing the correct way this would be handled.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=sdgrrl
Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?[/quote]I would imagine the evicting party would have to take liabilty for debt. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny though? I guess if that scenario is true it works as a bailout for the underwater owner.[/quote]
Hi Russell, I’m not discounting that idea, but it almost seems to be too good to be true. If people got wind of an eminent domain push for their property- what would stop people from refinancing quickly, keeping the money and having the pursuant pay off all their debts?
I really have no idea and look forward to hearing the correct way this would be handled.
Participant[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]
Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.
That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.
To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.
Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?
Participant[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]
Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.
That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.
To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.
Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?
Participant[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]
Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.
That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.
To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.
Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?
Participant[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]
Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.
That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.
To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.
Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?
Participant[quote=Ricechex]There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.[/quote]
Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.
That’s what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.
To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.
Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?
ParticipantI also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.
I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.
ParticipantI also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.
I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.
ParticipantI also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.
I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.
ParticipantI also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.
I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.
ParticipantI also feel the need to admit my own racism…if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don’t know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it’s only going to make the city better.
I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.
Participant[quote=Russell]Besides fair market value, the people getting evicted should get a percentage of all future profits from the land and airspace above. If 30 stories go up they get a percentage of profit on all those assets.
I have 20 acres and I am allowed to build just two houses. What would piss me off, is that any of the potential beyond that would be taken and given to a third party by eminent domain and re-zoning favors.
Many people buy and hold property and wait for demographic shifts or population growth to benefit them. To turn around a give the value/potential of that mostly to the few connected, is stealing.[/quote]
Wow Russell that is so true. That would be incredulous if you had to maintain your two home policy for your land, unable to generate more tax revenue and another entity could come in and take over for that exact reason. That is another way to look at it; the restrictions you have on your own property in making it more profitable and how your rights are not as inalienable as that of a powerfully wealthy person or business.
I also agree that people buy and hold property hoping to see an increase in its value “To turn around a give the value/potential of that mostly to the few connected, is stealing”. You are forced to sell out early unable to enjoy the benefits of a place that might have been a piece of coal, but you saw a diamond in it.
In regards to the beginning of your reply-not only did Mr. Mesdaq not get any future share or even stock options- Marriot has fought him tooth and nail in the 7.5 million they were ordered to pay. They appealed and won one time and I’m not sure where it’s out now, but I don’t think he has yet to see any money and he claims his lawyer fees exceed 3 million.
That case is sad. Sure, hard work will usually trump luck, but Mesdaq can work and work, but the location he relocated to on J is yet comparable to his original Gaslamp one.
Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?
-
AuthorPosts
