How is the real estate agent allowed to print that? It’s a full 100% lie.
The building is absolutely not anchored to bedrock, and according to the latest engineering plan shared here, it never will be. They are adding more friction pilings, is all. That was my understanding anyway.
… or, base-jump from the roof with a parachute 
Zeppelin docking facilities… Now you’re talking!
I mean I know the print world is riddled with lies, but there are rules for some things, like real estate listings? They can’t lie about the number of bedrooms or whatever? I imagine MLS or real estate licensing boards have policies about this, if nothing else?
“Relax from the daily grind of figuratively crushing people who can’t afford as much regulatory capture as you can with this unforgettable chance to do it literally from the comfort of your own home!”
(that aside, I wonder if “It’s not noticeable to the naked eye,” means ‘still basically undetectable from within the unit without at least basic tools and experiment design’ or ‘you can’t quite see it; but just try putting anything that can roll on one of the allegedly flat surfaces, sucker’?)
I’ve seen real estate listings you people wouldn’t believe…
Seriously though - every now and then my job (municipal planning department) leads to cross-checking a real estate agent’s Exposé against the actual building permission(s) we have on file. There usually are… discrepancies. Either stuff that’s downright false or/and strategic omissions. Oddly enough, this always tends to inflate the value and/or downplay the effort it would take to fix things.
I’m sufficiently ignorant of the matter that my googling attempts are getting bogged down in construction/repair company SEO and code references for much smaller structures; do you know if, in this context, there’s a binding definition somewhere that makes ‘anchored’ mean ‘structural elements are properly drilled in the expensive way for people who care more and hate profit’ or is there enough room to use the slightly broader and more informal sense of ‘anchor’ that’s basically ‘it means connect; but with either a heavier or more nautical flavor’ in a dishonest but not technically fraudulent way?
I assume that no credible structural engineer would tell you that “we anchored it to bedrock through careful use of the probably-incipient-quicksand above the bedrock”; but in absence of some specific piece of building code that states that ‘anchored’ = ‘drilled it in real good’ the informal use of ‘anchored’ definitely means ‘connected to’; but doesn’t necessarily imply that no intermediaries are contributing to the connection.
Ramsey bought the condo in 2016 for $13 million despite knowing it wasn’t on level ground. “I knew the building was tilting,” Ramsey told the Journal. “I got a very good discount because of that fact.”
File this under “just because someone is rich doesn’t mean they’re not a fucking idiot.”
You’d think it’d be like weights and measures in other parts of commerce but apparently you can blatantly lie, found this out even on the micro scale, when I rented a storage unit, it was 20% smaller than advertised and the internet told me, yeah, they do that, with no repercussions and not much recourse.
On the macro scale, you can blatantly triple the size of your listing, and still grow up to be president of these United States: How Forbes Exposed Trump’s Lies About The Size Of His Penthouse
Yah that’s a good point. My mind went straight to a good faith interpretation of the words, but the language is sufficiently vague there that they can probably get away with it.
It’s at least deliberately misleading though, which really grinds my gears.
What could go wrong?
I would think this property is a real estate agent’s dream.
$10-15 milliion “value” with built-in reason to “churn” (this place might fall down; I should sell even if I don’t accumulate any equity) generating $500-750k in commission for the agent each time it’s sold.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
