When I read about things happening to speculators, I always hope it’s something nasty.
However, I believe in most jurisdictions the rule that applies is that if someone sells something that is not theirs to sell, whether it be Brooklyn Bridge, gold bricks, or something that fell off the back of a truck, the person with the problem is the one who does the selling. The buyer is not the legal owner. If someone steals your car, or your pavement, and sells it to a third party, the third party is not the owner.
Fine. Then they should offer second chances to everyone. Saying, in effect, we’ll only roll over for you if you have a bottomless warchest from which to sue us is the same in practice as having a different law for the rich. Any official that supports that is corrupt.
No matter how you frame it or what excuses are given for it, ultra-wealthy San Franciscans were given special treatment that the rest were not.
If it’s a law that can be defeated in court then it’s a bad law and shouldn’t be applied to anyone. Yes, the whole legal system is corrupt, not just the public officials, and yes there are many exmaples of bad laws that the rich can sue their way out of while the rest are left to be screwed over. But elected officials are the ones with the power to change things. If we don’t hold them accountable for the system, then why the hell do we even bother with elections? Why not just have the rich appoint the Board’s members? What’s the point of having laws if we don’t want those officials using tax revenue to enforce them on everyone?
I get wanting to use tax dollars responsibly. But if you place the burden for funding government on everyone except the rich, then it’s worse for “our tax dollars” in the long run (unless you’re rich enough to sue).
It’s so hard to keep track of your private roads from your Summer home in the Hamptons or your penthouse in London. /s
If you live in a place with you’re own private street/sidewalk, maybe, just maybe, and I’m going to go way out on a limb here, it’s up to you to either know the tax code or hire someone competent to know it for you, find out what’s due and pay the fucking bill just like the little people.
If anyone who wasn’t rich had gone to the Board and begged special treatment for extenuating context, being experienced politicians I’m sure they would have waited until the petitioner was out of earshot to have a hearty laugh at their expense.
As it happens, this is not the only example of a small bit of land that is collectively owned by a neighborhood (or sometimes even fewer parties). There are other examples in San Francisco, and it is not exclusively the domain of the rich. There are bits of alleys and shared driveways here and there. These are the exception rather than the rule, but wealth is not actually part of the equation. If you knew more of the context around this story, you’d know that too.
They did know the tax code, and they did pay the bill. True, it didn’t make it to the city. But again, context is everything in this story. If you don’t have the patience for the context (or aren’t interested because you’re really here to make some kind of point, and jettisoning the context is the only viable way to do so) then perhaps you should consider a different hobby.
And have they been given second chances by the treasurer or Board?
Look, I don’t mind giving people second chances. In fact I think it’s the right thing to do. I mind giving them only to people with the money to sue for them.
I’m reasonably confident that Boing Boing’s commentariat isn’t filled with the super-rich. Why are working people defending special treatment?
That’s absurd why would anyone deliberately risk their property for pocket change? This was clerical error because the bill wasn’t arriving. I’ve had an important state documents sent to my rental property and not received them even though my business address is clearly listed in the property tax documents. Shit happens.
Yup, and they’d probably tell you to take a hike, peon. That’s if you could even get the Board to hear your case. More likely you’d get be hearing it from a low-level functionary of the tax office unless you we’re willing to pay open-ended attorney’s fees.
The problem in this case was that it was the city’s to sell, and only after it was legally bought did the city decide that although it was all done legally, maybe they shouldn’t have sold it. So I’m wondering what legal mechanism they’re using to wrestle it back from those who should be the legal owners, now, and how they’re compensating them for the city’s screw-up. The article says the city “rescinded the sale” - but the sale happened in 2015. And it’s not like the buyers just put in the cost of the land, too - they’ve had to fight some court battles here. I wonder if they’re just going to have to eat all their costs… I have conflicting feelings about that, as I feel the same way about speculators, but on the other hand, they’re likely getting screwed over in favor of wealthier people. I read about cases where the city/state/federal government screws up, sells off some land that they didn’t have the right to sell, and the original and theoretically-legal-owner is still shit out of luck.
Yes.
Agreed.
Oh, it’s definitely that, too. It’s not the kind of “correction” that would have been granted anyone else, especially after thirty years of non-payment of taxes and two years after the sale of the land.
First of all, have you met rich people? Yes, they would risk their property for pocket change, because they don’t see it as a risk. It’s worth a shot because they know they won’t ever really be held accountable. #NotAllRichPeople
And that excuse works for the first time. The second time? Nah.
@zieroh says there are similar rights of way in SF owned by people who aren’t rich. I take them at their word. Show me even one example of a land auction being rescinded because of a clerical error without the original owners having to sue the city or be extremely rich and I will retract my entire argument that this was special treatment for the rich.
I honestly don’t understand what’s controversial about what I’m saying. I’m not saying the city didn’t screw up. I’m saying the city only accepted responsibility for screwing up because they didn’t want to be the targets of the political donor class with an army of lawyers. All you have to do to disprove my argument is show me one example of the same treatment being given to owners without that kind of leverage.
It’s no wonder the Board serves their donors with brazen impunity. Apparently even intelligent people have simply given up and decided to let the iron law of oligarchy have its way with them. Well excuse me if I’m not so cynical.
You don’t even need to bribe them most of the time; you just need to threaten to support an opponent. No change in political party is required, either; in most places, the opponent would be in the primary.
The wealthy have rigged the system to the point where it bows to their will automatically, without effort.
Just in the last year I was reading about someone who had his house torn down (with all his possessions in it) and his land sold in the few months while he was visiting family. (And only because they thought the house was an eye-sore in need of repair, not because of non-payment of anything.)
And in most cases, the complete and total absence of due process. Some parts of Texas are infamous for the police pulling people over and taking anything of value - money in wallets, jewelry from necks - because they can, knowing there’s no process by which people can get it back (or at best no process that wouldn’t cost orders of magnitude more than the value of what was taken).
Quite right. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. Officials at that level (Board of Sups for one of the wealthiest cities in the world by GDP) are already well plugged into the serve-the-donors mentality. And while the latter is legal, the effect is the same as if they were bribed outright.
It boggles the mind that anyone thinks local governments play fair with ordinary people. They must have never had to deal with municipal mismanagement with finite funds. And I sincerely hope they never do.
I get that people are thinking, wow, someone fought city hall and won, way to go. Their unwillingness to admit why they won when it’s staring them in the face is dumbfounding.
Which means they didn’t pay the bill. This is one of the most hilariously absurd statements I’ve read and I hope you’ll try it with your bank and the IRS and let us know what happens: “I paid the bill, it just didn’t make it to you!”
Just so you’re clear about how the lines of personal responsibility are drawn:
The property owners–not the City–are responsible for maintaining their address-of-record so the City can contact them about tax changes, bills, service, etc.
The property owners are responsible for paying their $14.00 yearly tax. For thirty years, the City contacted the owners about the outstanding tax bill but the property owners didn’t respond. That’s the property owners’ fault, not the City’s. (see #1)
The property owners are responsible for managing their HOA. When their accountant stopped working for the HOA thirty years ago, the property owners and the HOA were responsible for working with the accountant to update records, addresses, etc. Again, the responsibility belongs to the property owners, not the City. (see #1)
You keep noting the importance of “context,” but you’re conveniently ignoring the fact the residents failed to pay their $14 tax for over 30 years. Making certain the tax is paid is the responsibility of the homeowners.
