Posted on 12/21/2006 8:42:35 AM PST by Graybeard58
Uh...not really.
Over $400,000 for a junk house? She made out pretty good holding out. I'm sure her old neighbors feel like suckers.
Government officials or former _Pfizer Exec_.
This whole story angers me to my core.
That makes me wonder, couldn't she have sold the property with the requirement that she become a partner in the venture? Something along the lines of $400,000 cash for the property and 5% of gross on the development? If the property and eventual development stood to make so much money she could have arranged a deal that made her rich as well. Making a counter offer might also have helped her in court if the developer still attempted to seize the property.
If I had a REAL choice in the matter, I'd ask for about ten times their offer (maybe more), as an initial bargaining position. Then I could, maybe, find out what it's really worth ...
There was a trailer park down the road from me. It was built about 50 years ago when there was nothing much out here.
After the SCOTUS decision that trailer park went down like a rock. Some high-end condos are under construction there now.
What about the people who used to live in that trailer park? Oh, who cares, they're just white trash crackers.
I agree, what arrogance on the part of these officals. Not only did they steal her house from her, but they have the nerve to dictate how she should feel about it.
Remember that guy in Granby, CO, who got so fed up with the city council that he built an armoured shield around his bulldozer, got in it, drove downtown and destroyed city hall and the library ? It was a year or two ago I think.
What about them? If they OWNED the land their trailers were sitting on, they bloody well should not have been forced off THEIR land ... however small. Again, that's the sort of thing I more or less expect from the less-than-free governments on the other side of the pond, and the sort of thing that sent some of my ancestors here to the USA.
If they were renting the land their trailers were sitting on ... one of the unfortunate facets of renting is that you don't own ... the landlord does NOT have to renew your lease. I've been on the wrong end of that, aeons ago. I didn't bitch about it.
After my mother died in June 2006, neighbors complained about the condition of her home. As personal representative for her estate, I tried to sell the house. I found several investors willing to buy the house for $40K and make necessary improvements. Neighbors, who want the lots for their yards, complained to the township which ordered the house be demolished. I attended township board meeting to appeal. That board "granted" me the opportunity to have a licensed builder present plans and $250 fee to request hearing before zoning board of appeals. That board granted variance with restrictions (ALL permits to be pulled within 30 days, all work to be completed in one year) to allow repair. My builder got cold feet.
I have had to contact other interested parties. The building inspector is intimidating prospective buyers with threats of inspecting every day, checking every single board that goes into the repairs, etc. He has told interested buyers that he wants the house demolished. He intends to harrass any new buyer.
This is an inverse condemnation situation, but it would cost more to litigate than the house is worth. I reached an agreement this morning with a buyer for $22K. That should cover my mother's funeral expenses, probate, and legal fees. For that I am thankful.
That's right, the heartache of leaving the place that's been home to the family for generations suddenly disappears when you throw money at it. What a sociopathic moron.
I wonder if he'd mind if Kelo strapped him down, cut his balls off, and threw $442,155 at him as she left. He shouldn't have a problem with that according to his criteria.
Wrong. A corporation is not a "public" entity, even if shares can be bought by the public. A corporation is an entity separate from the state. A corporation's property is private property not public property.
I agree with you in one sense, but it's hardly "confiscation" when she's getting paid nearly 400% of the appraised value of her property.
But then you're willing to sell, so there's no real problem.
The trailer park was owned by one slumlord who was holding out for the biggest bucks. The poor shmucks who lived in the double wides were just tenants.
Because they have bigger guns.
The owners should at least get not only the full value of their property, but an equal amount stock in the stealing corporation.
Should be, 'of stock.'
I was going to ask that same question about whether this was the tax assessment value or the market appraisal value. Those are usually two very different things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.