[Milton Miteybad]

A quick online check of tax sale procedures in CA indicates that the redemption period (the period during which you can pay back taxes, penalties and interest, thereby eliminating the tax lien against the property) expires at the close of the last business day prior to the day of the tax sale. In other words...in California, once the tax sale has been conducted, there is no further right of redemption as there is in other states. In CA, unless the tax sale is set aside for some irregularity, said sale is apparently final once the gavel has come down.

I also find it very odd that a homeowners' association, which itself may use the power of foreclosure and sale as a means to collect delinquent homeowners' assessments, would fall 30 years delinquent in their own property tax obligations to the county. Their excuse, according to the article, is that the tax invoices were sent to the office of an attorney which the HOA had not used in decades, but still, you'd think that at some point, somebody at the HOA would have noticed that they hadn't gotten a tax bill from the county in years, and would have sought to make further inquiry.

BTW...in CA, a property cannot be sold at a tax sale until at least five years after the taxpayer falls behind in payment. A property owner could bring his obligations current at any time during that five years and prevent the property from being sold for back taxes.

However, once the tax sale is conducted in CA, you have to seek a rescission of the sale, something which is rarely granted.

Frankly, it sounds like the people serving on the HOA board are clueless boobs who aren't paying attention to matters that should be automatically and effortlessly addressed in the normal course of business.

[tumblindice]

They may have bought the right to maintain it.
As an example, in my state (yeah IN/CA: apples & oranges) it is impossible to `vacate’ (that is, the state doesn’t want it anymore and would like the taxes, so adjacent owners take to the middle, like an abandoned RR track) a public way if it will deprive adjacent homeowners of access to their homes.

But I would like to think that these two buyers are going to put the blocks to these homeowners.

[Bigg Red]

This has got to be a joke of some sort. How could a private citizen own a road? (Not that I have any knowledge of the law.)

[alternatives?]

They should line the sidewalk with park bench beds and love booths and sell passes to the homeless and homosexual communities. The passes would allow them to enter the street.

[Moltke]

Some funny comments so far. Now just wait for these two to get squashed by the home owners, aided and abetted by their crooked SF judiciary pals. They’ll end up bankrupt and homeless before you can say “corruption.” OK, that’s my call. Anyone up for a $0.05 bet?

[gaijin]

[PLMerite]

“Tina Lam and Michael Cheng snatched up Presidio Terrace...”

I know who I’ve got in the next Dead Pool.

[Rebelbase]

The street owner will be lucky to break even on this deal by having the city buy it back.

Outside of that she’ll be sued by the 35 homeowners who will claim adverse possession via the precedent of hostile use.

She’ll lose her land and have to pay attorney fees defending the suit.

[Thank You Rush]

I would think that this would make the new owners liable for all maintenance and upkeep....common areas, gardens etc. The article said perhaps parking could be made available to residents from OUTSIDE...that hardly makes sense.. Parking INSIDE the gates? I would say unlikely...

I wonder if this is the same place where Feinstein lived when she took over a parcel of land and claimed it as her own that had been a neighborhood garden area. It belonged to the city and she said, “tough.”

[Axenolith]

DONATE IT TO THE NRA!!!

That would cause an aneurysm storm there!