Rich SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street

[gratuitous]

Oopsie! A story of carelessness, fecklessness and a little bit of vigilance that's going to cost some folks a lot of money:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Rich-SF-residents-get-a-shock-Someone-bought-11738236.php

Consider the thousands of people caught up in a latter-day debtor's prison system, locked up indefinitely because they can't pay their court costs or make bail. Now try to sympathize with plight of these big shots who failed to realize their private street in San Francisco might be subject to the same property laws as everyone else.

Nope, I can't either.

[irisblue]

1. ::snort::

[TeamPooka]

2. Haha

[Luciferous]

3. That sucks for the homeowners!

[Doc Coco]

4. Pay your taxes, and you won't have this problem!

Cheers on the San Jose couple, and hope they make out like bandits at the end.

[Igel]

19. The homeowners did.

The HOA didn't. 30 years ago.

Care to wonder how many of the homeowners were living there 30 years ago?

[Me.]

5. How Is It A City Street Can Be Bought & Sold

Is it because it's a gated community?

[Salviati]

6. I assume it's a private street

[Me.]

9. But That's My Question

How do you have a private street in a city

[PoliticAverse]

16. Because you can have private land in a city and then put a street on that land.

It's a "gated community".

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_community#United_States

Approximately 40% of new homes in California are behind walls. In 1997, estimates of the number of people in gated communities ranged from 4 million in 30,000 communities up to around 8 million, with a ½ million in California alone.

[fleur-de-lisa]

18. I have heard of this in certain municipalities.

The city/county does not build said road and does not maintain it (fix pot holes, etc). Usually the municipality will also not provide sewer, water, drainage, lighting, etc. within the right-of-way. It's pretty uncommon within city limits, but it happens occasionally.

[Me.]

20. Thanks All For The Answers

[gratuitous]

8. According to the story, it's a private street

There are apparently 181 such streets in San Francisco. The property tax on the street wasn't paid for several decades, and it was foreclosed on.

The story's not that long, but the details are hilarious.

[Me.]

10. I Did Read It

But am rather surprised there can be private streets in a city...

[gratuitous]

13. Not uncommon

New developments sometimes require a new street to be built, and the developer will include the street in the development plan. I know that in my city there are streets signed like other public rights of way, but they have a little hang-down sign that says "Private Road" or its equivalent. I don't know if this is more prevalent in some parts of the country than others, but it's not unusual on the west coast.

[Me.]

15. Wow

So they could prevent access and charge if they wanted to. Kind of what is happening in Malibu and certain beaches.

Thanks

[wasupaloopa]

23. I live it a gated community. The streets behind the gates are not part of the

city street system. They are common area owned and maintained by the homeowners through a HOA. We make our own rules like parking and speed limits.

[drmeow]

27. Its a little different than Malibu and certain beaches

The streets in general are not through streets but residential streets within single developer subdivision (often but now always gated) community. None of the land is publicly owned and most of the time the community does not prevent access to public land. I would say a majority of the homes in the Phoenix metro area are on private streets. Down the street from me is developer subdivision which is not gated. There is a .2 x .2 mile area of houses surrounded by 1 major throughway and three minor throughways. There are only 3 access points, every thing else it walled. All of the roads within that .2 x .2 mile area are technically private roads. The homeowners pay a homeowner association fee which covers the cost of maintaining the public areas. In that case the areas are zoned 100% residential so there isn't anywhere someone would want to get to within the walls except someone's house that they are visiting. There are other much larger ones in less urban areas than where I live where the main throughway (publicly owned and maintained) goes through the property which was developed - there are houses behind walls and gates on either side of the main roads which are all part of the same community (technically) but the main roads can be traveled on by anyone and are maintained by anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

With the beach access it usually isn't the case that a single developer owned all of the land up to the beach but that individual houses were built over time on the beach. In fact, it is quite possible that if it had been a developer subdivision type situation, access might be easier as it is likely that approval of the community by the city would have required access to be built into the plans.

Personally I consider the HOA communities to be creepy as f**k and refused to buy a house in one of them when we moved here but I have a friend who LOVES living in a "common-interest development community"

On edit: I stand corrected (per post below) - the .2 x .2 mile area the roads may have been deeded. But (as described in the wikipedia page), sometimes the HOA keeps the roads and covers the maintenance. HOA fees are probably pretty damn high in those areas.

[Me.]

36. Very Interesting

[dbackjon]

35. If the street is behind gates, it is not a public street.

Why should citizens that don't live in a gated community pay for the streets they can't use?

Many non-residents use the street I live on - but it is a public street.

[Warpy]

12. Sort of. The street was put in by the exclusive community

with a guardhouse to keep out all the local riffraff. Because of the way the properties were deeded, ownership was retained by the developer, later the HOA. It's still acreage and it's still privately owned and maintained. The taxes on it were a princely $14.00/year.

The HOA didn't pay the taxes for 30 years, either by oversight or as an attempt to force the city to take over the street and attendant maintenance. So now a couple of sharp eyed real estate investors have snapped it up for $90,000.

My best guess says the HOA will eventually buy it back, probably paying through the nose.

[Me.]

14. THat Makes More Sense

"The street was put in by the exclusive community"...so they made a street where there was none? On land that belonged to a development? So they wanted the city to maintain their private property? How'd that work out for them?

Thanks for the answer

[Igel]

22. It's pretty standard where I've lived.

Developer buys X acres. Puts in streets, sewers, etc.

All of that is paid for. Perhaps it's part of the house price. Perhaps the HOA issues bonds or the sewer system is sold to the local sewer folk.

Where I live the roads are usually deeded over to the county for cost of paperwork as soon as the developer pulls out and the HOA takes over. Large subdivisions get their own municipal utility district assigned for water and small ones get stuck onto a neighboring one.

But a gated community ... Not sure. I haven't really seen any in or around Houston, but I haven't gone looking for them, either.

[PoliticAverse]

17. Unlikely it was an attempt to get the city to take over maintenance since they would have lost...

the right to prevent public access to the street in that case.

(edited to add where the tax bills were being sent)

In a letter to the city last month, Scott Emblidge, the attorney for the Presidio Homeowners Association, said the group had failed to pay up because its tax bill was being mailed to the Kearny Street address used by an accountant who hadn’t worked for the homeowners since the 1980s.

[Warpy]

21. Oversight or something else, it's a little on the hilarious side

I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who thinks I'm riffraff.

[B2G]

7. It sounds like it's not the residents' fault,

but the homeowners association. Whom I'm sure they pay handsomely to maintain those streets.

[GeorgeGist]

25. In most places the residents are the HOA.

[B2G]

28. And there is a HOA that manages that part.

Given the miniscule tax bill, it's easy to see how they missed it. Especially since the bill was going to the wrong address.

[ciaobaby]

11. A nice change

The rich getting richer off the rich instead of the rich getting richer off the poor.
Before long there won't be any poor in SF to take advantage of so hello brave new world.....

[Weekend Warrior]

24. Taxpayers are going to lose if this story is accurate.

Or the new owners are going to sell it back to the HOA. That is my guess considering the talk of letting outsiders park in the community.

[PoliticAverse]

26. Oh the irony...

From: https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/01/luxuryrealestate-mansions-lifestyle-cx_sc_0801how_ls.html

It is interesting to note that another ad, according to the Virtual Museum of San Francisco, tapped into anti-Asian sentiment: “There is only one spot in San Francisco where only Caucasians are permitted to buy or lease real estate or where they may reside. That place is Presidio Terrace.”

[hunter]

29. It seems to me something is wrong with a system where people in distant places...

... can buy real estate in another place just because they feel the real estate and currency markets of their home places are less secure.

Maybe they should invest in their home places?

My great grandfather's house in San Francisco is now an "investment property" for anonymous investors. My great grandma sold it when her husband died. My grandma's bedroom is now an entire apartment. I was talking to some of the people living there and they didn't believe it was once a single family home, mom, dad, kids, and an Irish housekeeper/cook, Alice of Brady Bunch, who had the very best apartment in the place.

My great, great, grandfather's house in San Francisco sold last year for $1.6 million dollars and probably looks better now then it ever has.

But he couldn't have afforded it in these times, nor could any of his descendants.

[LisaM]

30. While it's sometimes hard to sympathize with wealthy homeowners......

I can't say I think much of the couple who "bought" the street, who seem like rampant opportunists. I can't believe the city didn't do more to contact the residents. I mean, really, you "love" San Francisco and now you "own" part of it - land where you can charge people to park in front of their own houses (or worse, create a gig economy de-facto parking lot).

I knew someone who was a tax vulture, or whatever you want to call them, and would spend hours looking up to see where someone might have missed a tax payment, and then go tack up notices on trees in the woods stating all the land would revert to him in the event the taxes weren't paid. He wasn't all that nice a person, so I have little patience with this sort of activity, especially when someone's just trying to line her or his own pockets.

[B2G]

40. This. nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

57. Agreed.

Also;

The residents say the city had an obligation to post a notice in Presidio Terrace notifying neighbors of the pending auction back in 2015 — something that “would have been simple and inexpensive for the city to accomplish.”

Treasurer-Tax Collector Jose Cisneros’ office says the city did what the law requires.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of gated communities. It would be a better idea to work to make the whole community a safe place to live. But, it seems the city could easily have made sure the residents on the private street in question here knew of the problem.

Also, they did nothing for 30 years? Thirty years?!! Then move immediately to drastic measures. That's just not right.

[Staph]

31. So if this couple now owns the street,

are they responsible for maintenance, upkeep, repairs? Could they be sued by the residents if there are potholes or other problems? Will they need to repave on some regular basis?

I'm not sure how good a deal that this is for the street purchasers.

[TNNurse]

32. Please keep us updated.

There are lots of unanswered questions. Who will pay for the upkeep? Will they sell it back? Who lives there now??

[gratuitous]

33. I couldn't say

Obviously, the new owners will have to pay to keep up the road and make sure the landscaping is nice and neat. But charging the street's residents a small annual assessment would probably cover those costs (as well as the annual property tax) quite handily.

As for who lives on the street now, I don't know. But it would be quite delicious if Martin Shkreli lived there, and was subject to the whim of the new owners.

[Coventina]

34. This story makes my heart smile!!!

Live on a private, gated street?

Suffer the consequences!!!

[flibbitygiblets]

37. Seriously? Just full-on hatred of anyone with means, knowing nothing about them?

Sounds like what redhats do. I hope most DU'ers don't think this way.

[Coventina]

38. Yes, I have nothing but contempt for those who gate themselves off from "riff-raff" n/t

[B2G]

41. This includes our Dem leaders, correct?

You did see who has lived in that community right?

[Coventina]

44. Yes, I read the article and I stand by my opinion. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

42. indeed, they should just let the paparazzi move in with them!

They wanna be rich and famous, they gotta suffer the consequences!

[Coventina]

45. If they want to put fences and gates around their property, more power to them.

Streets?

If I'm not good enough to walk down your street, you're too good for our power, sewer, fire, EMS services....get your own!

[B2G]

46. WTF? They pay for it just like we do.

You have a serious case of class envy going on here.

[Coventina]

47. I'm pro-community. Walling yourself off from the community is hostile. n/t

[B2G]

48. And I stand by my opinion as well. nt

[Coventina]

49. Far out!

[Luciferous]

50. Exactly! Just because they live in a gated community doesn't make them bad people!

I feel bad for the homeowners who are now being exploited by these greedy real estate developers...

[phylny]

39. I feel sorry for the residents. Even wealthy people deserve to be

protected from predators like the buyers, who see only a money-making opportunity on the backs of others.

[Blue_Adept]

43. It was put up for public auction

Someone was going to buy it. That's how it works. Calling them predators is a bit much.

[LisaM]

53. They call themselves real estate "investors" and they troll for property.

While I don't know that I do think streets should necessarily be private at all, some of them are. This debate isn't about that. It's about two people who go around looking for things to turn a profit on and who, by the description, seem a bit greedy themselves.

I, for one, don't really love the idea of someone being able to sell parking spots in front of the place where the Speaker of the House lives (I know Pelosi doesn't live there now). I don't care who the Speaker is. That seems like a really bad idea.

I've actually heard recently of a gig-economy company that allows people to rent parking spaces in their own driveways and I'm not really sure I'm on board with the idea, which their proposed use resembles. The gig economy always seems to create a lot of unintended consequences. I wouldn't want to live somewhere where my neighbor decided to turn their driveway into a public parking lot, and to me this sounds like the same thing.

[phylny]

58. I know what happened. I also read an article where the buyers were crowing

about how much money they were going to make. To me, the HOA (which may or may not be a contracted company) made the mistake, and the owners, had they known, obviously would have paid the minuscule back taxes. I stand by my thought.

[tonyt53]

51. "Only little people pay taxes" - Leona Helmsley at her trial before being convicted of tax evasion.

[JoeStuckInOH]

52. I would start by renaming the streets after Power Rangers and adding spedbumps every 100ft.

Maybe add a skateboarding lane (and grinding friendly rails and curbs all over).
It's all for the Children, you know.

[librechik]

54. re name it Schadenfreude Village

[Eugene]

55. San Francisco was taxing $14/year for *this* street?

Even decades ago, that was really, really cheap.

[B2G]

56. Two words. Property taxes.

I'm sure that more than makes up for any deficit.

[PoliticAverse]

59. Followup: Presidio Terrace: City Hall might throw out sale of street

https://sf.curbed.com/2017/9/6/16263614/presidio-terrace-sale-board-supervisors

[gratuitous]

60. Heh, heh: "While the Tax Collector will claim he was following the letter of the law"

Yeah, who does that guy think he is, following the legal procedure for conducting a sale of property for delinquent taxes! These are very rich people who got blind-sided because they failed to keep proper legal records, and that's not how things are supposed to work! Sure, we didn't pay the miniscule assessment, and we didn't keep up to date records with the Corporation Division so notices kept going to the wrong place and were returned, but how is that OUR fault?!

While the article doesn't say the City is going to rescind the sale, I suspect that they probably will. But it's nice to see these folks squirm like a regular citizen hit with a decades-old arrest warrant.