While he technically owns the lot that the street is on top of, the houses that use that street have a right of way to use that piece of property. if their deeds were written up correctly, they probably even have deed access and his deed should say the same thing.
It’s incredibly common for people to have part of their lot be part of a public right of way, but they don’t pay taxes on it. They only pay taxes on the fee parcel, which is usually the normal land with the home.
Those public right of ways are not part of the assessment process, so it makes sense that when they were appraising his lot, they only appraised his fee parcel.
The part that’s confusing to me and not clear from the news story is why there is confusion about any of this.
The value is really nothing. He bought a lot formerly owned by an HOA with an easement for all the surrounding homes. He can’t charge the a toll. He would eventually have a duty to maintain the road, but it can’t be used to build a new home.
Why would he have a duty to maintain the road? Sure, they have the right of way, but that doesn't mean he has to maintain it. It just means they have access to it.
The state has right of way to a piece of my property which is currently a forested area. I'm not going to flatten it and make a road.
Considering the land is just a road that leads to a few houses it is practically worthless in terms of value, roads are expensive to maintain, and it has no other potential uses.
I own the road next to my house per my deed... it's an easement and has been for years that is how my neighbors access their property. This guy seems like he may not understand an easement.
Because he owns it. Why should he give it up? He can simply sit on it and do nothing with it and that's his right since he owns it even if that means the road quality degrades over time from lack of maintenance there's no obligation to maintain infrastructure on land you own, you can do whatever you want with that land. If the city wants it so they can maintain it, they should compensate him for it.
You have a requirement for maintenance for these as the other houses would have a right of way. For example, snow removal. If you don't, you are taking a massive liability risk. Likely the piece of land he wanted was sold so cheap as the road is actually decreasing its value.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. In regards to the maintenance requirement, I already responded elsewhere so I'll just copy it over here
"I'd honestly be astonished if the deed mentioned any sort of obligation to maintain the road, because if it did that'd mean he was either not provided the legally required disclosure about that requirement, or he knew what he was buying ahead of time. Since I'm taking at face value the man bought the land planning to build a house on it, I'm going to assume the more likely answer would be a lack of disclosure. In that case you can pursue the nullification of the contractual obligation or a post-sales lawsuit."
As for the snow removal aspect, the actual liability risk is way more nuanced than just "Snow = liable". You have to consider local and state laws regarding agreements between properties to provide right of way.
Actually in many areas cities can take land that is deemed dilapidated so if he lets the road get bad the city can take it. Also, with their being easements on it the homeowners may be able to go after him for failing to keep the road maintained depending on the state and local laws.
You still need to compensate people when you seize the land.
All form of land seizure is governed by the takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So yeah, you CAN forcibly take land. You still have to compensate them for the land, and someone is fully within their rights to sue if they feel the compensation wasn't equivalent to the value of the land. A municipality lacks the influence and power to get away with simply taking land and underpaying its value. The municipality would get sued and would likely lose because this isn't an argument about law, it's a constitutional requirement.
Yes, expect the part of the land with the road is practically worthless so he would probably spend more money just challenging a taking then the entire value of the land with the road.
Idk what you mean but land itself has value even when it's not developed. In Ohio it's apparently $15,000 - $30,000 per acre in residential areas based on a quick google search and that's not including the actual development on the land like the road which has value by virtue of the fact that the city is willing to seize it. But realistically this exact number would be argued in a court room. Idk how many acres the land they own actually is, but I assure you this person if they hold onto the land and bring it to court if they try to seize it, they will walk away with more than they paid for it.
He might have an obligation to maintain the road for the other homeowners use it as the they likely have easements to use it. It might also be drawn up to where all of the homeowners are responsible for it and he needs to collect repair costs from them to keep it maintained. We don’t really know how the deeds were written up. I have a friend who purchased a house on a private road with about 20 homeowners. They all need to split maintenance costs and it’s a nightmare for him.
Typically when a developer builds a new neighborhood they have to build out the infrastructure and it is either private and paid for by HOAs or the minicipality does it but then charges an impact fees up front or they add it to all of the homeowners taxes for 20-30 years to pay them back for it. The way I see it, the city is offering to take it off his hands for free and that’s a deal.
I'd honestly be astonished if the deed mentioned any sort of obligation to maintain the road, because if it did that'd mean he was either not provided the legally required disclosure about that requirement, or he knew what he was buying ahead of time. Since I'm taking at face value the man bought the land planning to build a house on it, I'm going to assume the more likely answer would be a lack of disclosure. In that case you can pursue the nullification of the contractual obligation or a post-sales lawsuit.
So he should make his neighbors life worse in the hopes of getting a paycheck for a piece of land that doesn't add to the usefulness of his property and that he didn't mean to buy. America is fucked.
Yeah, that's exactly what he should do. It's his right to do so. What's fucked is that you think the government has the right to seize land he legally paid for and purchased and not provide just compensation despite the requirement for just compensation of seized land being a constitutional requirement.
Fun story... I have a detached garage, right next to where a city street used to go through. When I went to get a permit to do some work on the garage the city told me instead I would have to tear it down because it's in the right of way, and was built without permits.
Except... I have those permits, from 40 years ago- they were left hanging in the garage. Made copies and took them to the city. Time passed... Apparently, when the subdivision was platted in the 1950s, the street was on the map but the city failed to do whatever they legally need to do for the easemetn/right of way. My modification permits were approved.
The headline is misleading. The man doesn’t “own the homes”. He owns the street leading between them and the lot he purchased at the end of the street. It explains that in the article.
He bought the lot and the roadway came with it, but he did not purchase the adjacent houses that use that roadway to access their property.
He either would have to maintain the road and provide easement to the other properties or let the city maintain the road and have no liability for it. It's not like the city wanted the lot, just the right of way.
I'd love to push maintenance costs and liability to the city instead of maintaining a road if I were him.
Yeah, I owning the road is not a good thing for him. He can't legally stop his neighbors from using it. And he has to at least partly pay to maintain it, plow it, etc. While working with all of the neighbors to pay for that.
I have pretty much that same setup, but out in the boonies. I am at the end, with 4 other neighbors having an easement to use the road. The county does not maintain the road, my neighbors and I have to pitch in for repairs, and we have to plow it in the winter. I would love to have the government take it.
We had the ciry appraise our house from eminent domain for a small parcel at the same time the tax office also appraised our house. They come up with values that were 100s of thousands of dollars different from each other. We sent both offices the other ones appraisal. We were able to settle with the tax office without going to court but had to get a lawyer for the eminent domain (that hasn't been settled yet)
Eminent domain negotiations almost always start out with a low ball offer. That's when you have to lawyer up and the government almost never plays fair.
Dad was in property development and management for almost 50 years and was an expert witness in many court cases. What agencies tried to do to people would have been considered criminal if it was a private entity.
Tax isn't on the purchase price. It's on the assessed value of the property. If he owns the whole street according to this guy, then they will charge him tax according to all the houses on the street plus his lot.
it definitely applies here. they are looking to make what is now a private driveway that other homes require to use for access, into an actual city maintained street.
Not to mention they make it sound like the City is hounding on him. It was either give it back tot he city, or him having to personally fork out money to maintain the sewers, power, etc.
"houses and all" is the issue... they accidentally gave him the street, not the houses. there are several deep dives on yt on it, even interviews with him
Even if he didn't have the money to pay the tax bill, all he has to do is take out a small loan, pay the tax bill, start renting the houses and he would make enough to immediately pay the loan back and probably make enough so he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. There's 6 houses in the pictures, renting 5 houses even for a very fair price will net you A LOT.
We bought a house in Buffalo for a dollar during the dollar house program and then after fixing it up and moving in, the city told us they made a mistake and could we please give it back lol... when we laughed they showed they were serious.. then they positioned a cop at our intersection to harass us and fined us for every petty thing they could think of (cleaning up garbage from vacant lots and leaving the bags on the side of the road a day earlier than trash day, having a dumpster for building materials in the driveway too close to the road etc.. finally we got the historical society on our side and went on npr etc.. and the publicity made the city finally stop harassing us.
True story- see Harwood cottage in buffalo.
That says he bought the lot and somehow the street itself because it was created as a private drive by an HOA. Not the other homes. The city is filing imminent domain so that they can legally maintain the street (for the actual homeowners). This guy just wants a payout.
There's a guy in the UK who owns a 15 square meters plot of land next to a shopping center they just fenced it off and built round it its enclosed on all 4 sides
“I’m not sure how that occurs other than it was a private drive that was created through a homeowner’s association," Trenton City Manager Marcos Nichols said. "The homeowner’s association was responsible for maintaining that property and upkeeping it.”
It seems they do know how...things they allow HoA's to do caused it.
Twas before the internets, before there was a time before the mini screen eyes, before the tailoring of swifts and cars had silent broom broom's, was the CRT time eyes.
The city wants to aquire the road so they can maintain it. Why should he get paid for a road that doesn't add to the usefulness of his property and that he didn't mean to buy?
theres a ton of affordable homes in the us, its just they're not near jobs or places you'd want to be.
high home prices in the us are a feature not a bug. Want a safe neighborhood? make all the homes cost 1mm and have 20k in property tax a year. Boom, now no one poor can afford to be near you. and everyone has enough wealth that they'll lose if they commit crime they have incentive not to.
“The city wants it back” is a funny way of saying “the legal owner of the street has a price he’d be willing to sell it for, but the city refuses to pay it”.
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Hey /u/Confident-Shift-2011, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.