COMMENT 297209
|
2012-07-13 02:46 PM |
|
What--no pictures?
|
| |
COMMENT 297219
|
2012-07-13 03:14 PM |
|
Not sure how they got a bad deal. It's for sale at $295k and they got $580k from the City in '08 and the City have spruced it up considerably at least from the outside.
|
| |
COMMENT 297224
|
2012-07-13 03:29 PM |
|
Yeah, jeez, buy it back!
|
| |
COMMENT 297209
|
2012-07-13 03:51 PM |
|
If it's that tiny one on the Google Map page they made out---even if it's commercial property!
|
| |
COMMENT 297219
|
2012-07-13 04:37 PM |
|
Seems fair all the way around, they got above market value for a property they couldn't have lived in or rented out during the construction and the City are recouping some of their costs by selling the now habitable property.
Buy it back and pocket a few hundred grand, we should all be so lucky.
Anyone know what exactly they are complaining about?
|
| |
COMMENT 297293
|
2012-07-13 05:34 PM |
|
219: They probably paid quite a bit of the "few" hundred grand in capital gains after the sale and if they bought it back now their prop. 13 property tax status would be gone. Not to mention the fact their family had owned it for 62 years and were forced to sell. That's my guess. I don't think it sounds all that lucky.
|
| |
COMMENT 297322
|
2012-07-13 06:23 PM |
|
They did very well on the deal. I'm a property owner there as well, and this zone was scary until the city fixed it up with the new bridge and the little open space where another house used to be, as well as the considerable effort and money the other property owners have invested to try and improve this once-blighted neighborhood completely ignored by the city previously. The former owners should very thankful. They should pound sand.
|
| |
COMMENT 297323
|
2012-07-13 06:24 PM |
|
Maybe there are more details on why the family feels that way?
|
| |
COMMENT 297324
|
2012-07-13 06:25 PM |
|
322 Yes it is unimaginably nicer there now.
|
| |
COMMENT 297419
|
2012-07-14 07:51 AM |
|
What did they blow all the money already?
|
| |
COMMENT 297503
|
2012-07-14 10:50 AM |
|
And, if they paid capital gains it's only 15% of the profit they made on the sale.
|
| |
COMMENT 297513
|
2012-07-14 11:09 AM |
|
So they had to pay taxes 293! We all do, would you call a lottery winner unlucky because they have to pay tax on their winnings? Yes their property taxes would increase if they re purchased but that 200 grand will cover that nicely. They sold an uninhabitable house for easily 25% above market value with no realtor fees in a down market, cry me a river. I watched the report on keyt (uninformative as ever) and still have no idea what their complaint is.
|
| |
COMMENT 297766
|
2012-07-15 08:08 AM |
|
If you actually watch the semi-incoherent KEYT news story, the person there seems to be mad that the city did not remove or demolish that house as originally planned. Of course, KEYT would run with a different story with fake outrage if the property were not acquired by the city via eminent domain so the bridge could be constructed, and then the homeowner there later imagined damage caused by the bridge construction and creekbank stabilization. Then KEYT would fabricate a news story about how negligent the city would have been for not condemning the property and taking it via eminent domain. Pound sand, indeed.
|
| |
